Opposing SOE partial sales –
Have Labour and the Greens actually considered the implications of a negative referendum result, which could happen because they have falsely fucked with what is supposed to be a Citizens Initiated Referendum?
More on Solid Energy. This govt took 130 million from S/E in the past 4 years. In the previous 8 years , labour took 64.4 million , leading to accusations of this govt using it as a cash cow. In the year that the value was inflated by 600 per cent , was this done deliberately in order to find a prime sucker of a buyer? Was this greatly increased value questioned by anyone?If not , why not? Why was the 23 million” lolly scramble for the lads”’ in the dying days permitted? How many people were the recipients of this money?
This whole debacle throws so many things in the air..the management of SOEs. the govt’s dividend taking , the lack of alarm or warning that the ship was sinking..the greedy last raiders , the govt’s ability to manage , run , or oversee anything , the almost complete lack of accountability of exceedingly well paid so called managers/CEOs..
Some see Elder’s 45 mins before a committee as something being done..I don’t …I am far more cynical that that.
Every day of the week humble , ordinary , sometimes disabled , often unfortunate people get hauled before our courts on often quite trivial matters , but the big , fat , fish always get away.
As others say , we have a legal system here , we do not have a justice system.
Haven’t heard much from the NZ Fascist (Green) Party recently about the certainty of Peak Oil.
“Japan cracks seabed ‘ice gas’ in dramatic leap for global energy ”
“Japan’s Institute of Energy Economics said methane hydrate could be the “game-changer” that restores Japan’s flagging fortunes, acting as a catalyst for revival much like the shale revolution in the US.”
That second article gives a pretty good glimpse of the potential geopolitical effects of all this.
Not only are there incredibly vast reserves of energy to be exploited, but they are spread across the globe rather than being under the control of the usual dark-age theocracies, which must collapse. Even plucky little Israel has major energy prospects.
Just as with their failed global warming scam, the NZ Fascist Party uses the idea of Peak Oil to justify proposed huge increases in state control and politicisation of our lives. They have this fantasy where they are the new royalty, using their higher wisdom and compassion – and absolute power of course – to distribute scarce resources to suitably grateful and appreciative plebs.
Well, well; according to Phil Goff in January 2011, the 2011 General Election was going to be “a referendum on whether New Zealanders wanted to see their most important strategic assets sold”. But when Labour and the Greens lost after basing their entire campaign on opposition to asset sales, suddenly they wanted another referendum.
This taxpayer-funded Political party Initiated Referendum is a complete and utter waste of time, and the Government is right to be ignoring it. Even Phil Goff agrees that we have already had a referendum on asset sales, which he lost.
An overdue alpine fault earthquake will strike “out of the blue” and cause widespread death, shut down power generators, create tsunami within New Zealand and overwhelm emergency services, experts warn.
The major quake will cause intense shaking and rupturing along hundreds of kilometres of the fault line bisecting the South Island, geology experts Tim Davies and Mauri McSaveney predict.
“The most likely time [for the quake] is now. The next most likely time for it to happen is tomorrow,” Associate Professor Davies, of Canterbury University, told the Natural Hazards Management Conference in Christchurch.
“The longer the delay, the bigger it will be. It will occur with no recognisable warning. We can’t manage it – we have to adapt to it.”
The pair have outlined a nightmarish scenario in the aftermath of the quake and are urging people to be prepared as best they can. Overseas help would be needed when the quake struck.
Shaking damage and land instability will disrupt surface transport for months, tourists will be trapped, and distribution of vital supplies (eg, food, fuel) will be limited. Hydro stations will shut down immediately and may be slow to restart, power reticulation will be damaged. Only satellite phones will remain in use.”
“No services will be as normal.”
The intense shaking would cause landslides of millions of cubic metres, damming rivers and later causing floods. Aftershocks could continue for months.
What Shale revolution Wot. From memory drilling has increased 5 times since 2011 and yet output has stayed the same.
What happened to your cornicopian fantasy about scarcity giving rise to a new clean energy source (fossil fuels don’t count).
Was it barely a week ago when Shearer wouldn’t commit to buying the assets back and said that in any event he couldn’t see the economic sense in it? And something like a week later he says he would support Winston First’s buy back policy. Of course, the knee jerk reaction to this would be “flipflop”, and mine was until I realised that Shearer’s apparant conflicting statements aren’t mutually exclusive, thereby enabling me to resume the default response of “fuckwit”.
It will be interesting to see where he goes with this because until Peters reiterated what I recall has already been suggested some considerable time ago (use the super fund) the idiot Shearer likely hadn’t realised that there was a big pot of gold under the bed. Please nobody tell him that there’s another one in the form of ACC (oops, maybe I just did).
How can Mighty river Power sell for a good price – if it’s losing customers and profits?
3) There is NO MANDATE for asset sales.
National campaigned for asset sales and got 59 out of 121 MPs.
Peter Dunne and United Future did NOT campaign for asset sales – so arguably the Public Finance (Mixed Ownership Model) Amendment Act 2012 should have been LOST 60 -61 votes if Peter Dunne had not misled the voting public of Ohariu.
So! HARDEN UP folks and let’s give this country a taste of PEOPLE POWER that will leave a really nasty taste in the mouths of shonky John Key and this corrupt Government.
WILL JOHN KEY, BILL ENGLISH AND ALL NATIONAL PARTY MPS PLEDGE NOT TO BUY SHARES IN MIGHTY RIVER POWER?
HOW ABOUT LABOUR MPS? GREEN MPS? NZ FIRST MPS? MANA? UNITED FUTURE? ACT? MAORI PARTY?
WHICH MPS STAND TO PERSONALLY PROFIT FROM THE SELLOUT/ SELLOFF OF MIGHTY RIVER POWER?
HOW IS THAT NOT A CORRUPT MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PRIVATE GAIN?
A Spokesperson for the Switch Off Mercury Energy community group
2013 Auckland Mayoral Candidate
Referendum… Eke and KS ….
Yep, waste of time unless the government can come up with something that the public really wants. The public always wants somethiung to oppose. So, think of something wanted, and down, deep six, goes the melon-socialist crap.
Joanna, were you born dumb, or did your upbringing and education(sic) result in your present state ?
I hold no brief for Elder, but unless I have totally misunderstood the SOE Act, his job was to recommend. The SOE Board decided. Summoning Elder is a typical red melon media stunt, and somewhat similar to the Supreme Court challenge over coal and so called “AGW”/CC.
Oh by the way, Joanna, every day, in the real world, companies, public, private, and individuals, make decisions – some good, some bad. Unlike you Joanna, and that supercillious prick Campbell, companies rarely have 20/20 hindsight.
Oh Penny darling; you’re too late. Over 300,000 people are now in the queue to buy MRP shares, and by the end of the week, more people will have registered in ten days than signed your silly petition in ELEVEN MONTHS.
It’s over Penny; you lost. Just accept the truth, and move on, because if you keep living in denial, it’ll eventually destroy you, and none of us want that to happen
Poor Penny. We know that you don’t really believe everything you huff and puff about; that it’s just a convenient way to feed your desperate need for attention. The problem is, with your attention-seeking antics covering such a wide arena we can’t tell what you’re serious about and what you’re just tagging along on in the hope you’ll garner some more attention.
Let’s do a quick straw poll, just for fun. How many people here have pre-registered? How many family members have you pre-registered?
Me, I’ve signed up myself, my wife, and my daughter. REMEMBER, you will get scaled back if there is over-whelming interest, so do the right thing and sign up as many family members as you can! Hmm, might suggest to the step-daughter that if she can scrape enough money together it would be a good idea.
hj, Re: Taupo.
I was hunting in Kaimanawas weekend just gone (got flown in by now dead chopper pilot RIP Mark)
Where we were is 40 KMs from Taupo lake. In one place its possible to see the depth of pure white pumice at at least 100 meters deep. So if Taupo were to pop again we wont have to worry about future expansion of Auckland of AGW coz we will be well buried.
A NZ lawyer has written a letter to John Key and other members of Parliament pointing out the legal and factual errors and other inaccuracies in the select committee report on gay marriage. New Zealand may even be contravening the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) by not considering the rights of children. From Brendan Malone’s Leading Edge blog.
12 March 2013
Rt Hon John Key, Prime Minister
Dear Prime Minister,
Re: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill – Select Committee Report
1. On 27 February 2013 the Government Administration Committee released its report on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill (“the Bill”). With the second reading of the Bill almost upon us, I am writing to you both as a concerned citizen and as a legal practitioner to draw to your attention a number of various inadequacies, misleading statements and legal and factual errors in that report.
2. Specifically, the Select Committee’s report contains the following errors and inadequacies which I ask you to seriously consider before the Bill’s second reading this Wednesday, 13 March 2013:
2.1 As with the original explanatory note to the Bill, the Select Committee’s report has misstated the legal position in New Zealand regarding the issue of discrimination.
2.2 The Select Committee has neglected to consider the best interests of children who will be affected by this Bill and has thereby contravened New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) in its decision to recommend that the Bill be passed into law.
2.3 If the Bill is enacted by Parliament incorporating the recommended s5A, it will interfere with people’s rights to act according to their beliefs and conscience. The Bill does not include adequate safeguards for the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or the manifestation of religion and belief as affirmed by sections 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA).
2.4 The Select Committee’s proposed s5A is unjustifiably discriminatory, unprincipled and wrong, and is based on flawed legal advice.
2.5 There is no basis for the Select Committee’s finding that the human right to marry includes the ability to marry a person of the same sex.
2.6 The Select Committee’s finding that this Bill is not an appropriate mechanism to consider or address the issue of the role of the State in regulating marriage is incorrect.
2.7 The Select Committee’s report is based on the unreasonable finding that “marriage should be extended to couples of the same sex, because the law should be applied equally.”
2.8 The Select Committee’s report is misleading in its comments that:
a. “Opponents of the Bill argue marriage is not a human right”.
b. “We are aware that some people consider that the religious and cultural meanings of marriage should take precedence over the regulatory role of the state, while others consider that New Zealand’s laws should be driven by universal human rights considerations, not by particular religious perspectives.”
3. These errors and inadequacies are addressed below.
As with the original explanatory note to the Bill, the Select Committee’s report has misstated the legal position in New Zealand regarding the issue of discrimination.
4. The report’s introduction states that “[t]his bill seeks to amend the Marriage Act 1955 (the Act) to ensure that its provisions are not applied in a discriminatory way.” The clear implication is that current laws around marriage are discriminatory towards same-sex couples. However, that is not at all an accurate description of the current state of New Zealand law. In Quilter v Attorney General  1 NZLR 523 (CA) our Court of Appeal made it abundantly clear that the Marriage Act 1955 is not at all discriminatory because all persons are treated alike. No one has a right to marry a person of the same sex.
5. For both the explanatory note and the Select Committee’s report to now claim that the law is discriminatory is a gross misrepresentation of the current legal position. Therefore, the entire (“non-discriminatory”) basis for this proposed law change is premised on an assumption that is legally incorrect.
6. This point has already been addressed by a highly respected senior legal practitioner, Mr Ian Bassett, in one of four legal opinions for Family First NZ, dated 27 August 2012. Queen’s Counsel has had input into that opinion. The opinion sets out in detail the correct legal position in New Zealand and highlights the legal error in the explanatory note to the Bill which is now also (and unfortunately) present in the Select Committee’s report. I have attached copies of Mr Bassett’s opinions and I sincerely hope that you give those opinions your urgent consideration.
The Select Committee has neglected to consider the best interests of children who will be affected by this Bill and has thereby contravened New Zealand’s obligations under the UNCROC in its decision to recommend that the Bill be passed into law.
7. The Select Committee in its report states that “[i]f the bill were to pass, it would make consequential amendments to the Adoption Act 1955 that would have the effect of enabling married same-sex couples to adopt children lawfully, as any married couple may do.” As the Bill will consequently have “the effect of enabling married same-sex couples to adopt children” the Select Committee’s decision to recommend the Bill clearly impacts New Zealand children and their best interests.
8. As the best interests of New Zealand children stand to be affected by the Select Committee’s decision to recommend that this Bill be passed into law, New Zealand’s adherence to the UNCROC necessitates consideration of these interests as a primary consideration in the Committee’s reporting process.
9. Article 3 of the Convention states that “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”. Article 4 further requires State Parties to the Convention to “undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention.”
10. According to Article 3, it is clear that a Select Committee (which is a legislative body) has an obligation to consider the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in its reporting process. Indeed, in his speech to the 4th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights in March 2005, Justice Peter Boshier considered that “the principles of the Convention have provided a guide for legislative drafting”.
11. There is scientific research both for and against the contention that children do best with their married biological mother and father. There is however no evidence that the Select Committee in its reporting process has taken into account the research on either side of the spectrum. The assessment of such research by the Select Committee is an essential component of its consideration of the best interests of New Zealand children as a primary consideration.
12. The Select Committee has thus neglected to consider the best interests of New Zealand Children in its decision to recommend that this Bill be passed into law and has therefore acted in contravention of the UNCROC to which New Zealand is a party. If the New Zealand Parliament similarly fails to consider the best interests of New Zealand Children during the remainder of the legislative process, it too will be acting in breach of its obligations under the UNCROC.
13. To enable the best interests of New Zealand Children to be considered properly, any amendments to the Adoption Act 1955 should be considered in a separate legislative process (see also opinion piece by family lawyer Norman Elliott: “Consider Children’s Rights Too”, The New Zealand Herald, 11 March 2013).
14. This point has been covered in significant detail by Mr Bassett in legal opinions dated 6 March 2013, 19 November 2012, 29 August 2012 and 27 August 2012. The opinions set out in detail the correct legal position in New Zealand and reveal glaring legal inadequacies in both the Bill and its latest Select Committee report. Those opinions merit your urgent consideration.
If the Bill is enacted by Parliament incorporating the recommended s5A, it will interfere with people’s rights to act according to their beliefs and conscience. The Bill does not include adequate safeguards to ensure the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or the manifestation of religion and belief as affirmed by sections 13 and 15 of the NZBORA.
15. This point has also been thoroughly addressed by Mr Bassett in his legal opinion for Family First NZ, dated 6 March 2013. As above, I sincerely hope that you give this opinion your urgent consideration.
The Select Committee’s proposed s5A is unjustifiably discriminatory, unprincipled and wrong, and is based on flawed legal advice.
16. The Select Committee states in its report “[t]he majority of us consider that marriage is a human right, and that it is unacceptable for the State to deny this right to same-sex couples.”
There is no basis for the Select Committee’s finding that the human right to marry includes the ability to marry a person of the same sex.
17. International instruments such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) recognise the human right to marriage:
UDHR, Article 16:
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
ECHR, Article 12, Right to marry:
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
18. While it is true that marriage is a human right as set out in the above instruments, the human right to marry does not entail the right to marry anyone or anything. For example, a father cannot marry his adult daughter, two 14 year olds cannot marry, a person cannot be married to more than one person at the same time, a woman cannot marry her dog etc. Such limitations are to be viewed in the context of the State’s interest in regulating marriage, which as proposed by opponents of the Bill, is its interest in the welfare of children. The rearing of children is not promoted by the State (through marriage) in relation to the above relationships as (in addition to other factors) such relationships do not naturally promote this interest.
19. The instruments’ reference to “men and women” supports the position that marriage is between a man and a woman, as other articles in the instruments refer to “everyone” and “no one”. As the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found in Schalk and Kopf v Austria, no. 30141/04,  in June 2010:
“The choice of wording in Article 12 [of the ECHR] must thus be regarded as deliberate. Moreover, regard must be had to the historical context in which the Convention was adopted. In the 1950s marriage was clearly understood in the traditional sense of being a union between partners of different sex.”
20. The court in that case further noted that “there is no European consensus regarding same-sex marriage” and that “Article 12 of the Convention does not impose an obligation on the respondent Government to grant a same-sex couple like the applicants access to marriage”. The finding of the ECtHR that “Article 12 of the Convention does not impose an obligation on the governments of the Contracting States to grant same-sex couples access to marriage” has been reaffirmed in subsequent jurisprudence such as the case of Gas and Dubois v France 25951/07 in March 2012.
21. Taking into consideration the ECtHR jurisprudence, although marriage is a human right, it does not then follow that two people of the same sex have a right to marry. This does not however constitute an unacceptable denial of the right to marry anymore than restricting marriage to those over a certain age, or to two people, constitutes an unacceptable denial of the right to marry. Such a limitation is again to be viewed in the context of the State’s interest in regulating marriage – the welfare of children – and as opponents of the Bill argue, children do best when they are raised by their married biological mother and father.
22. In contending that the right to marry includes the right to marry a person of the same sex – a redefinition of marriage – the onus is on the Select Committee to show either that the State’s interest in regulating marriage is something other than protecting and promoting the welfare of children or that such a redefinition would further this interest. The Committee has shown neither.
23. The Select Committee therefore erred in its consideration that “it is unacceptable for the state to deny [the right to marry] to same-sex couples.” While the right to marry is a human right, there is no basis for the finding that such a right includes the ability to marry a person of the same sex.
The Select Committee’s finding that this Bill is not an appropriate mechanism to consider or address the issue of the role of the State in regulating marriage is incorrect.
24. The Select Committee’s finding that this Bill is not an appropriate mechanism to consider or address the issue of the role of the State in regulating marriage is incorrect. The very purpose of legislation is to regulate and the State’s interest in regulating marriage is highly relevant in determining whether or not this Bill should be passed into law.
25. Opponents of the Bill argue that the State’s interest in regulating marriage is based in the potential of heterosexual couples to produce children and the best interests of those children in being raised by both their biological parents. They argue that without this the State would merely be regulating romantic relationships, something which is unnecessary and wrongly interferes with the private lives of individuals.
26. Whatever the role of the State in regulating marriage, it is clearly relevant to the consideration of this Bill and should have been considered by the Committee in making its decision to recommend that the Bill become law.
The Select Committee’s report is based on the unreasonable finding that “marriage should be extended to couples of the same sex, because the law should be applied equally.”
27. The Select Committee’s finding that the law should be applied equally is as incorrect as its starting premise that the current law is discriminatory, a point which has been addressed above.
28. As noted above, there are limitations on who can enter into a marriage based on the State’s interest in regulating marriage, namely the welfare of children. This does not mean that the law is being applied unequally, but rather that only a relationship which naturally tends to promote this interest can constitute a marriage. It is therefore unreasonable for the Select Committee to simply state that “marriage should be extended to couples of the same sex, because the law should be applied equally” without providing any explanation for why exclusion of same- sex couples from marriage amounts to unequal treatment.
29. If the Select Committee considers that the current marriage law is being applied unequally in relation to same-sex couples it has the burden of explaining why this is the case and why the prevailing law should therefore be changed.
The Select Committee’s report is misleading in its comment that “[o]pponents of the Bill argue marriage is not a human right”.
30. The implication here is that all opponents of the Bill share this view. This is not the case and it gives the incorrect impression that all opponents of the Bill do not believe that marriage is a human right.
31. This is concerning as it misrepresents the position of those who oppose the Bill and increases the risk of their position being fallaciously attacked by those in favour of the Bill. Indeed the following comment by the Select Committee that “[t]he majority of us consider that marriage is a human right” is presented as being at odds with opponents of the Bill.
32. The way in which a certain position is represented is crucial when Members of Parliament have only limited time and resources with which to consider competing views in the law-making process.
The Select Committee’s report is misleading in its comment that “[w]e are aware that some people consider that the religious and cultural meanings of marriage should take precedence over the regulatory role of the state, while others consider that New Zealand’s laws should be driven by universal human rights considerations, not by particular religious perspectives.”
33. The implication here is both that those who attach a religious or cultural significance to marriage hold this to supplant the regulatory role of the State and are at odds with universal human rights considerations. This is not the case and casts serious and undue aspersions on those opposing the Bill.
34. Once again, this is concerning as it misrepresents the position of those who oppose the Bill and increases the risk of their position being fallaciously attacked by those in favour of the Bill.
35. It is the role of a Select Committee to examine a bill in detail and based on all the evidence before it, to make a recommendation based on reason and in accordance with law. As a Member of Parliament, it is your responsibility to consider critically the report of the Government Administration Select Committee and to make your own assessment as to the reasonableness and legality of its findings.
36. Thank you for bearing in mind the above concerns during the second reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.
Rachael Wong, BA / LLB (Hons) Barrister & Solicitor
PG, I do not know, and if she is, does that make the matters she is pointing out any less valid?
Read and judge for yourself rather than attacking the person.
I was particularly struck with the committees use of language re: gay marriage as a “human right” and how it is NOT.
You’ll notice she backs that up with documentation from European Court of Human Rights. It’s either true or it isn’t.
I was given demerits yesterday for a comment I made in relation to “gay marriage”.
Fair enough – it’s David’s prerogative. But wouldn’t it be good if more attention was paid on this blog to a far greater denial of human rights? I’m speaking, of course, about the denial of life to the 17,000 or so pre-born babies who are killed in NZ every year. Every abortion stops a beating heart.
I was given demerits yesterday for a comment I made in relation to “gay marriage”.
Yes I saw that and thought it extremely unfair. Conservatives don’t really get a fair shake on Kiwiblog. I received twenty demerits for the following line relating to the reported great personal relationship that exists between John Key and Barack Obama-
“Well John Key is for redefining marriage and Barack Obama is married to a gorilla so that’s probably part of why they get along so well.”
Harriet is another opponent of marriage redefinition and was banned yesterday purportedly for using obscene words, but progressives frequently use such words and it goes completely unnoticed.
David Farrar is, like too many of the National Party, an anti-Conservative and it shows in the way he administrates his blog.
I am the first house in my street to have the Ultra fast Broadband cable connected to my house today! According to the LFC (Chorus) my ISP (telecom) should have provided me with a Optical Network Terminal and a RGW – which is consistent with what Telecoms website says.
Ok – phone telecom; “Sorry sir – we haven’t even released our pricing plans yet”
Writer, critic and translator, Fernanda Pivano interviews Jack Kerouac on Italian television, 1966. Kerouac is more than a wee bit shitfaced.
Pivano was known for her insightful and freewheeling interviews of American beat writers, including Ginsberg, Corso, Bukowski and Burroughs. She had a knack for getting on the wavelength of writers being one herself. And she enjoyed drinking with them. Her published interviews with Bukowski are worth seeking out. Her longstanding friendship with Hemingway certainly prepared her for dealing with a bunch of drunk poets.
Conservatives don’t really get a fair shake on Kiwiblog. I received twenty demerits for the following line relating to the reported great personal relationship that exists between John Key and Barack Obama-
“Well John Key is for redefining marriage and Barack Obama is married to a gorilla so that’s probably part of why they get along so well.”
Too funny. Is the gorilla thing official Conservative policy or is Russell suggesting that if, say, ross69 had made the comparison, it would have gone ignored? And this whining like a bitch; is this the same hero prepared to go down fighting in a hail of commie hot lead? Or was it muslim hot lead? The marshmellow underbelly of the Warrior Blogger is exposed yet again. Urgh.
Andrei, I didn’t say anything like “they are not allowed a voice in public discourse”. But what someone’s voice is on other things can be relevant to why they might be using their voice on a particular issue.
Are you suggesting I shouldn’t use my voice to point something like that out?
And yet you spout forth your religious beliefs continually, to dense to understand that is what they are and they are Marxism in disguise.
I think you mean “too dense”, but your whole comment seems to fit that phrase.
You possibly haven’t heard but it now transpires there is a long recognised fundamental human right for those in same sex relationships to be married. Yet interestingly, what has been commonly regarded as the most fundamental of historic rights, being the right to life, appears to no longer exist. Your observation is likely the first to have put the so-called debate around same sex marriage into a meaningful moral and ethical context.
Cato – I don’t have time to do a detailed analysis of a very long legal opinion right now. I notice that neither has anyone else offered any analysis, although there have been a couple of comments as brief as mine.
And I notice you have said of me “rather than attacking their motivations” while my motivations have been attacked be several commenters, do your standards not apply to the?
Fletch is well known here for dropping in quotes from sources whose identity can make quite a difference to the context of the comments.
Woman finds note from Chinese labor camp prisoner in Kmart decorations
Oregon resident Julie Keith was shocked when she opened her $29.99 Kmart Halloween graveyard decoration kit to find a letter, folded into eights, hidden between two Styrofoam tombstones.
Coming all the way from unit 8, department 2 of the Masanjia Labor Camp in Shenyang, China, the letter written mostly in English read,
“Sir: If you occasionally buy this product, please kindly resend this letter to the World Human Right Organization. Thousands people here who are under the persicution of the Chinese Communist Party Government will thank and remember you forever.”
The letter went on to describe 15 hour work days, no days off, and pay at 10 yuan per month ($1.61 US Dollar) if any. It also described the 1-3 year average forced labor terms without trial, and the large amount of Falun Gong practitioners in forced labor, a banned spiritual group.
Although the authenticity can’t be totally proven, Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch stated, “I think it is fair to say the conditions described in the letter certainly conform to what we know about conditions in re-education through labor camps.”
Surely the majority of quotes and anecdotes and articles that are posted by bloggers have been written by people who have a vested interest? I don’t think Fletch’s example is any different to, say, quoting people from The Standard on David Cunliffe and David Shearer, Kevin Hague (openly homosexual) on the Marriage Equality Bill, Queen of Thorns (feminist) on the so-called “rape culture”, etcetera.
I think most bloggers are guilty of this, if “guilty” is the right word.
If you don’t have time to rebut her analysis then don’t say anything at all. What you said was basically: “Well, she has given her view but I don’t think we should take it too seriously because she is a practicing Catholic and so we can probably just assume it’s faulty.”
Would you give Louisa Wall the same treatment when she speaks in favour of the new law?
“Small article on the Dom that the council is proposing pay & display parking in the botanical gardens.”
Government (local and central) infrastructures are starving for cash to keep their minions employed and are launching a massive assault to extort cash from the people who produce, as this is the only way they can survive.
Cato – I quoted Kevin Hague recently and he was attacked without any analysis, you didn’t appear to give those criticisms the same treatment you’re giving me.
You’re making incorrect assumptions. I didn’t imply the views quoted were faulty at all. All I did was make it known some of the background of the lawyer making her views known.
If I went to an immigration lawyer (as Wong appears to be) to get help with immigration for my son’s future gay partner (hypothetical) then I’d like to know what sort of activist groups she may represent (albeit presumably in her spare time).
Would you trust the expertise of any random lawyer?
At his Brisbane’s supplier’s peak, they process 22,000 kangaroos a week but Mr Kreuger said they were down to about a quarter of the number.
“Of course a big percentage of that are probably younger male kangaroos and they don’t have the right-sized testicles,” he said.
“We want the big ones.”
Seems there are up to 50 million kangaroos in Oz, and millions get culled per year.
Kreuger says he sells about 1000 big scrotums a week “in a range of forms, from bottle openers to keyrings”.
You didn’t dismiss the opinion because she was a ‘random’ lawyer. You implied that her reasoning didn’t hold up because she belonged to a minority to you didn’t approve of (orthodox Catholics who oppose SSM). Would you do the same thing for a minority you do approve of (homosexuals in favour of SSM).
You now said that you implied nothing – but this doesn’t pass the smell test because why else would you have thought it necessary to bring it up. You have quoted Kevin Hague’s legal analysis, with all credulity, without the preface “Practicing homsexual Kevin Hague says…” so why do you feel it necessary for Rachel Wong?
As for trusting the expertise of some ‘random’ lawyer – of course not. But I wouldn’t dismiss her opinion either, particularly whre she has given detailed reasons (as opposed to a simple ipse dixit argument). You shouldn’t either.
Just out of interest – do you think Chris Carter’s “Are you in the exclusive brethren?” approach to questions was appropriate? If not, how is it any different to you introducing caveats about the soundness of somebodies reasoning based on their religious affiliation?
Rachael Wong’s letter was published at The Leading Edge as an “exclusive guest post” – exclusive until Fletch republished it in full.
Other recent posts on that blog:
- Aborting babies with disabilities is hurting us all
- It’s never too late to turn back to God
- Repent, the end is ???
- Stop calling me bigot, anti-gay, and accusing me of discrimination just because I don’t support gay marriage
Readers here can take from that what they like from that – but it is obvious that Wong is not addressing her bill criticisms at a neutral audience.
I agree, it is reasonable to want to know of a vested interest. How far do you want to go, though? Kevin Hague’s vested interest may not be apparent to all – it may surprise you to know that I don’t actually make a habit of working out which MPs are gay and which aren’t.
And what about all the guys and girls at The Standard? Unless you follow them regularly, how are you supposed to know who is pro-Cunliffe, who is pro-Shearer, who doesn’t care … Should I expect you to qualify every one of your posts with somebody’s vested interests? Or do you just assume that anybody reading your blog will already have that level of background information?
gareme – I think anyone with a pseudonym quoted from The Standard should be viewed with a level of suspicion. I often provide background information when I think it’s relevant (lprent threw a hissy when I did that a couple of weeks ago).
But no more suspicion than pseudonym comments here. I have no idea (not always anyway) whether a clobbering is with the compliments of Opus Dei or Crosby Textor (I’ve been accused of working for the latter and in the Beehive).
Language that would ban online pornography has been dropped from a report approved by the European Parliament. But major concerns over the future of Internet privacy remain as legislators themselves were blocked from reading constituents’ complaints.
Members of the European Parliament voted 368-159 in favor of passing a report titled “Eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU.”
1. The NZRU are full of shit, they condone this type of behaviour and see the attack on innocent bystanders as nothing more than “the boys letting off some steam”
2. Should a member of the public dare bring something like this to the media you can expect the NZRU and their PR people to go on an all out attack by planting stories about the “poor rugby thug” with their tame and useless Rugby Media.
3. If you are a Crusader you can almost get away with anything, the most you will receive is a slap on the wrist.
4. If you are an All Black and a Crusader you can get away with anything at all, there is no such thing as a “last chance”
5. If you see an All Black out on the town run like hell, there is a fair chance you will be assaulted and nothing will be done about it.
If any of you doubt this then ask yourself what would happen to a non rugby playing brown skinned man who is covered in scribble if he attacked two innocent men and beat the shit out of them.
Red, thanks for the reading tips, but I am onto it. Last time I checked, it was the right that was losing. A point you make yourself in the majority of your comments. You have no sense of priorities and waste energy attacking poofters and defending theists while the left marches on and leaves you behind.
Sort your shit out and stop screaming commie !!! every time you don’t agree 100% with a comment. It makes you sound like a moron.
big bruv, I agree that rugby heroes get a soft deal. It does not help that many cops are keen footy fans. I personally know of violent aggressive rugby thugs who should have been jailed many times, but never were. The “club” gets them good lawyers, if the cops even bother laying charges.
We will get the usual deniers stepping in, but I have seen this first hand and what makes its way into the msm is only the tip of the iceberg.
“I personally know of violent aggressive rugby thugs who should have been jailed many times, but never were. The “club” gets them good lawyers, if the cops even bother laying charges.”
Agreed- The ‘Old Boys’ network is alive and well and extends to the Judiciary and Police force.
Anyone remember Graham Henry being let off doing 80 clicks on Tamaki Drive? (For the benefit of non-Aucklanders there are joggers, cyclists and kids everywhere on Tamaki Drive)
I wonder if Longknives, Kea or Big Bruv would get off with a mere “warning”??
Lucia Maria (1,314) Says:
March 13th, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Commies love pornography, Kea.
We all LOVE PORN Lucia.
Apparently so do the very religious and moral. Many countries with strict morality codes down load higher amounts of porn than more liberal societies. None of this is a problem when it involves consenting adults. Also the story about people wanting more and more extreme porn, leading to perversion, is pure bullshit peddled by people with “issues”.
Sex is NOT sin. Chastity is NOT virtue.
Those qualities can not be measured by ones sexuality alone.
I wonder if Longknives, Kea or Big Bruv would get off with a mere “warning”??
No way. Especially if I told the cop rugby bores me to tears.
It is incredible that these people just play a game for a living. Maybe I could understand if they were a scientist (no Griff, real scientists) who contributed something tangible to the world. Say a researcher who found a cure for dementia or something. Not some thug who can run around a paddock.
I swear that if the communist Red Army every invaded our shores, Redbaiter would be busy down some dirty alleyway beating up on a poofter or something. (A poofter who is probably an employer and right leaning politically, as many I know are.)
“Making dinner now, but will come back and post a link on the damage that porn does to your brain…”
That would be great, while you are at it come back with a link that proves the damage being molested by a priest does to a young person. Or, you could come back with a link that proves the damage that the Catholic religion does to a young persons mind.
“Last time I checked, it was the right that was losing.”
If your reading skills were up to scratch you would have realised that was half my point. The other half was the reason the right is losing, and that is because their efforts are constantly undermined by fucked in the head liberals like you. Politically confused novices who will just never get it and are easy meat for the left.
Lucia Maria, no it does not enslave. It taps into a normal human desire that was there anyway. I have no desire to get into a cut n’ paste link war with you. For every link you post I could post two.
How about you dont watch Porn and bask in the belief your more moral, and I enjoy watching a good healthy bit of porn ?
I do not want to change your mind. Your conservative christian and I have no problem with that. But I do have a seriously big problem with you imposing your morality on others through the state, by force of law.
“Redbaiter would be busy down some dirty alleyway beating up on a poofter or something.”
You pathetic piece of smearing trash. I once spent time in hospital for defending a “poofter” from a beating. As I said, you’re a typical left wing fuckwit whose perceptions on this matter stretch no further than calling anyone who opposes marriage redefinition a hater and a bigot. Fucking hopeless.
“Last time I checked, it was the right that was losing.”
If your reading skills were up to scratch you would have realised that was half my point.
Red, my reading skills are ok thanks. I am a bit concerned about yours though. If your point is that the “right” is losing, then how do you explain your accusations I am a commie/brainwashed liberal/progressive/lefty on the losing side ?
I had a feeling you would take the bait Mr Baiter and put yourself in a corner with this one. Smart arse.
“If your point is that the “right” is losing, then how do you explain your accusations I am a commie/brainwashed liberal/progressive/lefty on the losing side ? ”
To anyone with average intelligence this wouldn’t need explanation. You perceive yourself as right, but really all you are is a weak and malleable tool of the left who unknowingly does more work to benefit them than you do damage against them. One only needs to read your simpleton contributions to the debates on this forum to know that.
You just said that I would be found beating up poofters in alley ways but demand to be excused from calling people bigots. Proving once again you’re a liberal for that is the only kind of fuckwit such nonsense would make sense to.
Oh dear Reddy you really should have given up on this.
You say I am left…. and the left is winning….then say I am on the losing side. Silly boy.
You could not win any sort of battle with your divisive approach. You have a remarkable ability to alienate potential allies and put everyone off side. I admire your single mindedness, but your strategy sucks.
Btw, what were you doing down a dark alley with a poofter Red ?
Big Bruv. 6.40pm. I agree 100%. The indecent haste to bring that thug guilford back into the rugby fold is not only pathetic it just fucken stinks of hypocrisy. What’s going happen when he decks someone again.
The gutless Crusaders will stoop to nothing in order to try and salvage their lack luster team. Tossers !!
Hell will freeze over before I will ever watch a rugby game or support a team.
They are just bone head knuckle dragging fuckwits.
I must mention to you that you should not be gazing at photos of women with uncovered faces, such viewing is haraam because these are the ways that lead to falling into the sin of zina (fornication, adultery).
nasska (5,845) Says:
March 13th, 2013 at 7:52 pm
Peace and Blessings upon you, Praise be to Allah.
I must mention to you that you should not be gazing at photos of women with uncovered faces, such viewing is haraam because these are the ways that lead to falling into the sin of zina (fornication, adultery).
“Islamic Extremists Love XXX Porn
So how does a pious Islamic terrorist pass the time? He watches hardcore porn. At least one of two Islamic terrorist planning attack on the US from Canada does”
Better pay and benefits are now more important to Kiwis than job security, thanks to greater optimism in the job market, a survey shows.
The survey of 7000 New Zealanders by recruitment and human resources firm Randstad found 19 per cent now viewed competitive salary and employee benefits as the most important factor in choosing an employer.
Dirty buggers aren’t they Kea? Mind you I’m not sure what would have worse for Osama ben Laden…..the fact he got found and killed, or that he has had to explain to a bunch of suicide bombers where their virgins are.
I think I found the link to the PDF Lucia was talking about HERE, although I think she may have slightly different material. It’s probably too involved to try to explain the whole thing here as it talks about at least three different chemical processes in the brain, but to sum up:
The author talks about how pornography can be an addiction. I think we can all accept that. But he goes on to say that addiction, any addiction, including porn, overeating, drugs, etc can actually damage the frontal lobe of the brain – it doesn’t have to be a chemical addiction – and that this lobe damage is similar to what surgeons see in a car accident when a passenger hits their head and also damages their brain. The paper has citations for every study he talks about, and here is an excerpt –
In the front, over the eyes, are the frontal lobes. These areas are important in judgment, and if the brain were a car the frontal lobe would be the brake. The frontal lobes have important connections to the pleasure pathways, so pleasure can be controlled. In the center of the brain is the nucleus accumbens.
This almond sized area is a key pleasure reward center, and when activated by dopamine and other neurotransmitters it causes us to value and desire pleasure rewards. Dopamine is essential for humans to desire and value appropriate pleasure in life. Without dopamine, we would not be as incentivized to eat, procreate, or even to try to win a game. It’s the overuse of the dopamine reward system that causes addiction. When the pathways are used compulsively, a downgrading occurs which actually decreases the amount of dopamine in the pleasure areas available for use, and causes the dopamine cells themselves to atrophy, or shrink. The reward cells in the nucleus accumbens are now starved for dopamine, and exist in a state of dopamine craving, as a downgrading of dopamine receptors on the pleasure cells occurs as well. This resetting of the pleasure thermostat produces a ‘new normal.’ In this addictive state, the person must act out in addiction to boost the dopamine to levels sufficient just to feel normal.
As the desensitization of the reward circuits continues, stronger and stronger stimuli are required to boost the dopamine. In the case of narcotic addiction, the addicted person must increase the amount of the drug to get the same high. In pornography addiction, hard core replaces soft core, and progressively more shocking images are required to stimulate the person. As a feedback of sorts, the frontal lobes also atrophy, or shrink. Think of it as a ‘wearing out of the brake pads.’ This physical and functional decline in the judgment center of the brain causes the person to become impaired in the ability to process consequences of acting out in addiction. Addiction scientists have called this condition hypofrontality, and have noted the similarity in behavior in the addicted to the behavior of patients with frontal brain damage.
As neurosurgeons, we frequently treat people with frontal lobe damage. In a car wreck, for instance, even with an airbag the brain decelerates into the back of the forehead inside the skull, bruising the frontal lobes. Patients with frontal lobe damage exhibit a constellation of behaviors we call frontal lobe syndrome.
First, they are impulsive, in that they will thoughtlessly engage in activities with little regard as to consequence. Second, they are compulsive. They become fixated or focused on certain objects or behaviors, and have to have it, no matter what. Third, they become emotionally labile, and have sudden and unpredictable mood swings, and fourth, they exhibit impaired judgment.
So cortical hypofrontality, or shrinkage of the frontal lobes causes these four behaviors, and can result from a car wreck or from addiction!
Lets look at studies examining drug addiction and the effect on frontal lobes. This is a study on cocaine addiction published in 2002,9 and it shows volume loss, or shrinkage, in several areas of the brain, particularly the frontal control areas. What about methamphetamine? This study from 2004 shows very similar results
Of course, we expect drugs to damage the brain, so these studies don’t really surprise us. Consider, though, a natural addiction such as overeating leading to obesity. Your might be surprised to know that a study published in 2006 showed shrinkage in the frontal lobes in obesity which was very similar to the cocaine and methamphetamine studies!11 And pertinent to our subject, a study published in 2007 imaging the brains of persons exhibiting severe sexual addiction looked almost identical to the cocaine, methamphetamine, and obesity studies.
He also talks about what happens when someone gets addicted to masturbation to porn online –
In my experience as a sexual therapist, any individual who regularly masturbates to pornography is at risk of becoming, in time, a sexual addict, as well as conditioning himself into having a sexual deviancy and/or disturbing a bonded relationship with a spouse or girlfriend. We are wired to bond to the object of our sexuality. This is a good thing when this bonding occurs in a committed marriage relationship, but there is a dark side. When sexual gratification occurs in the context of pornography use, it can result in the formation of a virtual mistress of sorts. Dr. Victor Cline describes this process as follows:
A frequent side effect is that it also dramatically reduces their capacity to love (e.g., it results in a marked dissociation of sex from friendship, affection, caring, and other normal healthy emotions and traits which help marital relationships). Their sexual side becomes in a sense dehumanized. Many of them develop an “alien ego state” (or dark side), whose core is antisocial lust devoid of most values. In time, the “high”” obtained from masturbating to pornography becomes more important than real life relationships…. It makes no difference if one is an eminent physician, attorney, minister, athlete, corporate executive, college president, unskilled laborer, or an average 15-year-old boy.
All can be conditioned into deviancy. The process of masturbatory conditioning is inexorable and does not spontaneously remiss. The course of this illness may be slow and is nearly always hidden from view. It is usually a secret part of the man’s life, and like a cancer, it keeps growing and spreading. It rarely ever reverses itself, and it is also very difficult to treat and heal. Denial on the part of the male addict and refusal to confront the problem are typical and predictable, and this almost always leads to marital or couple disharmony, sometimes divorce and sometimes the breaking up of other intimate relationships.
Labour has tabled documents in Parliament showing that ministers put pressure on Solid Energy in 2009 to increase its debt levels and pay bigger dividends, despite warnings a falling coal price could crimp its profits.
Finance Minister Bill English confirmed the instruction in a letter from then state-owned enterprises minister Simon Power to the state coalminer’s chairman, John Palmer.
“The Government, in its first term, looked at SOE balance sheets and decided many of them could carry more debt. It made a decision to allow Solid Energy to take on more debt,” English said.
I do find it interesting that Bedwetter works himself into a lather about the way that the left are supposedly going to take away our freedoms, yet in the next breath he defends somebody like Lucia who is the personification of evil and proud of her desire to force the fucked up view of the Catholic church upon the rest of us.
Remember that Lucia is of the opinion that those who choose to have kids via IVF treatment are sinners, its not bad enough for a couple who are desperate to have their own kids deal with the fact that they cannot conceive without the help of medical science but to have to put up with the ravings of a religious bigot like Lucia is beyond belief.
Mind you, that is nothing new from Bedwetter, he is a hypocrite of the highest order and a blatant liar.
Mind you I’m not sure what would have worse for Osama ben Laden…..the fact he got found and killed
December 26, 2001, Fox News reported on a Pakistan Observer story that the Afghan Taliban had officially pronounced Osama Bin Laden dead earlier that month.
In November 2005, Senator Harry Reid revealed that he was told Osama may have died in the Pakistani earthquake of October that year.
On November 2, 2007, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto told Al-Jazeera’s David Frost that Omar Sheikh had killed Osama Bin Laden.
Now in 2011, President Obama has added himself to the mix of people in positions of authority who have pronounced Osama Bin Laden dead. Some might charge that none of the previous reports had any credibility, but as it is now emerging that Osama’s body was buried at sea less than 12 hours after his death with no opportunity for any independent corroboration of his identity, the same question of credibility has to be leveled at this latest charge.
Fletch, If YOU feel inclined to rape after watching pornography then YOU stop watching it. The rest of us do not feel that temptation.
Do you really want the government to decide matters of morality? How would you feel if the government was made up of a bunch of gays set to dismantle all traditional social norms, would you be happy with that government dictating morality to you and enforcing it by force of law ?
Papal conclave: Catholic Church has new pope as white smoke rises
The Catholic Church has chosen a new pope. White smoke is billowing from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, meaning 115 cardinals in a papal conclave have elected a new leader.