All about the man ban

July 6th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Lots of commentary on ’s proposed .

writes at Stuff:

Oh dear. I really didn’t think it was possible for Labour to top its own goal over the Sky City corporate box debacle. But it has. 

After a week where the Government ought to be on the back foot over the GCSB saga, Auckland’s nutty property market, and the death throes of one of its coalition partners, Labour has come out with a policy so politically barmy it makes you wonder whether it really has any interest in winning the next election. …

David Shearer has – after initially stating the policy had “some merit” – realised he’s dealing with a political bomb and come out against the policy, saying he favours targets rather than quotas. Senior Labour MPs Phil Goff, Shane Jones, and Andrew Little immediately recognised the damage the proposal would do and have denounced it too. 

But it may be too late. This idea needed to be taken out and quietly shot before it ever saw the light of day. From now until it’s debated at Labour’s annual conference in November, Labour’s opponents will have a field day. 

The Opposition needs to be talking to the electorate about jobs, housing, incomes, and hip-pocket issues. Not navel-gazing about its gender balance. The public, to be frank, doesn’t give a toss whether Labour has 41 per cent women MPs or 50 per cent. They just want good candidates and good policies. 

Adam Bennett at NZ Herald reports:

No Labour MPs other than Manurewa’s Louisa Wall will publicly back a proposal to have women-only selection short lists for some electorates to boost female MP numbers.

After his initial reluctance to comment earlier this week, party leader David Shearer has now come out against the proposal.

Outspoken male MPs Shane Jones and Damien O’Connor panned the idea in no uncertain terms, warning it risked driving away socially conservative blue-collar voters.

Of Labour’s 34 MPs, only Ms Wall has been prepared to publicly support it since it was revealed on Thursday.

Eleven, including Mr Shearer, have said they don’t support it or are yet to be convinced.

But is David Shearer not a member of the NZ Council that has proposed this?

So either he got rolled at the NZ Council meeting, or he has flip-flopped and was for it before he rages against it.

Fran O’Sullivan supports it though:

Congratulations to Party Central for putting gender equality ahead of diversity when it comes to the ranking criteria for selecting the next crop of Labour MPs.

Quaintly, the notion that a 21st century political party might opt to use its selection process to try to make sure that as many women as men represent us in Parliament has been met with howls of derision and barely disguised outrage.

That’s just on the Labour side of politics. Let’s point out here that the most vocal MP opponents (Yes, I am talking aboutyou, Shane Jones and you, Clayton Cosgrove) are only there themselves by virtue of their list rankings.

writes:

When you are in a hole, you can rely on Labour to dig itself into an even deeper one beside you – as it did this week with its shoot-yourself-in-both-feet potential change to party rules to allow women-only candidate selections.

This was not solely political correctness gone stark-raving bonkers. Apart from alienating one group of voters who have drifted away from Labour in recent years – men – such a rule change would be just as insulting to women in insinuating they could not win selection on their own merits.

The proposal should have been kiboshed by the leader the moment he saw it. That he didn’t – or felt he couldn’t – points to deep schisms in the party.

The message voters will take from Labour’s warped priorities is that of a party which cannot get its act together in the snoozy backwaters of Opposition, let alone in the blazing sun of Government.

There is a reasons this never emerged under Helen Clark. She would have strangled this before it was born, even if she privately backed it.

has collected some of the best tweets on this issue. Here’s a few:

Bernard Orsman ‏@BernardOrsman

The ‘man ban’. Can things get any worse for Labour. PC madness. @nzlabour

James Macbeth Dann ‏@edmuzik

David Shearer is against the quotas. That should guarantee they get passed

Perfect Mike Hosking ‏@MikePerfectHosk

The Labour Party manban makes no sense at all. It’s like saying “drinkable organic wine.”

Patrick Gower ‏@patrickgowernz

Labour Party wants a quota system for MPs based on gender etc – not merit. Apparently this isn’t a joke.

Michael Laws ‏@LawsMichael

Labour’s next caucus rule – seats reserved for the disabled, the mentally ill, overstayers, gays, vegetarians, the over 70s, the under 20s.

Philip Matthews ‏@secondzeit

@harvestbird Over a couple of beers with my mates building a deck, we decided that the manplan has set progressive politics back decades.

Julian Light ‏@julianlight

Went for a coffee this morn but was refused service. Not enough women had bought a coffee. Seemed about as fair as Labour’s policy #manban

Aunty Haurangi ‏@_surlymermaid

Upside to the #manban : Less likely John Tamihere will get an electorate seat.

Keeping Stock ‏@Inventory2

Sean Plunket describes the #ManBan as “a completely co-ordinated attack by the Labour Party on itself”; and he’s spot on.

Ben Uffindell ‏@BenUffindell

@LewStoddart More women MPs just for the sake of more women MPs is not a noble goal. Sexism lies in the population at large.

Cactus Kate ‏@CactusKate2

50% of houses should b owned solely by women n we should hv zero interest loans 2 fund this #manban

Finally we have Chris Trotter:

AMIDST ALL THE CLAMOUR of its detractors, the true significance of Labour’s “Man Ban” has eluded most commentators.

Yes, the proposed rule change has undoubtedly damaged Labour’s election prospects.

Yes, there are many more important issues the party would have preferred the news media to focus upon.

Yes, it is further evidence of a party with no reliable political grown-ups in charge.

Yes, Labour’s opponents will dine out on it for months.

And, yes, it’s the only thing the 2013 Annual Conference will be remembered for.

But, the “Man Ban” is also proof of something else: that the distance separating Labour’s rank-and-file from Labour’s Caucus has grown as wide as the gulf that once separated the “old” Labour Party from the “new”.

The conference in November should be spectacular!

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

76 Responses to “All about the man ban”

  1. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    Disappointing that Fran O’Sullivan supports it. I thought she had more sense. A gender quota is one of those things that sounds good on the very surface, but in actual fact shows either weak thought or closet chauvinism underpinning it; the very definition of a specious argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,712 comments) says:

    National also advocate gender quotas.

    10% on private and 45% in public governance positions.

    Pot, kettle. Cultural Marxism.

    http://www.national.org.nz/PDF_General/Womens_Affairs_policy_.pdf

    [DPF: Targets are not quotas. I am sure you know that]

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Simon (757 comments) says:

    Yep it is good to have a laugh about Labour’s moon bat ideas.

    Though also it would pay for the sheeple to remember the National party have stolen all of Labour’s polices leaving Laborr nowhere to go but further to the left. In the end NZ will reap what National sow.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tvb (4,487 comments) says:

    I think the towering intellect Sue Moroney suports it. Something about preventing Aaron Gilmour types. But then we get Sue Moroney types instead. I bet Darian Fenton supports it. They are trying to avoid man ban terminology but it is such a catchy phrase they cannot stop it now.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. SPC (5,748 comments) says:

    Caucus can sort it in one go by simply calling for an alternative policy – where the party will back a selection/stable/gaggle of capable women candidates at electorate selection meetings – this as a way to meet targets.

    This might mean backing them in one electorate race or some in range of meetings (based on a ranking) until they are selected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    The Aaron Gilmore argument is ridiculous – first he was a list MP, not an electorate one, and second, we’ve had female list MPs who’ve been less than effective as well (Alamein Kopu).

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Chuck Bird (4,922 comments) says:

    Discrimination works two ways. Heterosexuals have been underrepresented in Labour for a long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    I just hope Labour keeps this sort of thing up all the way to the election. I bet Key can not believe his luck.

    Labour is more moderate now than it was under Klarkula. The difference is they do not have a leader who can pull this sort of thing off. Klarkula had her own evil charisma and got away with it. The neutered men of Labour do not have the strength or intelligence that evil bitch had. If they had any balls or ability they would not be tolerated in Labour, unless they were gay. Probably one of the resident fags would make a better Labour leader for that reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. smttc (761 comments) says:

    If Labour could draw more capable women then they would be on the list and winning electorate selections. Promoting women over men for the sake of equality is simply dumb let alone dumb politics. But hey, knock yourselves out Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. SPC (5,748 comments) says:

    smttc, in your own way you note that National attracts so few capable women candidates that their level of gender representation is 75/25.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. smttc (761 comments) says:

    SPC if that is what it is then so be it. I don’t want to see talentless troughers of any stripe getting into Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Well if you assume that Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally, then men are over-represented.

    An indication of how conservative and patriarchal society really is is reflected in the media reaction to the proposed gender quota.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nigel Kearney (1,046 comments) says:

    We’ve been told over and over that any gender imbalance can only be explained by sexism, despite other explanations that seem reasonable to some of us. In that case, there is no need for this policy because Labour can achieve the desired result by implementing a concerted campaign to re-educate their own members not to be so damn sexist.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. peterwn (3,294 comments) says:

    “The conference in November should be spectacular!”
    Labour should keep the whole conference ‘in committee’, tell delegates not to speak to the media, and sort out the mess.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Alan Wilkinson (1,885 comments) says:

    “Well if you assume that Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally, then men are over-represented.?

    Do you think about what you write for more than a nano-second? Your assumption succumbs to the slightest thought. Many don’t vote. Few join political parties, even fewer stand for election and an infinitesimal proportion get elected as democratic representatives. Overwhelmingly they are lawyers, teachers, unionists and political grunters.

    While it is tempting to believe stupid people are over-represented in Parliament the reality is probably the reverse. Why on earth should gender be the one and only attribute selected for compulsory proportionate representation in Parliament?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    “Scott Chris (5,013) Says:
    July 6th, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    Well if you assume that Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally,”

    Scott Chris , What sort of fool would assume that ? Democracy is majority rules. It does not mean smaller groups have no say, but if the point comes when the two groups interests are in conflict, then the minority must defer. The ONLY alternative is the majority deferring to a minority.

    My “minority” view is that people like you are such a threat to freedom and progress you should be executed. We kill people for far less in various wars and are doing so in Afghanistan right now. How do you propose to respect my view and allow me to action it ?

    [DPF: 30 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chuck Bird (4,922 comments) says:

    How many white, heterosexual conservation males are in Parliament?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. SPC (5,748 comments) says:

    1, Nick Smith.

    DOC have him under a protection order.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (894 comments) says:

    Sorry folks, I don’t think this will affect Labour in the polls in any way. Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana combo is still on track to capture power in 2014……

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Chuck Bird (4,922 comments) says:

    “Sorry folks, I don’t think this will affect Labour in the polls in any way. Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana combo is still on track to capture power in 2014……”

    You may be right about the numbers but would Sir Winston prefer one coalition partner or 3 or 4?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    Do you think about what you write for more than a nano-second?

    More than you seemingly, judging by your clunky choice of words and absence of any substantial rebuttal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    What sort of fool would assume that ? Democracy is majority rules.

    What sort of fool would confuse the essence of an idea with the practice of idea? (and I don’t agree with your general description of the practice of democracy anyway as it happens)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott Chris (6,176 comments) says:

    My “minority” view is that people like you are such a threat to freedom and progress you should be executed.

    Heh. And you dis Stalin. It’s probably thanks to people like me that people like you aren’t rounded up and put in gulags.

    Man you’re stoopid. :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. MrTips (100 comments) says:

    Sure, let Labour have a man ban….Tim Barnett and Louisa Wall are achieving that nicely…

    And then also have 50% of the ASC as men, a Ministry of Men’s Affairs and a Brown Ribbon Day for Prostate Cancer….

    Until then, aging hippies like Fran O’Sullivan and lunatics like James Dann just come across as demented misandrists..

    pathetic

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. OneTrack (3,204 comments) says:

    “So either he got rolled at the NZ Council meeting, or he has flip-flopped and was for it before he wags against it.”

    Based purely on what he said after the event, he has flip-flopped. When he first replied he was following instructions from the sisterhood. Then when it all started going pear-shaped (ie the sheeple didn’t cheer Labour for addressing this critical issue of our time) he changed his mind. It probably also involved a call from Clint telling him to get his s… together and minimise the damage.

    So, yes, I do think Shearer thinks it is a good idea – he has just jumped into don’t scare the horses mode.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    Scott Chris , people with the exact same views as you have killed over 250 million people within one lifetime and you have not stopped to this day. We destroy, bomb and murder people for far less than that, so why should socialist be exempted ?

    Last time I checked Western Democracy was not being attacked by dirt poor Afghan goat herders, but by white middle class communists like you.

    Common sense tells us who should be killed for their beliefs first, if anyone must die. Thanks for the tip on how to define democracy. If you really understood the concept, maybe you would not spend so much time opposing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Reid (16,615 comments) says:

    Based purely on what he said after the event, he has flip-flopped. When he first replied he was following instructions from the sisterhood. Then when it all started going pear-shaped (ie the sheeple didn’t cheer Labour for addressing this critical issue of our time) he changed his mind. It probably also involved a call from Clint telling him to get his s… together and minimise the damage.

    But then he looked at the Sisterhood in the form of an angry Morony again and thought “Oh dear I preferred the UN and the bullets’ and flip-flopped again.

    Imagine what he’d do on telly if they had a boy journo and a girl journo both hammering him about the respective positions. It’d probably be like the scene in Total Recall where the robot lady mask blew up and it would be vewy vewy sad because poor Davy would be totally bwoken in two like a widdle wag doll. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. nasska (11,756 comments) says:

    One thing that can be said about Shearer is that he is a man of instant decisions…..usually the wrong ones. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Rich Prick (1,719 comments) says:

    “One thing that can be said about Shearer is that he is a man of instant decisions”

    Perhaps, but it takes about three days to decipher the mumbles, umm’s, err’s and ahhhh’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    Kea, which aspect of Western democracy demands that people should be killed for their ideas? What is it that’s being defended here?

    I don’t agree with SC’s views in this thread but talk of execution is just going full retard. Never go full retard.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. kowtow (8,712 comments) says:

    DPF says targets are not quotas.

    Nope, but the intention is there.

    National is guilty.Just like the looney fems of Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    Kowtow, the difference between a quota and a target is this: Setting a target means you value diversity. Setting a quota says you value diversity over merit.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    Kea, which aspect of Western democracy demands that people should be killed for their ideas? What is it that’s being defended here?

    Ask the people in Afghanistan that question. I think you have missed my point.

    Personally I would kill no one for their ideas, and that includes Muslims. But since we clearly do kill people for their ideas, I suggest hard line Western socialists are more deserving than Achmed the peasant goat hearder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Democracy is majority rules.

    Mob rule is majority rules, the difference between mob rule and democracy is the rule of law.

    Most so-called democracies attempt to redefine the meaning of the rule of law in order to hide the fact that they no better that a mob with some table manners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    Ugly, who makes the law if not the people ? Your statement is clearly wrong. In much of the world democracy is against the law. They have minority rule.

    I am actually growing tired of wankers, who think they are smarter than they are, challenging me on the self evident reality that the principle of democracy is majority rule. No if or but or anything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wiseowl (924 comments) says:

    targets , quotas all the same.National is just as guilty as Labour ,Gweens anyone else who tries to fiddle with democracy.

    Merit is all that matters.

    May as well have a womens only party, a mens only party, a gay party, a DB drinkers party etc.

    What a pathetic situation we have in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    @Kea “Ask the people in Afghanistan that question. I think you have missed my point.”

    I’m confused by what you are asserting here. Are you saying that Western socialists should be killed because of the action in Afghanistan?

    It may be questionable for the US to have invaded Afghanistan to get the people involved with Al Qaeda, but they were not there simply because the Taliban or even Al Qaeda had values antithetical to Western ones. They were there to get the people who had just organised the attack on the US.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    who makes the law if not the people ?

    Who makes the law of gravity? The laws of nature are not man-made.

    Calling me a wanker doesn’t change the fact that your atheism keeps you from the truth about the role of deity within the common law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    They were there to get the people who had just organised the attack on the US.

    Yeah, a lot of people still believe the MSM bullshit. There were serious defence/intelligence operations running at the time of 9/11, and Bin Laden wasn’t behind any of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    Ok, if we’re gonna get into 9/11 truthism, I’m out. :) Night all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    Delighted that there will also be a quota on teachers to support the discriminated male workers in this industry.
    It also appears that males are heavily underrepresented in womens affairs ministry, this should be fixed right away with another quota.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ok, if we’re gonna get into 9/11 truthism, I’m out.

    Call it whatever you like, the facts are that the US and Israel both have a history of involvement in false flag terrorism and both were running major operations at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    Ugly, the laws of gravity do not rely on “belief”. They work exactly the same for non-believers [of reality] like you for example.

    The British Common Law has nothing at all to do with the god of some cult in the Middle East, imposed on Europe by a Roman ruler centuries ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. doggone7 (818 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    “An indication of how conservative and patriarchal society really is, is reflected in the media reaction to the proposed gender quota.”

    A greater indication about our society highlighted by the media reaction to the proposed gender quota is that “we don’t know how lucky we are.” The woes of Syria, Brazil, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc, etc., pale into insignificance and meaninglessness compared to an issue like the proposed gender quota.

    Supposedly intelligent journalists froth at the mouth and their excitement rouses the masses. The pathological haters are in a lather. It has nothing to do with them, would never affect them in any way, but they go into a frenzy. So sad that so much energy is so wasted.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    adze, the people behind 911 were from Saudi Arabia not Afghanistan. Are you seriously trying to suggest that all the tens of thousands killed in Afghanistan were all killed for being behind 911 ? Many were not even born then. They are being killed because of their ideas.

    I am suggesting we tolerate far greater threats at home, yet people think I am being shocking for suggesting we kill them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. nasska (11,756 comments) says:

    Don’t worry about us wasting a bit of energy doggone…..it’s all worthwhile when we see you muppets at each others’ throats over a non event you’ve created yourselves.

    Quality thinking! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    doggone7 , in fact Western journalists do froth at the mouth over sexual discrimination in Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. They even try and use it as some sort of justification and to try and make Obama look like a good guy for killing tens of thousands of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly, the laws of gravity do not rely on “belief”.

    Yes, of course. What’s your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. OneTrack (3,204 comments) says:

    I just loved the more than insignificant number of the tweets Bryce Edwards collected essentially saying that the furore about the manban was all some sort of master plan cooked up by National to deflect attention away from Gcsb. I am sure Simon Lusk is involved, probably smoking cigars and stroking a white cat in his lap. Bwhaha. Bwhhahaha.

    We just need more “education” to change our minds and see how wonderful an idea it really is. It is also a bit sad though. Those guys and girls live in a tribal and logic free zone.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    My point is clear Ugly. Your appeal to some fake god of an ignorant violent cult does require belief.

    Where do we find this mystical Common Law you refer to ? It is not in the law books, I know that much !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    We just need more “education” to change our minds and see how wonderful an idea it really is.

    We have accepted far worse than this. The policy has every chance of being normalised and accepted, just as other radical feminist doctrine has been eagerly lapped up by idiot NZ.

    NZ men are broken and have no ability to stop it. The best we can hope for is that sensible balanced women refuse the idea. The men in this country are a write-off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    We just need more “education” to change our minds and see how wonderful an idea it really is.

    Gender equivalence brought us the person, eg spokesperson rather than spokesman. As well as introducing a legal word of art into everyday language this served to marginalize then natural role of men as protectors (government is ostensibly about protecting the rights of its citizens).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    My point is clear Ugly. Your appeal to some fake god of an ignorant violent cult does require belief.

    What appeal was that, fool?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    Where do we find this mystical Common Law you refer to ? It is not in the law books, I know that much !

    Ugly, did you not see my question through the haze of cannabis smoke ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    My point is clear Ugly. Your appeal to some fake god of an ignorant violent cult does require belief.

    What appeal was that, fool?

    Dear oh dear Ugly ! :)

    your atheism keeps you from the truth about the role of deity within the common law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Dear oh dear Ugly !

    The deity of the common law isn’t a “fake god of an ignorant violent cult”, fool.

    Where do we find this mystical Common Law you refer to ? It is not in the law books, I know that much !

    Ignorant as well.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Blackstone's+Commentaries
    A series of lectures delivered by the English jurist Sir William Blackstone at Oxford in 1753 and published as Commentaries on the Laws of England in four volumes between 1765 and 1769, which systematized and clarified the amorphous body of English Law.

    The Commentaries are the first attempt to state the entire corpus of the Common Law. They were acclaimed internationally and their precepts were applied to the study and Practice of Law in England and the United States.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    Ugly, LOL :)

    What some guy said back in 1753 England does not have more authority than the law made today in parliament. He also told lies if he suggested there is some god overseeing all this.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What some guy said back in 1753 England does not have more authority than the law made today in parliament.

    The point is that you are once again talking shit, Kea. The appeal that you said that I made does not exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    Ugly, parliament (John Key and his buddies) make the only binding law in this country. Not your imaginary friends or some guy who lived before NZ was even discovered by Europeans.

    For someone with such strong opinions you know remarkably little about the law. You do not even know what common law actually is. Start by reading a basic introduction to the legal system. The library has many easy to read books of that type.

    Take my advice and then you will not sound so crazy to the better informed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I just loved the more than insignificant number of the tweets Bryce Edwards collected essentially saying that the fu/rore about the manban was all some sort of master plan cooked up by National to deflect attention away from Gcsb.

    Hardly a master plan, but not difficult to see why it’s been brought up now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly, parliament (John Key and his buddies) make the only binding law in this country.

    Interesting that an athiest would have such faith in the Westminster system, which historically has a religious origin.

    Common law is based on reason, not faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    For someone with such strong opinions you know remarkably little about the law. You do not even know what common law actually is.

    @Kea, For your edification…

    The New Zealand legal system is derived from the English one and comes from two main sources:

    The common law, which is a body of law built up from decisions made in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand. Developments made by New Zealand courts mean that New Zealand now differs from the United Kingdom on some aspects of the common law.

    Statute law, which is all the law made by Parliament.

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-new-zealand-legal-system

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Rich Prick (1,719 comments) says:

    The front bum’s are running the asylum that is Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pete George (23,676 comments) says:

    “…but not difficult to see why it’s been brought up now.”

    Not difficult at all – Labour circulated the proposal to members this week so it came to public attention.

    But I guess you could question why Labour chose to circulate it now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Pete George (23,676 comments) says:

    A lot has been said about whether is good for politics for Labour to “man ban” – to have an option for electorates to ban men from being considered as a candidate.

    Ways of boosting the proportion of females in Parliament has a major talking point – whether to try and force it with quotes or on merit. But something has been overlooked is what might attract more women into politics, and what might put women off trying to become an MP. I asked a woman if they would consider trying to become a candidate.

    A woman’s perspective of why many women don’t want to stand for parliament

    I have always been very interested in politics; love to discuss how to make the world a better place. In my younger years I have been actively involved to bring about changes. Now that I am more mature, have grown up children I still have the same convictions of making the world a better place but with the difference that these days I leave it to others to make this happen.

    There are many reasons the main one being I want to live in peace and quiet out of the public’s eye. Politics, especially in parliament often seems like a kindergarten not a place where mature adults our representatives find the best way to help govern our country. Why would I want to subject myself to insults, taunts, personal attacks, manipulative old hands and the like. I feel that I have fought my battles with bringing up my children and also in my career.

    As we all know this is not the half of it. There is the press – always fishing for a so called “good story”. For me that would mean to be always on guard with what I say. Since I and many women I know have an impulsive personality this would be very difficult.

    Women are being doubly judged, once for their looks and secondly for their ability. It doesn’t matter what their appearance is, they cop it from all quarters often particularly harshly by their fellow females, men and the press.

    If a woman looks great she gets dissed for it (everything is easy for her because she’s got the look) also is she just an airhead, or is there a man behind her to help? On the other hand if she is not blessed with a great appearance she gets flack for that such as (she looks like crap people find it difficult to concentrate on what she actually says). Off course one could say that may apply to men also and it does no doubt but sadly is seems to apply more to women and plays a big factor in not wanting to stand for parliament.

    Unless parties and Parliament address the worst of politics then parties may continue to struggle to attract more women to stand. And men – many potentially very capable men as well as women simple won’t consider standing for Parliament because of the potential exposure to personal attack.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. SPC (5,748 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, you have written about “the role of deity within the common law” and used the term the “deity of the common law” and then said that “common law is based on reason, not faith”.

    Is it not reasonable to presume that if legal precedent ever got as confused as your writing about common law, it would take legislation to clarify matters? In that case does legislative law defer to common law or is common law directed by and subject to legislation?

    As the Crown is responsible for law, the Crown has recourse to legislation to clarify matters for the courts. The Crown is sovereign and delegates legislation to parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. SPC (5,748 comments) says:

    PS – ugly truth confuses common law (as a taonga of the people to be defended by the Crown) with constitutional law, but as legislation can change precedent, this is not so. Of course what ugly truth should be about is proposing what he thinks of common law should be established as constitutional law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The NZ civil justice system is lying about the nature of common law, saying that it is equivalent to case law.

    The New Zealand legal system is derived from the English one and comes from two main sources:

    The common law, which is a body of law built up from decisions made in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand. Developments made by New Zealand courts mean that New Zealand now differs from the United Kingdom on some aspects of the common law.

    Statute law, which is all the law made by Parliament.

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-new-zealand-legal-system

    Common law was originally the law of the land as established by King Alfred the Great.

    The following description of common law is from Black’s dictionary:

    1. As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained amongst most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal 255, 10 Pac. 674. 2. As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. 561, 45 L. Ed. 765; State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 365, 9 Am Dec. 534; Barry v. Port Jervis, 64 App. Div. 268, 72 N. Y. Supp. 104. 3. As distinguished from equity law, it is a body of rules and principles, written or unwritten, which are of fixed and immutable authority, and which must be applied to controversies rigorously and in their entirety, and cannot be modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case, or colored by any judicial discretion, and which rests confessedly upon custom or statute, as distinguished from any claim to ethical superiority. Klever v. Seawall, 65 Fed. 395, 12 C. C. A. 661. 4. As distinguished from ecclesiatical law, it is the system of jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals. (Black’s 2nd)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    Ugly, once again, pop down the library and borrow an introduction to the legal system. It is easy reading and there are a number of good books that will assist you.

    Even if you do not agree, you will at least know what the opposing view is.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Stop genuflecting at the liars altar, fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    Ugly, drag yourself away from nutty web sites and read a book.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Black’s dictionary of law is a book, fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    Ugly, it may surprise you to know that a legal dictionary does not contain our entire body of law or describe how law operates in 2013 NZ. The same goes for the utterings of academics back in the 1700’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No suprises there, fool. The fact remains that the NZ judiciary lies about the actual nature of the common law. Don’t forget that they will knowingly commit fraud in order to maintain the illusion of universal jurisdiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kea (13,224 comments) says:

    LOL :)

    And you caught those Judges out by reading a dictionary. Remarkable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I only caught one out, and the argument was a simple accusation and admission, no dictionaries were involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote