Auckland ratepayers funding a polyamory conference!

June 5th, 2014 at 12:12 pm by David Farrar

The Taxpayers Union states:

Yesterday afternoon we received a tipoff that Auckland Council recently funded a one day conference to explore the practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the consent of all the people involved, also known as

Last month the gaynz.com website reported that among the first recipients of Auckland Council’s first ever ‘Rainbow Door Fund’ was ‘Poly Panel, Discussions around Queer Polyamory’, a one day event exploring a framework of ethical, healthy polyamory relationships.

This is just as inappropriate as the Auckland Council funding a one day event to explore chastity. They should concentrate on parks, libraries, roads, sewers, trains, buses etc and stop funding every pet cause people think of.

Tags: , ,

50 Responses to “Auckland ratepayers funding a polyamory conference!”

  1. notrotsky (65 comments) says:

    I’m sorry but… WTF !

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “…….and stop funding every pet cause people think of….”

    Why?….. National does.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Zebulon (78 comments) says:

    Given Len’s own penchant for polyamory this doesn’t surprise me, but seriously, this is such an offensive waste of our money that it is clear that the Council is run by a bunch of incompetent, deluded social engineers.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Tarquin North (207 comments) says:

    Finally, something Len is qualified to talk about. Makes a change from train sets.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Other_Andy (2,513 comments) says:

    You polyamoryphobe

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nigel Kearney (915 comments) says:

    The government has had six years to remove powers of general competence (added by the Clark regime). That would instantly stop all of this crap.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RRM (9,639 comments) says:

    Len’s not a polyamorist, he’s just a rat.

    I can see the value of polygamy – having two wives in chez RRM wouldn’t cost much more than having just one, but twice as much cleaning and housework would get done.

    Can’t really see why there needs to be a council funded conference about it though???

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. xy (167 comments) says:

    ‘The Council has also announced a Rainbow Door Fund, which offers one-off grants of up to $500′

    ANOTHER MASSIVE RORT DISCOVERED BY THE TAXPAYER’S UNION

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. thePeoplesFlag (220 comments) says:

    “…The Community Development and Safety Committee has allocated one-off grants of up to $500 for projects which “aim to improve people’s wellbeing and safety and/or celebrate and make more visible the Rainbow Community’s artistic and cultural diversity…”

    Up to a whole $500!!! What a whinge about nothing.

    The taxpayers union is a nice little astroturf make work scheme for a bunch of barely-employable ex-ACToids, but so far it’s attempts at dog whistling homophobia and scandal are about as successful as the ACT party is in getting votes.

    [DPF: You're a weird little person. What makes you think polyamory is limited to the gay community?]

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. iMP (2,333 comments) says:

    and 3,2,1… MAWAGE WIGHTS. Why deny them? It’s all about “wov” and eqawity” isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (9,639 comments) says:

    xy / thepeople’sflag –

    $500 might not seem like much money to your magnificent selves, but down here that’s about quarter of our household’s annual rates bill.

    The issue is the giving away people’s hard-earned money to interest groups that should fund their own damn conference. Not the fact that it is gay something.

    (FFS, it was a CONFERENCE.. how many people were there? Could they not have put their hands in their OWN pockets for like $20 each, for THEIR conference? )

    I would like to have a conference to discuss the merits of a proposal for there to be a special lane on the motorway reserved for British cars built before 1980. Should gay ratepayers stump up cash to support my conference? If not, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. xy (167 comments) says:

    I also note that the taxpayer’s union is calling being gay a ‘sexual preference’ in that press release – good work slipping in the conservative dogwhistles there, guys!

    [DPF: Don't lie. That was a reference to polyamory, not being gay.]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Harriet (4,614 comments) says:

    “……aim to improve people’s wellbeing and safety and/or celebrate and make more visible the Rainbow Community’s artistic and cultural diversity…”

    Safety and well being? So Aucklanders are homo bashers and those who live elsewhere are probably not?

    That’s a fucken sick joke on rate payers if ever I saw one!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RightNow (6,839 comments) says:

    RRM ” having two wives in chez RRM wouldn’t cost much more than having just one, but twice as much cleaning and housework would get done.”

    Mate, you’re dreaming!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dubya (222 comments) says:

    “I would like to have a conference to discuss the merits of a proposal for there to be a special lane on the motorway reserved for British cars built before 1980″

    It’s called the hard shoulder, sponsored by Lucas Electrics and Derek Robinson!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RightNow (6,839 comments) says:

    “Up to a whole $500!!! What a whinge about nothing.”

    That’s socialists for you, when it’s OPM $500 is nothing.
    Ask them to pay it themselves then. It’s nothing!

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Komata (1,142 comments) says:

    But isn’t ‘Polyamory’ love for a parrot?

    If that is the case, Len will have a very clear conscience.

    (Until someone ‘flips the bird’; oh wait, according to Ms Chen, that’s already been done…)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Nice to know the Taxpayers’ Union has the resources to investigate $500. Next up: tea money scandal at IRD.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Huevon (211 comments) says:

    “Polyamory”…FFS! Reading things like that just makes me want to go live in the wilderness. Can we stop the world? I want to get off.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Unity (406 comments) says:

    Has the Auckland Council gone mad? However, why are we surprised, shocked or dismayed? This has been on the cards since they allowed homosexuals to call their unions ‘marriage’ – totally demeaning the word. As others have said, if it’s ‘only $500′ they should have funded it themselves. What a total waste of ratepayers money. All these $500′s add up.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. kowtow (7,932 comments) says:

    There’s only one sort of poo pipes the council should be involved in and it ain’t these ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Zebulon (78 comments) says:

    Unity, this is not about gay people per se, it is about agenda toting extremists who hitch themselves to the wagon of normal, law abiding, people who happen to be gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. dirty harry (444 comments) says:

    mikemilk strikes again..mr contrary

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Love your work, dirty harry.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. dime (9,663 comments) says:

    “Up to a whole $500!!! What a whinge about nothing.”

    ok, lets cut your bene by $500 next week. you wont whinge, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Unity (406 comments) says:

    Yes, I could see that Zebulon but once homosexuals were allowed to call their union ‘marriage’, then it was only a matter of time (I didn’t think it would happen so quickly) before certain people started exploring more extreme relationships. I also object to nice words like ‘gay’, ‘rainbow’ etc now being used to describe homosexuals. And I’m certainly not a homophobic as I have a brother-in-law and some of my associates in this category and they are very nice people. I have a niece called Gaye and this lovely name is not the same now.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nukuleka (270 comments) says:

    As I posted in the General Debate this is what happens every time we shift the line in the sand: civil union for same sex couples leads onto same sex ‘marriage’ leads onto the absurdity that is ‘polyamory’ leads onto…

    Many of those who campaigned for same sex marriage, particularly hard line feminist lesbians, wish to destroy that institution by making it meaningless. So far they are doing a pretty good job and we as a society are aiding and abetting them, thanks to idiots making funding decisions at the Auckland Council.

    At the risk of being repetitive, this is exactly why I totally oppose any legalisation of voluntary euthanasia. This will then lead on to child euthanasia (as has happened in Belgium) and lead to calls for euthanasia of the handicapped the infirm and so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Why would anyone be against polyamory? Surely the personal relationships of consenting adults is of interest only to those individuals. Why do we even have marriage laws?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RightNow (6,839 comments) says:

    Dear Taxpayer’s Union,

    There’s this public servant who keeps commenting on Kiwiblog during the time he should be working. Please can you investigate?
    I think you’ll find the IP address he connects with is within a block allocated to one of our government departments.
    I understand he’s impressed you have the resources to investigate small matters, and he definitely fits into that category.

    Thanks in advance.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Nice to know you’ve got time for the big things too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    Why do we even have marriage laws?

    In order to legislate for compulsory butt sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. chris (589 comments) says:

    Don’t often agree with you mikenmild, but I’ve often wondered the same thing about marriage laws. *Why* do we need laws that say who and who can’t get married and a register that shows who is? For property law once upon a time, yes. But we have other laws these days which deal with property equity in relationships, so I’m not sure why we still need a Government controlled system for deciding who can and can’t and that it needs to be centrally recorded.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Northland Wahine (655 comments) says:

    I have this overwhelming urge to skip around singing “Polly wolly doodle all the day”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Chuck Bird (4,763 comments) says:

    Good work Taxpayers Union. I just donated $100. I would have donated sooner and probably more but I was unhappy with the attack on Mojo over something that related to her disability. She would be the best of the Green MPs. I am certainly not a Green supporter but she has been attacked in the past relating to her communication in Parliament albeit not by the Taxpayers Union but those attacks were petty and unfair.

    Unlike the weirdos who got the $500 Mojo did not choose her disability.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. prosper (139 comments) says:

    Does anyone no the name of the person or persons in council that requested and approved this expenditure. If so they should be named and held accountable for frivolous expenditure of rate payers money.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. kowtow (7,932 comments) says:

    Doesn’t matter if it was only one measly dollar, it’s the principle of what councils waste rates payers money on.This type of waste is going on all round the country.

    We need to get back to rate payer control of spending and that means that only rate payers should be allowed to vote in council elections.

    That would keep the looney left and feel good wankers off councils and protect rate payers interests.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ross411 (295 comments) says:

    chris (511 comments) says:
    June 5th, 2014 at 1:32 pm
    Don’t often agree with you mikenmild, but I’ve often wondered the same thing about marriage laws. *Why* do we need laws that say who and who can’t get married and a register that shows who is? For property law once upon a time, yes. But we have other laws these days which deal with property equity in relationships, so I’m not sure why we still need a Government controlled system for deciding who can and can’t and that it needs to be centrally recorded.

    You’ve got to categorise things strictly so you can best tell people how to live their lives and how much it will cost to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RRM (9,639 comments) says:

    [DPF: Don't lie. That was a reference to polyamory, not being gay.]

    Umm… DPF… the paragraph xy was referring to was the following:

    Earlier this year the Rainbow Door Fund was established to provide grants for glbti people. We [Taxpayer's Union] think it is questionable for Auckland Council to fund community groups based on the sexual preferences of their members.

    Therefore xy was actually correct in pointing out that the TU press release characterised orientation as a “preference”.

    (Not that this takes anything away from the real issue of public money being wasted… ;-)

    But, perhaps, a timely reminder that the Taxpayer Union needs to take the utmost care to make sure every word is squeaky clean, as the left HATES them and will jump on any opportunity to paint them as some sort of hate group. )

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ross411 (295 comments) says:

    Unity (135 comments) says:
    June 5th, 2014 at 12:59 pm
    Has the Auckland Council gone mad? However, why are we surprised, shocked or dismayed? This has been on the cards since they allowed homosexuals to call their unions ‘marriage’ – totally demeaning the word. As others have said, if it’s ‘only $500′ they should have funded it themselves. What a total waste of ratepayers money. All these $500′s add up.

    Let’s look at the “$500″‘s for this year, which don’t include perhaps many things like this mere $500.

    Auckland Arts Festival: $2.305m, up $75,000 on last year.
    APO: $2.942m, up $125,000.
    Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter: $450,000, down $450,000.
    Auckland Theatre Company: $1.415m, up $85,000.
    Coastguard Northern Region: $670,000, up $20,000.
    NZ Opera: $800,000, no change.
    Stardome Observatory: $1.269m, up $150,000.
    Surf Life Saving Northern Region: $1.2m, up $60,000.
    Voyager Maritime Museum: $1.975m, up $100,000.
    Watersafe Auckland: $970,000, up $50,000.

    The council should only be funding things for public benefit. This is not the Opera. Rich people love that shit I guess, let them fund it. It is not the Theatre. DPF laps that shit up, let him pay higher ticket prices. Why does the council need to pay for the Arts festival, let the people who go pay. The museum and the observatory are things people take their kids to (I have none) but do not object to my rates when living in AKL going to them. The rest are perhaps deserving public services.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. xy (167 comments) says:

    DPF: Here is the quotation:

    ‘Earlier this year the Rainbow Door Fund was established to provide grants for glbti people. We think it is questionable for Auckland Council to fund community groups based on the sexual preferences of their members.’

    How did I lie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Albert_Ross (270 comments) says:

    Is it OK to say “queer” these days or is it one of those words that people are only allowed to say about themselves?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Rex Widerstrom (5,328 comments) says:

    “I’m not a bigot, my brother in law and some of my friends are gay, BUT… calling their union a marriage ‘totally demeans the word’.”

    The Age of Enlightenment seems to have entirely passed by some sections of the population.

    So, chris the answer to your question:

    *Why* do we need laws that say who and who can’t get married and a register that shows who is?

    Is evidently so some people’s marriage isn’t demeaned by other people’s marriage. Clearly a marriage is like a house. Yours can be as attractive and sturdy as the best of them, but if someone moves in next door and doesn’t cut their lawn, the value of yours plummets.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. kowtow (7,932 comments) says:

    The Age of Enlightenment……try two men getting married anywhere during the alleged age of enlightenment. They’d a been locked up or hanged!

    It’s only since the Age of Lunacy ie the last 5 to 6 years that any of this daft nonsense has taken off.Thanks to “equality” whatever that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Steve (North Shore) (4,522 comments) says:

    Len Brown and the Auckland City Council should have a funded conference on ‘Common Sense’
    They might learn something, but don’t hold your breath

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Don’t know if $500 bucks would go far for the time it would take them to develop common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Rex Widerstrom (5,328 comments) says:

    What’s equality, kowtow? It’s when you and I have equal opportunity, unburdened by discrimination based on how we look, think or love. It’s when I don’t have the right to come round your house and stick my nose into your business unless there’s a very good reason indeed, that reason generally being that your actions are causing material harm – and not just “offence” – to a third party. And where I can choose to marry a settee if I decide I wish to (or – gasp – two settees), since that would in no way diminish or affect your marriage or that of anyone else. I really can’t see why anyone would have a problem with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. RightNow (6,839 comments) says:

    Xy. .. As I see it DPF is saying the “sexual preferences” comment was that their preference was for polyamory regardless of whether they were gay. I take it to mean he would have said the same thing if it was a bunch of straight people.

    I don’t think you lied though, you just took it a different way than it seems to have been intended.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. OneTrack (2,813 comments) says:

    “Does anyone no the name of the person or persons in council that requested and approved this expenditure. If so they should be named and held accountable for frivolous expenditure of rate payers money.”

    Len?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    It is interesting to see MSM en masse are still giving this piece of lying filth support. They have of late, shown they are as filthy and low as Lecher, Dotcom, or Mallard.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. ChardonnayGuy (1,183 comments) says:

    Yes, and the Auckland Council, Manukau City Council and Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board have spent how many dollars worth of ratepayers money on their tiresome **conservative moralist** hobbyhorse of banning street sex work under the Manukau City (Regulating Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill? I’ve suggested to the Taxpayers Union that they look into that little ratepayer rort, because I suspect the total expenditure on those items will come to a lot more than $500.

    Incidentally, though, LGBT Aucklanders pay rates as well, and given that they tend to belong to managerial and professional occupational groups, we may end up paying a more significant proportion of our rates than many straight Aucklanders. Personally, though, I wouldn’t have spent money on a polyamory Q&A. P/crystal meth, on the other hand, is a grave and serious threat to LGBT and other Aucklanders and I hope that the council would certainly fund that particular option.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.