Hard News: Rain on his parade
298 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
Yep, still rainin.
-
Well, getting seasonably warm again - cool!
-
I know! That rain really is quite something.
Don't have much to add about boobs on bikes but I could do with a little less of the incessant drip, drip, drip I could do without ;-)
-
Bah, typo.
-
Grow up, dude.
As in, I will if you will.
Sphincter-brained little twirp. -
I'm just so over this rain, it's just so, well, er,wet and it just goes on and on. Eh.
-
In the circumstances, I agree, again, with No Right Turn that the answer to objectionable speech is more speech, in the form of protest...
So you find the Electoral Finance Act repugnant then?
-
Dylan, you seem to love bureaucracy... not to mention Morgan. You also seem to have rejected the idea of proper authority completely. Let me clue you in. What you describe is not authority .. it's the ability people have to express opinion.
Unchecked authority is authoritarianism. That seems to be what you're promoting. That's not what we have, and not what we (for the most part) want.
Sure, it seems okay as long as the authority agrees with you. But what about if they don't?
Let's say you want to have a march down Queen St to promote or celebrate something you a hundred of your mates believe in - but the council (the authority) says no. You're happy that they can arbitrarily dismiss your intention to express your opinion?
Let's go back and look at Destiny - if the council (let's say I was the Mayor) had told Destiny "no, your message is offensive to me. You can't march" - that would have been good, and just?
Or what if the council had been the opposite of themselves, and approved the permit for Booby Bikes, but declined the permit for the hyperbolic porn-hating marchers that applied to have a march preceding the boobs?
Now, shall we all start debating the 'Smacking Referendum'?
-
Now, shall we all start debating the 'Smacking Referendum'?
The referendum will be non binding but it would not surprise me if the numbers go toward "repealing the anti smacking bill". The point is that reinstating section 57 would be political suicide for any party that goes down that path. Even if the referendum gets the votes by the time it gets back to the house, if it ever does, sense will prevail. No one wants to be considered to be in favour of child abuse.
-
Or the fundamentalist parents. Note I dont limit these to christians-
-
Though I now wonder on re-reading if they're actually talking about people correcting parents by smacking them?
Touche Sacha. And a better proposal than what the petitioners think they're putting forward.
-
Dylan. Utterly irrelevant! From all accounts the council currently has NO SAY with regards to who can or cannot march down Queen St. What I suggested first up is that the council should have the ability to say yes or no. What decisions they come up with is another discussion.
Do you agree that someone has to have the authority to decide upon even trivial matters like this? If yes, who and why not the council. If no ... uh .. well. You're on your own :)
-
Are we talking about proper discipline now?
-
bit warmer again today, misty though.
i like the mist.
-
Even if the referendum gets the votes by the time it gets back to the house, if it ever does, sense will prevail. No one wants to be considered to be in favour of child abuse.
Certainly not, but I'm damn tempted to cast a 'yes' vote in the hope (probably utterly hopeless) that a few people on both sides of this particular argument would take some time out and think about whether shrill self-righteousness actually leads to sound public policy. Like the Civil Unions Bill, I just found it rather sad that people who were trying to think through some pretty complex and emotive questions where howled down. I supported the repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act, while having some doubts about the replacement. That doesn't make me a sadistic child-hating fundamentalist loon. Nor, for that matter, do I think riding crops should be used outside of dressage events or brothels that cater to, shall we say, the indulgence of certain kinks in private between consenting adults.
-
both sides of this particular argument would take some time out and think
I guess that's what I meant by "sense will prevail" We have parliament to do our dirty work for us and sometimes that work is to dirty for even them.
Did I feel a cold, damp, malodorous wind blow through here about 1.15 this morning? -
Dylan. Utterly irrelevant! From all accounts the council currently has NO SAY with regards to who can or cannot march down Queen St. What I suggested first up is that the council should have the ability to say yes or no. What decisions they come up with is another discussion.
They do have the ability to say yes or no. We also have the ability to ignore them and do it anyway. Then they have the ability to take legal action.
Do you agree that someone has to have the authority to decide upon even trivial matters like this? If yes, who and why not the council. If no ... uh .. well. You're on your own :)
I agree that someone can decide who gets a permit. My concern is that the criteria be applied in an even-handed way. So that Boobs on Bikes and Destiny can be considered in the same way. And quite frankly those criteria should have nothing to do with content.
The questions the council should ask are:
- Is it legal?
- Is there a public interest or audience?
- Is there a legitimate political message?
- What level of interruption will result?Perhaps others. But 'do I like the message/content' is not one.
-
"How am I supposed to give my wife discipline and guidance if I have to fear the police every time I give her a little corrective smack?"
No fucking way anyone is going to stand up in favour of that, so why the hell does changing 'wife' to 'child' make it alright?
And for everyone who says "but I got smacked and it didn't do me any harm" I say "Bullshit! You're now arguing in favour of the legal right to hit your kids"
-
I agree that someone can decide who gets a permit. My concern is that the criteria be applied in an even-handed way. So that Boobs on Bikes and Destiny can be considered in the same way. And quite frankly those criteria should have nothing to do with content.
The questions the council should ask are:
- Is it legal?
- Is there a public interest or audience?
- Is there a legitimate political message?
- What level of interruption will result?
Perhaps others. But 'do I like the message/content' is not one.Then we agree. Unfortunately it seems to be the case that to get to this authority one has to go through a mile of red tape...
-
Then we agree. Unfortunately it seems to be the case that to get to this authority one has to go through a mile of red tape...
No Grant, I doubt we do. Because if we did you'd agree that the council was overstepping it's bounds attempting to stop Boobs on Bikes.
-
Will someone think of the children..
-
Dylan. Either the council has the authority to say what goes or they are another hurdle to overcome before the real authority steps in.
The way I see it is that if a council cannot make simple rulings like this then they are not much use other than to provide red tape.
-
A simple ruling for a simple ruler of a simple world.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.