Hard News: The March for Democracy
759 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 31 Newer→ Last
-
I still can't believe anyone took that claim seriously
With respect George, I don't believe they made that claim - they said "no sales of state assets" in the first term. That bill doesn't do anything like sell a state asset.
-
The point about human rights is that they are granted solely by virtue of the fact that the person is human. No other considerations apply.
Unfortunately, people of all stripes, including Helen Clark (who waged a war on Zaoui to strip him of the rights he had under international law), do not understand this.
-
Where the hell is our media in protesting these flagrant abuses of Parliament? Answer: chasing chickens around the grounds of Parliament.
Ah yes, George, a single bloody blog post by Audrey Young and it's the death of democracy. Can I introduce you to Cathy Odgers...
-
RNZ had something about Sensible Sentencing Trust complaining they're gonna be denied Charitable Status.
Maybe it's just a tease but I'm smiling
-
This also puts makes obviously false the claim that they would not start privatising functions of the state in their first term.
That was never what they said. They said there would be no asset sales in the first term. Totally different things.
-
RNZ had something about Sensible Sentencing Trust complaining they're gonna be denied Charitable Status.
Maybe it's just a tease but I'm smiling
No, based on my understanding of charities law that's an entirely reasonable denial. The primary (only?) function of Insensible Sentencing is political activism, which is not a charitable activity.
-
Ah yes, George, a single bloody blog post by Audrey Young and it's the death of democracy. Can I introduce you to Cathy Odgers...
No, that's not what I said. I may be prone to hyperbole, but only slightly.
The problem is that it's all "the Game" for New Zealand media. It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion about almost any policy matter apart from economics (which is relatively well covered). And as everyone knows, one you mention the game, you just lost.
My housemates recently visited NZ and spent most of their time in Golden Bay. They asked their hosts if their television was missing reception for channels. They wondered where the serious news and information programming was. It's not one silly story by Audrey Young that bothers me. It's that it's all a joke.
-
Maybe it's just a tease but I'm smiling
Considering there's nothing charitable about their views I'm pretty sure it's a tease.
-
"There's games beyond the fucking game." - Stringer Bell
(Erm, not that the New Zealand media are mid-level drug dealers, necessarily.)
-
"There's games beyond the fucking game." - Stringer Bell
Yes, marriage is beyond it, for some.
-
That's why I'm a fan of the political compass, which seeks to give a two-dimensional representation of political opinions
I'm not, because policy is joined up and interlinked.
If like ACT, you pursue policies that build social injustice, the fallout from that is an underclass of socially excluded, delinquent people. The "fix" for that is increased authoritarianism - ban the drugs the underclass have problems with, lock people up for wearing patches, sterilise the poor. Of course, there are better and nicer fixes involving removing root causes, but they're excluded by propertarian ideology.
The other half to that is the need to build "democratic" support behind policies that benefit a small, wealthy group. That typically involves giving the middle class the idea that they are above a small underclass group that can be scapegoated and attacked. Hence the existence of people like David Garrett in ACT.
-
Looks like it's not a tease. Multiple returned stories about how SST is facing the loss of its status as a charity, because it's deemed to be primarily a political activism body.
From TV3:The Charities Commission has told the SST that its primary role appears to be political advocacy, and as such is not eligible to be officially recognised as a charity. Without charitable status, the SST would have to pay tax on donations received, and supporters' contributions would not be tax-deductible.
“We have already been advised by one generous sponsor that funding for next year’s victims’ conference will stop if we are denied charitable status,” says SST founder Garth McVicar.
Obviously not such a generous sponsor after all.
-
RichO:
The "fix" for that is increased authoritarianism - ban the drugs the underclass have problems with, lock people up for wearing patches, sterilise the poor.
And increasingly, video games.
- NZGamer - Michael Laws Slams Modern Warfare 2 (Updated with Audio)
- Family First press release - Violent Video Game Should Be BannedMatt P:
Looks like it's not a tease. Multiple returned stories about how SST is facing the loss of its status as a charity, because it's deemed to be primarily a political activism body.
From TV3:I'm not one to engage in schadenfreude, but...
-
I'm not, because policy is joined up and interlinked.
I'm not because two dimensions is definitely better than one, but no substitute for the enormous number possible. The political compass seems to me only useful in showing plainly that one dimension is not enough.
It seems to me that the choices we make about the dimensions convey a lot about the assumptions made by the pollsters. To join the numbers from 2 separate questions, so that they contribute to a position along an axis is say that the questions resemble each other in some way. This is a choice made by the polling method, not by the person being polled.
This graphing method seems to be very popular with ACToids, because it seems to place them in a position that controls a great deal of the graph. But that's just because the graph chooses to plot the dimensions in which they deviate the most from the others. If the graph had a Green dimension, then the Green party would clearly be on the very edge of it somewhere, and everyone else would seem to be tightly grouped. If it had an immigration dimension, NZ First would not appear near the middle.
-
Looks like it's not a tease
Cheeky bastards.
-
Wait, the SST is CURRENTLY a registered charity? Cripes
-
I love how they claim that they're actually a support group and they do very liitle advocacy.
Yet go to their website (as the Charities Commission has done) and the pages Articles, Newsletter, Statistics, Policy, Submissions and Press Releases all come before "Victim Support" which is just one link to Parole Board contacts and their own article on drugs are bad!How on earth they are currently getting charitable tax status is beyond me.
-
If like ACT, you pursue policies that build social injustice, the fallout from that is an underclass of socially excluded, delinquent people.
Which is what it means to be Left... behind.
-
How on earth they are currently getting charitable tax status is beyond me.
If they originally gained it as a "group to provide support and advocacy for the victims of crime", that would be entirely unremarkable. That they're now a "group to advocate for the victims of crime" is where it gets messy. They do precious little support work that anyone sees, but plenty of political advocacy.
I'm not outraged that they managed to register as a charity, but it would be a farce if they were to retain that status now that it's been brought to the attention of the Commission.
-
Great, so it's easy to get charitable status, but you actually have to do good in order to keep it.
I like it, a very positive out look, anyone can give it a go, but you will be judged accordingly. -
"There's games beyond the fucking game." - Stringer Bell
Off topic, but *highfive*! About three episodes from the end of Season Three as we speak. Can't wait to see how Hamsterdam falls to bits...
-
I'm not outraged that they managed to register as a charity, but it would be a farce if they were to retain that status now that it's been brought to the attention of the Commission.
By that token, Family Fist (sic) and For the Sake of Our Children have also crossed, or are otherwise dangerously near, the dividing line between charity and political lobby group that the Sensibles have crossed.
-
I like it, a very positive out look, anyone can give it a go, but you will be judged accordingly.
Being a charity is a very broad brush. If what you do is in some way about bettering the lot of society, you probably qualify. But you can't be doing it for pecuniary gain, and you can't be doing it for furthering political ends.
-
Off topic, but *highfive*! About three episodes from the end of Season Three as we speak. Can't wait to see how Hamsterdam falls to bits...
Season four of The Wire: pinnacle of human civilisation.
-
By that token, Family Fist (sic) and For the Sake of Our Children have also crossed, or are otherwise dangerously near, the dividing line between charity and political lobby group that the Sensibles have crossed.
FF claims that it "Provides advice / information / advocacy" and "Sponsors / undertakes research". It would certainly be interesting to have their registration put under the spotlight.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.