Hard News: The next bylaw will ban irony
152 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Further to what I said earlier in response to:
the ban on patches is not a ban on association. It's a ban on wearing a particular item of clothing in a particular place. As a human right, that's well down the list.
Yes, it's a freedom of expression matter. Here's the BOR on such (my emphasis):
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
As a human right, freedom of expression is not well down the list. It's right up top.
-
Perhaps this kind of thing plays well to the home crowd, but I found it unwatchable.
I doubt that. Amateur political obsession is not a popular hobby/pasttime in China. Most of the self confessed experts come from elsewhere. I'd contend that the doco was probably more popularly watched in ten minute stabs offshore than likely to interrupt a gripping game of world of warcraft in the mainland.
-
If someone cancelled a Herald subscription solely because Garth George writes for it, then I’d say that was pretty precious too
Speaking of whom... did The Herald build a new Garth George recently?
It seems to me that those who espouse the "one nation, one people" concept are invariably white, and stand to the right of the political spectrum. That, in itself, is a cause for suspicion.
Who'da thunkit.
-
As a human right, freedom of expression is not well down the list. It's right up top.
Not really. It's probably the one most subject to caveats of all. You can't, for instance, get away with slandering people, breaching various court infomation suppression orders, copying other people's work without permission, showing other people's trademarks without permission, make claims on all sorts of products without evidence, use obscene language in public, incite a riot, tell people inside information, etc, etc, etc. And those are just during peace time.
-
Who'da thunkit.
Most definitely not me. I read it waiting for a journalistic not even ow but it didn't come? WTF?
-
And Lhaws is now offering to have the kids over for afternoon tea. I think they've been subjected to enough of him already, no?
(Also: whoever translated those letters for him needs a lesson in the difference between literal and comprehensible translation. Seriously.)
-
Who'da thunkit.
Most definitely not me. I read it waiting for a journalistic not even ow but it didn't come? WTF?
WTF indeed. I'm getting a whiff of a born-again-Maori.
-
Steve Barnes wrote :
And meanwhile. On Craig's beloved North Shore the council's lack of commitment allows another Gang to harass an old lady and deprive her of her garden.
It would appear to me, that Steve has made the common mistake of thinking that Herald headlines are an accurate representation of the story under them.
In this case :
Navy blocks green-finger granny
Reading the article, we see :
A spokeswoman said the Navy decided to take over management of the glade and instigate community planting days after Ms Barrett told them she could not continue for medical reasons.
The Navy said Mrs Pollock agreed, but had said enough planting had been done and only maintenance was required.
"As a consequence of this decision, and with Mrs Pollock's agreement, she was given three months' notice in accordance with the revocation clause in her licence."
It would appear that "blocks" has a different meaning for headline writers than it has for myself.
-
Speaking of whom... did The Herald build a new Garth George recently?
It seems to me that those who espouse the "one nation, one people" concept are invariably white, and stand to the right of the political spectrum. That, in itself, is a cause for suspicion.
Who'da thunkit.
More irony. And what's worse is he is not being wry. Scary.
-
Also, the police didn't make the by-law. They're just the poor saps that have to enforce it. I wouldn't be surprised if significant numbers of the local plod aren't too happy about that.
Rich: You're right up to a point, but I wish we weren't seeing pulbic statements...
Yes, it is pure speculation on my part, but I don't think it's an unreasonable train of thought.
The local cops probably know most or all of the local gang boys by sight anyway. The gangs are most likely going to switch away from using patches to using colours, or sportwear, or whatever, when they are within the areas covered by the ban. There will be times when they try to push the boundaries of the ban, or flaunt it altogether. It's the guys on the front line who will then be caught between their standing enforcement orders and a bunch of aggro guys up for a fight.
On the other hand, the police might be figuring that it'll keep the gangs from congregating in the town centre, and push them out to places with fewer people, so any incidents that do take place aren't as public and high-profile.
So, being in a gang precludes the ability to undetake critical analysis ? I have a cousin who is a very senior member of Black Power, and some of the stories he has told me about police behaviour leads me to conclude that the concept of a 'big blue gang' is not only apt, but able to be backed up by observed practic.
Like I said earlier, those are your words, not mine.
Gangs are made up of individual people. So is the police force.
So it isn't very surprising that there are a lot of very smart individuals in gangs. And there are also a lot of arseholes.
There are also a lot of arseholes in the police force, and there are also a lot of smart, dedicated, 'good' cops.
Institutions like the police are very, very far from perfect. But this is a democracy, no matter how imperfect, and they are answerable to us.
Who is a gang answerable to? Themselves.
As the TV camera panned around the Council chamber, all I saw were, again, a bunch of males, wearing regulation dark jackets, making a by-law that targets etc etc.
So what's your point? That our democratic institutions are flawed? That they don't do a particularly good job of representing the people they are supposed to represent? That we need to be taking steps to ensure they do represent all of us as best as we can?
If you are arguing that the price of freedom is eternal vigilence, then you'll not be getting much in the way of disgreement from me.
-
It would appear that "blocks" has a different meaning for headline writers than it has for myself.
Maybe it's a bad pun. Blocks could be like a 'block of land'. Try reading "Navy block's green-finger granny", and it's got a whole new meaning from one apostrophe. But it made you read the article, huh? Personally I skipped it on account of precognition that the article would bear small resemblance to the heading and it would most likely be a human interest story.
-
Isn't there, like, some Code of Conduct for mayors?
We have our qualms about Kerry Prendergast, but my 10 year old wrote her a steamingly indignant letter about threats to blue penguins on Wellington's south coast and got a disarmingly charming and helpful reply.
The people of Whanganui must be masochists. -
I am becoming more and more convinced that a large proportion of Laws’s policies are more about increasing his radio ratings than anything else.
-
Isn't there, like, some Code of Conduct for mayors?
Each local government council has to have a code of conduct. Link here is the one for W(h)anganui.
-
As a human right, freedom of expression is not well down the list. It's right up top.
Not really. It's probably the one most subject to caveats of all.
Is it? That looks like a guess. Regardless, I didn't say it didn't have a lot of caveats. That just indicates it’s a broad, complex notion that brings up many situations for qualifiers. The principal itself (sans whatever justified caveats there may be) is an important right that you (should) need strong justification to override. (Whereas, the right to wear “a particular item of clothing in a particular place” in itself might not be that high on the rights scale.)
(As an aside, I don’t see all the examples you used as direct “freedom of expression” caveats. Of the ones that are, most are clearly justified, and at least one is pretty much an anachronism.)
-
Well Brent, it goes on to say;
Mrs Pollock - who is fit for her age - said she wanted to keep caring for the land herself.
She was worried that her project would be undone by managers who did not understand the glade's history.
She had suffered health problems after an operation on her leg this year but was almost back to full health, she said.
Which in my mind says she wanted to continue and the Navy forced her hand. The attitude of the Council was appalling. Who is the interfering old codger in this story?. It's the Council.
And trust me, I do not take the Heralds Headlines as any indication of the story, far from it. -
WTF indeed. I'm getting a whiff of a born-again-Maori.
Nah... Looked to me more like Maaris and their deep, untainted "spirituality" being co-opted as the latest cudgel in Garth's never-ending culture war against the Feminists, Gays, Liberals and the rest of you un-Godly secular humanists who've fucked up everything. You want to cuddle up to that, be my guest. But this Maori doesn't need or welcome friends like that.
And don't forget that fundies of George's stripe regard anyone on the right who doesn't buy into their theo-con/kulturkampf conception of politics with the special "suspicion" always reserved for heretics and back-sliders. I'm sure John Key has been a particular disappointment, but you know something -- I don't care.
Yes, it is pure speculation on my part, but I don't think it's an unreasonable train of thought.
It's not, and I've talked to front-line cops who've said as much in terms I can't really repeat on a family blog. :) We're not actually disagreeing on much, but it's a rather simple matter of fact that their own management and union president have been vocally in support of this by-law and the enabling legislation that went through Parliament. If front-line officers aren't having their concerns represented by these people, I've got a big fucking problem.
-
Yeah, Steve, you could be right. The trouble is, it is so appallingly written that the poor readers such as you and I, are left trying to read between the lines to work out what the heck is actually going on.
Ahh. The Herald's stupid put-the-last-few-paragraphs-on-a-second-page-to-increase-our-page-hits policy stymied me. It makes the situation a little clearer, but I still don't see the Navy being bullies over this.
The spokeswoman said the Navy was determined to carry on Mrs Pollock's good work and would keep in touch with her about future management.
But as you say, it makes the Council look like right prats.
Cheers,
Brent. -
Is it? That looks like a guess. Regardless, I didn't say it didn't have a lot of caveats. That just indicates it’s a broad, complex notion that brings up many situations for qualifiers. The principal itself (sans whatever justified caveats there may be) is an important right that you (should) need strong justification to override. (Whereas, the right to wear “a particular item of clothing in a particular place” in itself might not be that high on the rights scale.)
(As an aside, I don’t see all the examples you used as direct “freedom of expression” caveats. Of the ones that are, most are clearly justified, and at least one is pretty much an anachronism.)
It's an opinion, rather than a guess, that freedom of expression is one of the rights that has the most exceptions. Those exceptions are usually caused by the fact that rights often conflict with other rights and resolution is needed, and freedom of expression gives way frequently to other rights and considerations. I gave a number of examples. There are plenty heaps more.
All that said, in this case, I personally don't think that wearing gang patches is a sensible 'expression' to override. However, now that it's happening, I am open to see the evidence that it could actually help. That way at least something useful might come from this particular round of Laws-induced-idiocy.
-
Yeah I know it's your opinion, but it's an opinion based on a guess.
Those exceptions are usually caused by the fact that rights often conflict with other rights ...
Exactly. One of the key reasons to limit a right is because it conflicts with another right. By its nature "Freedom of Expression" often conflicts with other rights - much more often than your right to "be told of the reasons for your arrest or detention". If a right conflicts with other rights a lot, it is more likely to be subject to justified exceptions. That doesn't mean we consider the right to be "weak".
I gave a number of examples.
There are examples of limits to the of the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of "sex, marital status, religious belief" etc... but that doesn't mean we don't value that right very highly. On the contrary, it is extremely important. But again, it often conflicts with other important rights, and so is not a given in a particular real world situation. Also, some rights have inbuilt "caveats", such as: "the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search or seizure", making it hard to compare on the grounds of which right has more caveats.
-
I don't think we're disagreeing much now Steve. If we can agree that the right to freedom of speech is not paramount, much less absolute, then all we're discussing is the extent to which a council could breach that right wrt items of clothing in their patch. I think it's a weak expression of a weak right being overridden by a weak justification that probably will not work. To that extent I think it shouldn't be done, but I'm not heartbroken. The only thing that comes through strongly in this affair is that Whanganui doesn't know how to solve it's gang problem, and it has a dick for a mayor.
-
The only thing that comes through strongly in this affair is that Whanganui doesn't know how to solve it's gang problem, and it has a dick for a mayor.
It also show that they, and local Police, are either dangerously naive or wilfully disingenuous if they believe this by-law is going to even begin to "stop gang intimidation".
Would be it out of order to remind folks that that a two-year old called Jhia Te Tua WASN'T MURDERED WITH A SCRAP OF EMBROIDERED FABRIC?
-
It also show that they, and local Police, are either dangerously naive or wilfully disingenuous if they believe this by-law is going to even begin to "stop gang intimidation".
On the flipside, they'll find out soon enough, so at least the debate can end and the question of the mayor being a dick can be settled.
-
I don't think we're disagreeing much now Steve. If we can agree that the right to freedom of speech is not paramount, much less absolute,
Well, I don't believe in absolute rights, so I agree that far. Whether it's paramount or not depends on what you mean; it is paramount in most cases - that's why we put it in an Act. If we override it for the specious reasons given in this case, it seems pointless having it in the bill at all.
...then all we're discussing is the extent to which a council could breach that right wrt items of clothing in their patch. I think it's a weak expression of a weak right being overridden by a weak justification...
There's the problem with a blasé attitude to freedom of expression: if it is a weak right, as you still seem to be maintaining, why would you need more than a weak justification to override it?
-
There's the problem with a blasé attitude to freedom of expression: if it is a weak right, as you still seem to be maintaining, why would you need more than a weak justification to override it?
You don't. That's why it gets overridden all the time. The 'freedom to express anything you like' is akin to the 'freedom to do anything you like'. Which is one of our much cherished freedoms, caveated only by the entire volume of laws our nation has saying just exactly what it is you are not allowed to do. But, if it's not in there, then you're allowed. Unless we change our minds, as we do every single day.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.