Legal Beagle: The Inexorable Advance
289 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
"human rights implement"
instrument, even. instrument. I can haz edit function?
-
But Souter doesn't need one. He has a monopoly of buses in Wellington as well as receiving state funding
I thought Stagecoach had sold their bus interests to Infratil. It's now Lloyd Morrison et al running them as "Go Wellington".
-
For me, there are such things as community rights, and the student community have a right to exercise these where they collectively choose to do so.
I don't think anyone is arguing against this. The one "right" I'm trying to remove from the student community is the right to force me to be a member of an incorporated society of which someone may not want to be a member - feel free to argue their doing so is a reasonable limit on an individual student's right to freedom of association, but elevating that choice to the level of a right seems a little far-fetched.
Why would I want to stop the student community from collectively organising? I support collective action. I just don't see why this specific case your right to choose to associate with someone is more important than their right to choose not to associate with you.
If, as you say, the current Bill of Rights makes it unlawful for a university to require its members to join a student union, why has there been no challenge in the courts?
First, because currently universities don't require their members to a join a student union (at least not any more). And second, because someone would have to bring one, and the only associations of students wealthy enough to afford it probably wouldn't want to - this will not be the only matter where legislation falls short of constitutional guarantees that is as yet untested in out courts.
On the broader question, you create an unbalanced situation where a wealthy, right-wing foreigner has the right to use their NZ customers money to propagandise freely, whilst poorer, left-wing students do not.
That's what I'm fighting against - left-wing students' right to propagandise freely with compulsorily-acquired student money? Thank you! You've made my argument a lot easier!
-
On the broader question, you create an unbalanced situation where a wealthy, right-wing foreigner has the right to use their NZ customers money to propagandise freely, whilst poorer, left-wing students do not.
Really? So, Greater Wellington should be handing out contracts on basis of whether or not you approve of the political activism of a foreign national twelve thousand miles away? And that relates to CSM exactly how? Seriously, I've missed a lot of links in this particular daisy chain of argument.
-
I don't think anyone is arguing against this. The one "right" I'm trying to remove from the student community is the right to force me to be a member of an incorporated society of which someone may not want to be a member - feel free to argue their doing so is a reasonable limit on an individual student's right to freedom of association, but elevating that choice to the level of a right seems a little far-fetched.
So the current position is that the freedom of association rule doesn't mean freedom from association in all cases and/or that the ECHR has found that compulsory student unionism either doesn't breach the rule or is a reasonable limitation? Possibly that's overly ellipitical but that's my quick reading of the discussion (and I'd rather not read the cases, it'll trigger horrible memories of my inadequacies as a law student).
-
I'm not sure when you went to university, but I think someone misled you there.
If so, it was consistent, because I asked every single year, when it came time to opt to pay the fees, what would I miss out on, and the answer always started with the library.
I should point out that the legendary speedboat money was spent by an Auckland President operating illegally under the AUSA constitution. He's also a passionate right-wing VSMer.
Sure, but it's still grist to the "Why should I have to be in this stupid Union?" mill. That it was piss easy to rort so outrageously was not a big selling point.
-
Sure, but it's still grist to the "Why should I have to be in this stupid Union?" mill. That it was piss easy to rort so outrageously was not a big selling point.
Because leaders doing stupid things is not a reason for things being compulsory or not.
I don't like things the national government are doing, and I hope they don't win the next election. I don't get an opt out pass because they do stupid things with 'my' money.
I don't like everything my national sporting body does. That doesn't mean I opt out, that means I get in and try and make it better.
-
Because leaders doing stupid things is not a reason for things being compulsory or not.
I agree. This is an argument for greater scrutiny, not an argument about membership. Still, Ben's point rankles with me too. I resented being tarred with the incompetence -brush when, more often than not, some idiot had acted well outside their authority (every third or fourth AUSA president from memory).
-
No one had to belong to the UCSA.
Never did.
Still don't.
-
No one ever said there was forced membership of the UCSA; rather that forced membership of the UCSA would be no worse than forced membership of UC.
The UCSA is an interesting example in that there are no membership fees so it makes very little difference if membership is compulsory or not. (And the UCSA has universal membership you can waive, but then take up again if you want it, which makes the distinction seem utterly pointless to me.)
-
Graeme
I may be missing something here, but isn't there something highly ironic about your stance on universal student association membership, given your advocacy - in your previous post - of universal church membership, where you said as follows:
"And it just doesn't seem fair that we all benefit from their existence, but don't all contribute to them. The freeloaders in society – most of us, I fear – gain these substantial benefits but offer no assistance: I wonder if it isn't time for a little more universality. Given the role they play, why aren't all required to play their part?"
Unless that entire post was a carefully constructed satire, it seems you are playing on both sides of the fence.
-
Unless that entire post was a carefully constructed satire, it seems you are playing on both sides of the fence.
It was carefully constructed satire.
-
No one ever said there was forced membership of the UCSA
Yep, so why legislate? The first set of legislation took away the right of members to disestablish their students’ association at a general meeting if they so wished. Students’ freedom to disassociate was abused by the first lot of VSM legislation.
Ironic, no?
-
It was carefully constructed satire.
Sonofa... Who are you, Rob Lowe in The West Wing?
-
On the Human Rights issue, one of the Exec in 1999 was pro-VSM until Amnesty International published a letter in Canta saying they didn't believe it was a Human Rights issue. If anyone cared it should be about early 1999.
-
Can you do school vouchers next?
-
On the Human Rights issue, one of the Exec in 1999 was pro-VSM until Amnesty International published a letter in Canta saying they didn't believe it was a Human Rights issue.
An Amnesty International letter writing campaign to free poor widdle right-wingers from being forced to be members of radical left-wing student collective associations. My big wet dream.
-
Can you do school vouchers next?
I can in four sentences. Here goes.
1. The New Zealand school system currently provides significant choice for parents by comparison with most first world western nations.
2. New Zealand schools are currently improving, in absolute and relative terms, as measured in terms of student achievement.
3. There's one - count them, one - study that shows positive educational outcomes related to vouchers (US, Washington DC from memory).
4. Almost all the support for vouchers in NZ relates to a Swedish study relating to their transformation from a centrally controlled system to a system that still doesn't afford parents the level of choice available in NZ.
-
Can you do school vouchers next?
But what would the analogy be?
Hmmm. An argument about how state housing assistance should only be provided through public housing estates ... and that those who choose to live in the private sector because they think it suits their family or children better are undermining public housing and shouldn't expect government assistance?
That could work. But the follow-up straight post wouldn't be particularly indignant.
-
I'd rather you went down the road of "Sir Roger Douglas - the Musical" myself.
-
Oh, and the original Sam Seaborn I suppose. "She says she always has to ask her father's permission before having lunch with fascists" is still a pretty good line.
-
I'd rather you went down the road of "Sir Roger Douglas - the Musical" myself.
On that note - I just discovered that Roger encouraged his facebook fans to read my "excellent piece on VSM".
"She says she always has to ask her father's permission before having lunch with fascists" is still a pretty good line.
Was looking for the argument itself myself, unfortunately Youtuber Kelseyshuan only seems to uploaded the bit before and the bit after...
-
I think you owe plenty o' beers to the people who argued with you the last few days. Get a PA sponsor to do something about that.
-
I think you owe plenty o' beers to the people who argued with you the last few days.
Okay.
Now I'm sure we're at cross purposes.
I support voluntary membership of students' associations at New Zealand universities and other tertiary institutions.
I do not support universal membership of churches.
I replied in response to this, from Daniel Kalderimis:
I may be missing something here, but isn't there something highly ironic about your stance on universal student association membership, given your advocacy - in your previous post - of universal church membership, where you said as follows:
"And it just doesn't seem fair that we all benefit from their existence, but don't all contribute to them. The freeloaders in society – most of us, I fear – gain these substantial benefits but offer no assistance: I wonder if it isn't time for a little more universality. Given the role they play, why aren't all required to play their part?"
Unless that entire post was a carefully constructed satire, it seems you are playing on both sides of the fence.
That entire post - in which I argued for universal church membership - was the satirical one.
-
That's a relief. Of sorts.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.