Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Keith Ng,
Sure, democracies do the wrong thing all the time. Doesn’t that mean they shouldn’t have the right to do it?
Well, yes. Some wrong things anyway. That's what fundamental rights are.
Democracies don't get to torture. And they don't get to convict people of crimes without fair trials. And they don't get to unreasonably limit freedom of expression or freedom of religion or freedom of association.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Keith Ng,
You’re conflating what the kinds of conditions the state can set with whether the state can set conditions at all.
I don’t know that I’m conflating them, so much as ignoring one of them.
Of course the state can set some conditions (e.g. “if you go to university, you must pass at least half your course if you want funding the following year.” or "you must be lawfully in New Zealand, with citizenship, residency or some sort of visa"), but it cannot legitimately set conditions that breach fundamental human rights.
Well strengthen the opt-out clauses then.
I’d be fine with that. The issue I took with your post was that you stated we had opt-out clauses. We don’t.
A real opt-out clause would meet the human rights objections I have raised. I encourage you to read my submission on the VSM bill, where I said the same thing to the Select Committee. My position was and remains that the current law (I doubt the bill has the Royal assent yet, so I’m probably right in saying that) represents an unreasonable limit on freedom of association. A law change to allow full opt-out would mean, in my opinion, that the law around students’ association would be a reasonable limit on freedom of association, and would not raise any freedom of association concerns on my part. ACTonCampus probably wouldn’t be happy about it, but they wouldn’t have human rights law on their side.
WTF? Since when did this change from freedom of association to freedom of expression? But while we’re here, freedom of expression is sacrosanct except when it’s not.
As with the other examples I gave, this was an example. Wanting to attend a (public) university should be possible without giving up your right to freedom of association, and without giving up your right to freedom of expression, and without giving up your right to freedom of religion.
Your argument seemed to at least imply that freedom of association wasn’t all that important. It happens to be a fundamental right protected in pretty much the same way as the other fundamental rights, like freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Using the other rights in my argument may help some people who don’t consider some fundamental rights to be anywhere near as important as others to see the point I am making.
OPT-OUT CLAUSE.
You’re going to ask why opt-out clause rather than VSM, right?
No.
Again, I’m not sure you understood where I was coming from. You seemed to imply that the current situation was an acceptable limit on freedom of association because there was an op-out clause.
I would be fine with an opt-out clause. It would meet every legal and human rights objection I have raised.
The problem with the view as expressed is that we did not have an opt-out clause. The status quo ante was therefore, in my opinion, an unjustifiable limit. Again, I encourage you to read my submission on the bill.
If we had full opt-out, you might still be having this argument, but I certainly wouldn’t be having it with you.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to NBH,
(clearly my understanding of the Law Society requirement was incorrect, so I’ll withdraw that part)
I should add that lawyers must all pay money to the New Zealand Law Society for it to perform its regulatory function (they also pay money to fund the Legal Complaints Review Officer). The NZLS has a membership process for its duel representative role (that bit is voluntary). In this respect it is like the others you list (e.g. the Medical Council), so from your perspective (simplified by me as: if you pay it money, you're a member) it is probably how you imagine.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to NBH,
In other words, members of these organisations are forced to belong to them even if they are virulently opposed to the agendas of these organisations
People are forced to fund them. They are not forced to belong to them.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Who runs the cafes?
I thought the Student Unions often controlled these…
Perhaps a coloured triangle system could be introduced to identify Student Union members who can access these facilities, or a two-tier pricing set up?
Ditto for Student Health clinics…I can't speak for every university, but, at Victoria:
the cafes operate on a contract to the University.
Student health clinics are run by the University.
Student Learning Support, Student Accommodation Service, Maori and Pasifika staff support, Te Rōpū Āwhina (a support type group for Maori science engineering, architecture and design students), te Herenga Waka (the VUW Marae), Te Pūtahi Atawhai (Maori student mentoring scheme), the Chaplaincies, the Creches, Careers Services, Counselling, Student Financial Support, Disability Support, the Facilitation and Disputes Advisory Service, the Physiotherapy Clinic, the Gymnasium (I'll stop here): But that would be, in order: the university, the university, the university, the university, the university, the university, the university, the university, the university, the university, the university, the university, the university, the university, and the university. -
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Gregor Ronald,
When we want to set up new systems or major projects, we always invite someone from the students’ association to represent the student view. How will we do this under the new regime? How will we do this under the new regime? Put an ad on the noticeboard in the caf?
Given that they almost certainly only ever presented the "view of a student" and not "the student view", I'm not sure much will change.
Send out a call with the university's weekly email newsletter? And if it doesn't have one, might that no be a reason students don't get involved in the university more broadly?
Also, why do you assume there won't be a students' association? I know that at my law school, the Law Faculty sought input from the (voluntary) Law Students' Society on issues (and occasionally put up notices as well). I know that when the Government is considering amending a technical law, it seeks input from the (voluntary) New Zealand Law Society, and often from the (voluntary) New Zealand Bar Association or the (voluntary) Criminal Bar Association. When the New Zealand Transport Agency is considering amending something or other it might seek input from the (voluntary) Automobile Association, or the (voluntary) Land Transport Forum.
If you want the views of some students, there's nothing stopping you from asking the (voluntary) students' association, and also allowing any random student to have a say. You could perhaps ask colleagues at Auckland University how they do it, because they've been operating with VSM for a while now.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Russell Brown,
As a member of the community and taxpayer, my interest is in the facilities and institutions in the care of student unions. I see a range of benefits in, for example, student media. I think students owe the rest of us some duty of continuity in those things.
Absolutely. And that some students' associations, despite knowing that VSM was coming sooner or later, haven't spent the last decade ensuring that they were at least partly prepared for the changeover is a massive indictment on them. You have every right to be pissed. Because it didn't have to be this way.
I know that a VUWSA president was funded to go to Australia in order to see what effect the VSM on their students' associations. I suspect, but don't know for certain, that NZUSA presidents may have done the same.
Why that president didn't make use of that trip not just to gather evidence of the problems of VSM, but also to research how New Zealand Students' Associations could be better prepared and ensure continuity, I don't know.*
A change like this is always going to be tough, but students' associations could have spent the last two years at least (and probably more) not only fighting VSM, but also preparing for it. The eggs-in-one-basket approach they seem to have taken was always incredibly high-risk, and certainly reckless. The community, and the students who have gone before, have every right to be livid.
*p.s. I actually do know why: the trip was little more than a holiday, and the president involved was ultimately asked to pay the money back to VUWSA that it spent subsidising the trip. The short report he ended up writing months after he got back, was apparently plagiarised from some website, with basically no reference to anything he actually saw. It may not surprise you that this was the "I heart my penis" guy.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to NBH,
Graeme, perhaps a better analogy than Rich’s upthread would be the various compulsory regulatory bodies for professions and trades (such as the health regulatory authorities, the Teacher’s Council, the Plumbing, Gasfitting & Drainlaying Board, I believe the Law Society etc.).
To be a practitioner in these areas you have to belong to these organisations, pay often quite significant fees etc. This is the case even if you disagree with their stances and decisions around regulation and standards, their lobbying activities, and the like. Do you have a problem with those arrangements from a freedom of association point of view?
I do have a position. I support the legislative amendments made over the last few years that have made membership of these organisation voluntary in recognition of the fact that compelling membership of such bodies would be an unreasonable limit on freedom of association.
Lawyers are not now required to be members of District Law Societies. Lawyers are not required to be members of the New Zealand Law Society. Doctors are not required to members of the New Zealand Medical Association.
Doctors are subject to regulation by the Medical Council etc. Nurses are subject to regulation by the Nursing Council (but don't have to be members of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation) etc.
I have no rights-based concerns with government regulatory bodies, or practicing fees. No-one is forced to be a member, and that's the way it should be.
Would I have a rights-based concern were Victoria University to devolve various student disciplinary matters to a student-body-organised council (like, for example, that at Haverford College, or the University of Virginia? Absolutely not. Indeed, if done properly (I'm not sure I'd take that bet), it could bring about an excellent avenue for student involvement and student democracy.
And when the "student government" you're fighting to protect actually looks something like that, and doesn't breach fundamental human rights by forcing students to be members of something they don't want to be a member of, get back to me :-)
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Hilary Stace,
My father’s cousin (same surname) was head of the Students’ Association. It was one of the most important roles on campus. My father was editor of Canta. That was another, but not of the same status as President of the Assocation. But it was my father who got to interview Karl Popper.
You mean before there was legislation requiring/allowing compulsory membership of students' associations? They have my sympathies: it must have been hell. However did they survive?
I know that when Salient first started (30s, I think, although there were others before then), people had to pay to read it. Was it the same with Canta?
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I object to the way some of the money I spend on phone bills, groceries and the like go to fund organisations like the EMA and the Business Roundtable.
I object to the how I'm prohibited from having a homephone unless I become a member of the EMA.
Or, in other words, the principle is not about the money. If Auckland University wants to give some of the money it receives from tuition to a private organisation like the Auckland University Students' Association, or the Anarchists' Collective, or Tea Party, then I don't have a freedom of association, rights-based, philosophical objection to it.