Posts by Finn Higgins
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Moana Jackson, in Stephen's link:
Was this racist?
Yes.
The Police Commissioner was correct in stating that people of "many ethnicities" were arrested. However the way they were arrested shows a marked difference in terms of race.
For example the Maori community of Ruatoki was the only community that was locked down and blockaded in the course of the Operation. It was only in Ruatoki that innocent people were stopped, searched and harassed while going about their daily lives.
When houses were raided in Auckland and Wellington the surrounding suburbs were not locked down, and no innocent Pakeha people were stopped going about their daily lives.
Does anybody else think this is an incredibly weak argument to back up calling the police racist? I can think of any number of practical, non-racist reasons why the police might not attempt to implement similar blockades around some of the busiest intersections in Auckland and Wellington.
-
To think that a person has tagged himself as a terrorist by accurately relating that he is being pursued by the state under the Terrorism Suppression Act...
No, that's just how all the headlines about "terror raids" came about. Nobody tagged themselves anything, just as the police didn't tag people terrorists by investigating them towards possible crimes committed under the TSA. They just investigated them and attempted to charge them, so the worst anybody has been tagged is a "nearly alleged terrorist".
-
Not really. There was no evidence available to the public that the TSA had been used until that point, and all the much-maligned early media headlines about "terrorism" came from that publication of the warrant. I don't get your point at all.
-
I can't be the only person who finds people who repeatedly open responses to other people's seriously argued posts with "Ha ha" very obnoxious.
-
And somehow, I don't think the police will be paying any compensation for that. Ruin people's lives, walk away laughing - it's OK if you wear a uniform.
Just to provide a counter-argument here, there was insufficient evidence presented to the courts to convict Clint Rickards of rape. Should those accusing him of rape be required to compensate him? I sure as hell don't think so, and I'm not sure I'd rather be a high-profile rapist for life than a high-profile terrorist.
-
Ben, they do that all the time. Try looking at them late at night or early morning when the content is going up - I swear they've got a terminally broken CMS.
Their link is working now, but they have the cheeky timestamp of "4:03" on it. Yeah right, it wasn't there before ten past...
-
And... Stuff wins.
-
Kevin, my comment was intended to suggest that you're either not the "university educator" you claim to be or that you're a far more damning indictment of education than anything you're railing against.
Generally speaking I would expect somebody making pronouncements on the topic of education to know the difference between "can't" and "cant", "poor" and "pour" etc.
Similarly, I'd expect anybody claiming to educate people in a university to be able to form a much more balanced, coherent and rational argument than you've managed so far today.
Would you care to give a little more detail on your position as a university educator? Institution and subject, perhaps?
-
cant... poor $10 mil of taxpayers money into the slowest learner... another rort we should face as a nation... double blinded...
"University educator" my arse.
-
This is what I mean - if somebody says something with a whole lot of hyperbole mixed in that supports you views then they have "integrity" and their account should be taken as (if you'll forgive the pun) gospel.
Example: somebody in this thread passes on their understanding of the strength of evidence in the case against the accused. Your response:
To me this looks like harrassment & sure I've seen no secret evidence or privi to those in the know. I don't trust rumour being spread by everyone from the PM to Johnno.
Then just a post or two later we have you responding to an article containing wild claims like...
this is Pharaoh and the Hebrews in Egypt all over again
... and you're hailing his integrity? What integrity is there in mouthing off your hyperbolic opinions based on what you've previously characterised as rumours?
Do you have any idea how incredibly biased and unreasonable you seem?