Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It seems there are some people disappointed that the Government has not congratulated the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize - basically kowtowing to China. I don't see how our kowtowing to India by officially apologising for something over which the Government has (and should have) no control is all that different.
p.s. I note that John Key has now congratulated the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
-
Why is Henry's rude name a good in the market of ideas and someone calling him a cunt in response not?
It's not. I was thinking more of the comments about the Governor-General. Probably not an idea either, but closer than what Keith said.
On the pronunciation of Sheila Dikshit's surname: I wonder what people disappointed with the Government for not acknowledging the winner of Nobel Peace Prize (presumably for fear of offending the Chinese Government) think of the Government's official apology to India.
-
But it is a flat-out commercial reality that sponsors may decide their brand is no longer served by a particular association. That's a consequence. And I do sometimes think that people arguing in favour of free speech are really arguing for speech without consequences.
And it may also be some commercial reality that lead facebook(?) to delete photos of women breast-feeding their babies, but just because you can still breast-feed, and send photos of yourself feeding to your friends by email, doesn't mean free speech isn't implicated (particularly if, for example, the photo was intended to be used to push for policy change around breastfeeding).
-
you need to stretch the definition of "idea" quite a bit to include both what Henry said and your gynaecological rejoinder.
Which is not far from (one of the things) I was saying: calling Paul Henry names is not the marketplace of ideas in action.
The marketplace for ideas doesn't discriminate between rational, constructive ideas and batshit insane ad hominem attacks.
I happen to think it does. Or at least, distinguishes between those things that are ideas, and those things that are not. And perhaps neither o what you have posited, nor Henry, qualifies, but I think his was closer.
-
The counter-argument is that these businesses probably did quite well out of being associated with Henry and his somewhat nasty success.
People were calling for a complete boycott of TVNZ for what Paul Henry said. If something like that ever works, or even looks like it might work, TVNZ will become much more conservative.
-
But if we are going to accept the notion of corporate sponsorship, why should we in the least worry about sponsors being told that their money is not yielding the result they wanted?
Because of the other ways this can be used. Because punishing Heritage Hotels for something Paul Henry said over which they had no control (and shouldn't have control) isn't fundamentally different from arranging a boycott on Canwest/TV3/C4 for airing an episode of South Park about the abuse by Catholic clergy, or someone else for airing pro-homosexual something propaganda something like Queer Nation or The L Word.
We have ad-supported television. While there might be a place for a real public broadcaster, most of the television we have will continue to be ad-supported. I like that there is a variety of things to watch (most of which I don't). If we really start holding advertisers to account for the content of programmes or channels on which their ads appear, then they will be more circumspect about placing ads, and some voices may be lost.
I think liberal non-racists outraged about Paul Henry should be able to call for a boycott of him, and all of TVNZ, and the advertisers who support TVNZ. I think Christians should be able to call for a boycott of The L Word, and the channel it appeared on, and every advertiser who supports that channel. But I think if they do, despite being an exercise of free speech, it will be bad for free speech.
-
I don’t think you can blame people, Graeme, for disliking the man as well as his words. I feel kind of bad about the witchhunty nature of the clamour against him but he brought it on himself.
I'm not blaming people. I'm saying that manifesting that dislike by calling up sponsors telling them you'll boycott their hotel/whatever is bad for free speech, and that Keith's use of the marketplace of ideas to defend that manifestation is misplaced.
-
As it is, all that's apparent is that you seem rather squeamish about Henry being called out for the cynical racist that he's shown himself to be.
Call him what you like. Keith too. I'm not going to try to stop either you. Just don't defend those personal attacks as being the marketplace of ideas in action. There are a number of good reasons for attacking people directly, and for attacking Paul Henry in particular, but such attacks are the antithesis of the marketplace of ideas.
It'd be like me running for office in outback Australia and gaining votes by blaming all the town's problems on the Aboriginals and offering to round them up and throw them in jail if everyone votes for me.
Maybe. But I consider that would be a free speech issue.
-
Not saying you shouldn't be able to say it ... but: attacking someone for what they said isn't really what the marketplace of ideas is about.
The marketplace of ideas is the place where we decide that Paul Henry's suggestion that Anand Satyanand isn't a real New Zealander is false, but we do that by attacking the idea, not by attacking Paul Henry.
-
How about the govt's repeal in one of the supercity enabling acts of the part of the Local Government Act that required a referendum of voters before any amalgamation?
That didn't happen.
The requirement to hold a referendum under the Local Government Act has only ever applied to non-Parliamentary amalgamations - situations where two cities or districts were trying to join without getting permission from Parliament.
Basically: "if you want amalgamate, you have to get approval from the People, either directly, or through their representatives in Parliament".
Other large-scale amalgamations/reorgansiations have been done in the same way. The one in the late 80s (dropping from around 600 local authorities to approximately what there is now) didn't involve a single referendum.
Should they have had a referendum? Maybe.
Should the process have been better (select committee scrutiny, etc.)? Yes.
Did they breach/ignore/repeal part of the Local Government Act to avoid holding one? No.