Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Jeremy, if I were a canny Tuhoe person, I'm sure I would go for both options. Certainly other iwi and hapu have.
If you were were a black American in 1960, would you only confine yourself to legal strategies, because equal treatment was your legal, constitutional right? Or would you practise civil disobedience and break the law, which after all has failed to protect you and your rights? Or would you, shock horror, do both?
-
That seems a bit of a non sequitur Neil - what has that got to do with the justice, or injustice of a cause? Can we ignore a just cause because some of its advocates are unpleasant and bad? I don't think so.
-
Why not? It's called "politics."
Getting permanent redress involves working with the Crown. And that is pretty much the only avenue left open for doing so. If I were trying to advance the Tuhoe cause I would favour action towards a long-term goal over staying ideologically pure.
I personally would prefer that sort of pragmatism to an ultimately futile campaign of violence.
-
Damn, what am I going to do with this discount torch and pitchfork set now?
-
I know! How about a ritual disemvowelling?
-
Well, he's not a very good troll...
-
-
George, you say National and ACT, but I believe Rodney Hide has been quite outspoken against the bill. "Imagine what Muldoon would have done with this", he said. According to I/S, there were 10 votes against Locke's amendments - the Greens only have six MPs so who were the other four?
-
Sky City reported a drop in takings after the anti-smoking legislation came in, and I believe this is because gamblers were going outside and realising how much time (and consequently money) had passed.
I'd mandate compulsory visible daylight, and clock displays on machines at eye-level.
-
I don't think it's self-respect, Rich. I think there's an amount of variation in the way people's brains a wired, and some of us will always be on the wrong end of the bell curve. I have no problem in principle with trying to protect them (as long as those attempts are likely to work, aren't onerous to the rest of us, etc).
James is right, certain forms of gambling couldn't have been designed better to be powerfully reinforcing.
Just because prohibition isn't the answer doesn't mean all regulation is pointless.