Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I predict a spectacular implosion of the goverment as Winston Peters and NZF turn on Labour in a bid to make 5% by next election.
-
The other classic Rove strategy is to accuse your opponent of your own weakness. I wonder how that will manifest?
-
Yes, what do you mean "we", white man?
That "same old monoculture" is a bit of a mirage. It's the previous national myth.
You've got a bit of a monocultural cringe going on there Mr Tibby. If I understood you right, NZ's multiculturalism, whatever that is, is a veneer over a thick wodge of monoculture, whereas Australia is exactly vice versa. And the basis for that? Restaurants. That's bullshit, mate, mere gourmet assertion.
You're just seeing more in Oz because fish don't see the water they swim in.
-
13.3 is quite clear: "3) Subsection (1) does not affect customary rights that are able to be recognised and protected under Part 3 or Part 4."
And then Parts 3 and 4 go on to enumerate what may and may not be recognised and protected in some detail. So first, there may be rights still alive other than customary ones. And second, common law may or may not provide for customary ones in ways other than the wording of the statute.
Cullen's summary -- "All the legislation does is codify into statute existing common law rights. Nothing more, nothing less" -- is mendacious. It is the classic political ploy of claiming that a law's effect will be something other than its actual wording.
I am not sure why you quoted him, but his statement is at best a higly partisan opinion.
-
Bit fiddly if you ask me, but definitely a contender. I think I prefer the James one though.
-
But Weston, I thought the point was that the courts had not yet clarified what existing common law rights there are? The Foreshore and Seabed Act effectively foreclosed any further exploration on that front. Cullen is fudging; the legislation codifies existing common law rights as Cullen understands them.
-
Can't find it online today, but there's an interesting piece by a former company secretary (Wylie) in the business supplement. It urges replacing all Gattung's appointees as well, and changing Telecom's focus from "protecting its monopoly and short-term returns to investors."
Indeed.
-
Oh Rich, those are my thoughts exactly. Gattung: great leader, poor manager. And I thought of that joke too, except if you're a Telecom shareholder, there is more than a little truth in it.
-
Talk to anyone at a low decile school and they will tell you that many of the parents do work, some of them several shift jobs, but they just don't earn much doing it.
Absolutely span. And I have a nasty feeling that often when you read a case about young people causing trouble in the paper, and you ask "but where are the parents", the answer is that they are at work, or asleep and worn out after their second shift.
-
What Neil said. Although if racism is an expression of an innate tendency, that doesn't mean we can't take steps to suppress it or steer that tendency into more constructive channels, just the same as with other anti-social behaviours.
And also, Ben said:
"Perhaps this is the true value of political correctness, that people aspire to being polite and courteous and veil their obnoxious or odd views?"
I think that is very true. And the best thing is, a younger generation grows up with a little less built-in prejudice than their predecessors, because they don't hear these things said.