Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Modelling Behaviour, in reply to Russell Brown,
Not at all!
I probably asked that question in a slightly confusing way, so did you mean:
Not at all acceptable?
Or not at all unacceptable?
:-P
-
Hard News: Modelling Behaviour, in reply to Russell Brown,
Well, actually, I can. It's a view the the role of the law is to say "It's not okay".
Are you saying you agree that a law that is criminalises certain behaviour, but which you don't want police to enforce is acceptable, or unacceptable, if that law "sends a message" about harmful or potentially harmful behaviour?
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
We’re oddly not a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (which allows international complaints)
That's not that odd. We're not a party to the optional protocols allowing complaints to UN bodies about a bunch of the international treaties to which we are party.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Clare Curran usually hyperventilates a bit much for my liking, but her Pundit column on Geddis, the Crown Minerals Act and various other elisions of democracy is worth reading.
Claire Browning =/= Clare Curran.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Ana Simkiss,
Please explain. This is not my understanding.
The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy was created by the Courts.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to James W,
Also, unless conservatives know someone who’s in the position of caring for a disabled person, they don’t care.
Stuff off.
-
OnPoint: What Andrew Geddis Said, But…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
But it has been stuck in the process for a year or so while the Human Rights Review Tribunal (which is in the Ministry of Justice) decides whether to put resources into the case.
I think you mean the Office of Human Rights Proceedings. And it's an independent office within the Human Rights Commission.
-
Is this a legitimate case for the GG to refuse to sign this into law?
No. We still get an election 18 months.
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Bob Williams,
I recall facilitating a “consensus” process once and being reminded by the participants that “consensus” isn’t the same as “agreement” or “unanimous”
Merriam-Webster gives unanimity as one of the definitions of consensus.
The consensus definition in wikipedia of consensus decision-making is Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported, even if not the "favourite" of each individual.
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Steven Peters,
You are happy with what the EC has produced, whereas I feel it is mere tinkering, and does not alter the status quo. In fact, it make worsens it.
I am not happy with the EC's recommendations. I think we shouldn't have a threshold at all, and that if we do, it should be much lower than 4%.