Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I just watched question time... John Key looked like he had seen a ghost, everyone looked grim and the it was the silence of the stunned.
Yes. The contrast with national's baying for blood over every Labour Ministerial sacking/resignation couldn't be greater. OTOH, given the seriousness of the rumours, I think its probably appropriate.
No request for an Urgent Debate, which is interesting. No-one wants to touch this with a barge pole.
-
Is NZ the only country where the minister of internal affairs is outside of cabinet? Generally it's one of the very top posts.
Not in NZ, and especially not since we broke everything off into standalone portfolios.
I wonder if it points to just how much the country isn't a police state.
Very much so. Or rather, we have a seperate Minister of Police, and the SIS is under the PM, not some sort of "internal security" Minister like the UK Home Secretary (and we can dance on that grave too - good riddance to Jacqui Smith, though she lasted longer than 42 days).
-
The general tone of restraint suggests that the MPs have heard enough on the grapevine to know that piling on in the usual manner would not look good.
Yes. And there's a clear contrast in behaviour with the way the now-Government treated serious allegations leading to resignation when it was in opposition.
(Key snarked about this a little, and he needs to be called on it. But I'll need the transcript first)
-
The deathly silence in the House for these questions spoke volumes.
-
The rumours I'm hearing from a reliable source are (a) nothing to do with Watercare or any such matters, (b) very serious and (c) very very ugly. Even if they prove untrue Worth should have told the PM about them.
And defamatory to repeat if untrue.
If there's even the slightest truth to them, I'd expect Worth to resign from Parliament.
-
And then there's Key's quote in the Herald:
"His conduct does not befit a minister. I will not have him in my Cabinet. I have lost confidence in him as a minister."
That sounds pretty serious - and it makes the initial attempt at a coverup look even worse.
Question Time will be fun today, and there should be an urgent debate on the matter as well.
-
While he won't be convicted of murder for a while yet, I really can't see the problem with calling it a murder.
Ditto. OTOH, calling the alleged shooter a murderer (as opposed to an alleged murderer) would be prejudging the outcome of the trial.
-
Though it would be far more accurate to just say he was a murderer and was motivated by a pro-life agenda.
Which of course ignores the sustained campaign of violence against US abortion providers. 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 179 assaults, 4 kidnappings, 659 bioterror threats, 41 bombings, 175 arsons, and 96 attempted bombings or arsons since 1977. The only reason they haven't killed more people is because they don't have access to RPGs and Semtex (unlike e.g. the Red Army fraction, which did, and kiled 34 people over a similar period).
It meets the US definition of "terorism". it meets the UN and NZ one. It is accurate therefore to call it such.
-
In reality, Kansas is one of only 10 US states that requires two independent doctors to verify a prognosis of "irreparable harm" to the mother of the pregnancy proceeds.
As opposed to our standard of "serious danger".
-
Our own Terrorism Suppression Act doesn't define it. In fact, I think it repealed a provision that had previously defined it.
I call bollocks.
5. Terrorist act defined
An act is a terrorist act for the purposes of this Act if—
(a) the act falls within subsection (2); or
(b) the act is an act against a specified terrorism convention (as defined in section 4(1)); or
(c) the act is a terrorist act in armed conflict (as defined in section 4(1)).(2) An act falls within this subsection if it is intended to cause, in any 1 or more countries, 1 or more of the outcomes specified in subsection (3), and is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause, and with the following intention:
(a) to induce terror in a civilian population; or
(b) to unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.(3) The outcomes referred to in subsection (2) are—
(a) the death of, or other serious bodily injury to, 1 or more persons (other than a person carrying out the act):
(b) a serious risk to the health or safety of a population:
(c) destruction of, or serious damage to, property of great value or importance, or major economic loss, or major environmental damage, if likely to result in 1 or more outcomes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (d):
(d) serious interference with, or serious disruption to, an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life:
(e) introduction or release of a disease-bearing organism, if likely to devastate the national economy of a country.(4) However, an act does not fall within subsection (2) if it occurs in a situation of armed conflict and is, at the time and in the place that it occurs, in accordance with rules of international law applicable to the conflict.
(5) To avoid doubt, the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that the person—
(a) is carrying out an act for a purpose, or with an intention, specified in subsection (2); or
(b) intends to cause an outcome specified in subsection (3).