Posts by Rex Widerstrom
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Wall and the Paper, in reply to James Butler,
I walked home in fear that I would be seen carrying it
Just wrap it inside something less offensive. Beastiality Monthly or some such.
@Stephen Judd
You're right. I wrote the occasional piece for the Dom when Frank was OpEd editor. I'd always tremble when my liberal (well, by his standards) mumblings went in and Frank would sometimes call up to debate my conclusions. Took me a while to realise he wasn't intending to cut anything, just wanted a damned good argument :-)
And yes, more importantly, he followed his principles where ever they led. Lhaws oft-spouted "won't someone think of the children" dribble is at odds with the many stories of women who've used the DPB to extricate themselves and their children from a violent situation and make a new life, and the vast bulk who don't remain on any benefit for long.
In some ways he's even more annoying to principled intelligent conservatives than to liberals, since he misrepresents their thinking so publicly. Frank never did.
-
This week, he will doubtless be receiving some stern correspondence in response to Michael Laws' extremely unpleasant column on Sunday.
And, perhaps, a visit from the police.
I consulted Steve Price, who doesn't think there's much hope, but I still reckon someone asking the Chief Censor to consider classifying the paper as "objectionable" on the basis of it containing that "let's all go a lynch mobbin'" article might at least draw attention to the fact that people are no longer prepared to passively consume the s**t that's shoveled at them.
Mind you, readership figures seem to be doing that job.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to ,
Don't pay any attention to what Michael Laws has to say.
By all means ignore him if you like. God knows I try. But screw this, I've had enough.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
if I heard Lhaws had been murdered
No need for that, Rich. Lhaws quite clearly says:
Now let's similarly identify the other Christchurch looters and mete out similar justice
Definitely an inclusive statement that one. So clearly he's willing to do his bit, brave fellow that he is.
So all we need do is to convince an enterprising magistrate (and I've come across a few in my time) prepared to offer other looters a choice: Go 10 rounds with Lhaws, televised as free entertainment for a deserving populace. If you win, you go free. Could even make it a "cage match"... no throwing in the towel, you have to clamber out of the cage.
We could all watch, not really caring who won. True win / win - for the rest of us.
In the meantime, I'm sure there'd be no shortage of generous souls willing to act as training partners
-
Alright this is definitely in the category of "idle Sunday afternoon thoughts", but it might provide for an interesting airing of issues of editorial responsibility. And, much like the Paul Henry situation, it's often a matter of simply making it more uncomfortable for the publisher to continue condoning hatred than it is profitable to continue publishing it...
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 No 94
Meaning of objectionable
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good(2) A publication shall be deemed to be objectionable for the purposes of this Act if the publication promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support,—
...
(f) acts of torture or the infliction of extreme violence or extreme cruelty
(Refer Section 15 for the process under which any person can submit a publication for classification).
I now have a queasy feeling in my gut because infringing press freedom is something I normally fight against, and I feel like a Quisling. But sometimes, enough is really enough.
-
Summary Proceedings Act 1957 No 87
6 Summary jurisdiction in respect of indictable offences
...
(2) A Court presided over by a District Court Judge shall have summary jurisdiction in respect of the following indictable offences, and proceedings in respect of any such offence may accordingly be taken in a summary way in accordance with this Act, namely—
...
(bb) attempting to commit any summary offence, or inciting, counselling, or attempting to procure the commission of a summary offence ...
If I were in NZ I would be sitting at my local police station waiting to lay a complaint right now. Any takers?
If so, do please let me know via here or email.
The Press Council springs to mind also. Not that it'll deter him, but it may wake the editor up from his slumber.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to Kracklite,
If Labour does not stand up for habeus corpus, then we all are pawns in their game of power-seeking.
Thanks for re-focusing the debate Kracklite. Even I (he says grandly) have been sucked into saying "he was only carrying two lightbulbs FFS" as though it might have been justifiable if he were seen making off with two screaming orphans.
It wouldn't be. You're right...
It is fucking central to democracy. It is not negotiable.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to 3410,
For the record, Phil, the correct response is: "I didn't really mean it. My anger over the situation caused me misspeak"
But that doesn't occur to you if you didn't really mean it in the first place. I didn't condemn Whaleoil for his "looters should be gutshot" post because it was obviously prompted by honestly felt anger - anger most of us feel when confronted with behaviour so abhorrent that it offends our deeply held values.
The response is visceral - straight from gut to mouth, bypassing our brains. We're humans, it happens sometimes.
But this wasn't that. I suspected - and his "I was joking" excuse confirms, at least to me - that Goff now has no values beyond the attaintment and retention of power and that his response wasn't visceral, it was calculated. And indeed he's so far removed from being able to respond genuinely that the obvious, and acceptable-under-the-circumstances, response, "I was overcome by anger" doesn't even occur to him.
Of course Key is made from the same mould... as are many contemporary politicians.
Or to put it another way... if Norm Kirk had seen his patch devastated by a quake and then seen some citizens robbing others, he'd probably have called for them to be shot too. But we'd have believed that came from the heart, and forgiven him.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to James Butler,
he wants to be popular like the Nats, so when he hears one of them say something outrageous, his first instinct is to one-up them
So, the apocryphal kid who, rather than stand up to the bullies, joins them in picking on even weaker people in the playground.
Err... Phil? The first bit of the title you coveted for so many years? It's Leader of the Opposition.
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
She needs to sue me first. Strangely, bullies seem never to sue people who won't actually immediately cease criticising them upon the arrival of the first nasty threat from Sue, Grabbitt and Runne or, if they go that far and said target isn't struck mute, turn to water at the thought of being cross examined on the truth of said statements (waves cheerfully to Ralph Norris).
Perhaps I should provoke Collins by saying something suitably outrageous and clearly actionable on here...
Uh oh, I think I just heard RB's tolerance level for free speech descend several levels ;-)