Planet Rugby Forum

UncleFB wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Maniototo Man wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Dark wrote:CGT seems to be going down like a cup of cold sick.

Think Labour might have painted themselves into a corner with this.

Given the Kiwibuild fiasco, they kind of can't not do it, but it might end up so watered down it costs more than makes.

Not ruling out kiwisaver being part of it in the remit was slightly dim. By slightly I mean idiots

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... -poll.html

Not ruling out Kiwisaver was just insane but nothing surprises me coming from that smarmy cnut Cullen. The irony being that he established Kiwisaver to ensure New Zealanders save for their retirement and wouldn't have dreamed of applying a CGT to it when he was in Govt. But pay him a $1,000 a day to pontificate on it and he'll come up ways to tax us from every angle.

As for Labour painting themselves into a corner their out might be NZ First refusing to support it. Listening to Winston being interviewed it's clear that if it goes through at all it will be an extremely watered down version of the complex monstrosity the TWG have proposed. He has said repeatedly 'the law must be simple and not create an industry for valuers and accountants'. So in other words no valuation day. That rules out CGT on businesses. Maybe rental property and baches will still be in the firing line as we have valuations based on govt valuations. I'm hoping he'll go a step further and introduce grand fathering where the tax is only applied to property acquired in the future, after the introduction of the CGT.

Come on Winston, my man, you know you want to, it is the only way!

Bryce Edward's column and the articles* it links to are worth a read.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12220797

* (Not including Hosking's rant.)

Thanks, good article.

It's funny re Hosking. There was a time when I absolutely couldn't stand the plum. But recently I've started enjoying his breakfast radio show. I find him and his offsider (technical producer?) quite entertaining. Whatever you think of him, and he is f**king opinionated and fairly right wing, but you have to admire his grasp of the detail. Quite clever.

I never watch his rants though. Like Stu Wilson, the only thing worse than listening to him is when you can actually see him!

I think he's ok to you because you like his politics - his articles in tandam with his wife are comedy gold sometimes. I don't get to hear him much but I'm currently in NZ and listening and I've decided that all talkback hosts are like that drunk opinionated uncle at a party who wont shut up even though 90% of what they spout is bullshit. I'm unsure if it is worse now, because I used to listen to talkback exclusively when I lived here.

Dark wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Media lies.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html

Grant Robertson has blasted the New Zealand Herald for a now-deleted article claiming he and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed for the Crusaders name change.

On Tuesday afternoon, he called the article "an appalling piece of writing".

"It is absolutely baseless; they haven't had a single conversation with the Crusaders, neither has the Prime Minister," he said.

The article claimed a source close to the Crusaders told NZME that Ardern and Robertson have been driving a push to change the team's name in the wake of the Christchurch shootings.

He demanded the organisation take responsibility.

"Newstalk ZB needs to take responsibility for the fact the journalist wrote a story without contacting either the Crusaders, or the Prime Minister's office, or my office."

"They've just gone on some sort of rumour."

Earlier on Tuesday, Jacinda Ardern told The AM Show the article was "inaccurate".

"It's odd. I have not expressed an opinion publicly or even privately actually," she said.

"Apparently I've been applying pressure. I didn't even know about it. It is inaccurate."

When asked about Ardern's denial of involvement on Tuesday afternoon, Robertson had a simple question.

"So why was the story in the Herald then?"

Robertson told journalists on Tuesday the story raises difficulties.

"It's actually quite difficult when you're asked to respond to a story, because then they say we've denied something that was without any basis, in fact, whatsoever."

That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.

How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?

Pretty bad the PM would get involved in the name change argument tbf

Jesus Dark, we know you hate Jacinda but WTF are you doing here?

He casts, he gets a small nibble, then a massive bite

UncleFB wrote: I think he's ok to you because you like his politics - his articles in tandam with his wife are comedy gold sometimes. I don't get to hear him much but I'm currently in NZ and listening and I've decided that all talkback hosts are like that drunk opinionated uncle at a party who wont shut up even though 90% of what they spout is bullshit. I'm unsure if it is worse now, because I used to listen to talkback exclusively when I lived here.

I've always fundamentally agreed with his politics but I still couldn't stand the plum for most of the last decade.

Jeremy Wells does an extremely funny impression of him

https://soundcloud.com/radiohauraki/hb- ... labour-won

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GC ... kNo1trRIZw

jambanja wrote:

BillW wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Dark wrote:This whole "On alert" canceling ANZAC day commemorations things is getting on my tits.

It was one dude from Aus ffs

Just swear in and arm the blimmin soldiers who are there for the day anyway if you are that paranoid snowflakey.

It does seem to be going a bit far.

The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.
Not sure whether the people involved really believe we are under imminent threat of further attacks or whether they are just bureaucrats feeling like it is time to justify their positions.

The mad cvnt is locked away, isn't it now safer than ever?

After that episode, police investigations have lifted a few rocks and uncovered all sorts of things, not necessarily related to the mosque
shootings.
There's no shortage of nutters out there.

Rubbish, and if this is the case please show us your sauces because this is the first I'm hearing of it! Sounds a lot like closing the proverbial.

What, so because an Australian nutter decided to go postal, this is now encouraging other like minded nutters to go "oh well if he had a crack we might have a go too, especially given we're going to have to hand in our semi-autos soon, this might be the last chance we get"

I can't help it if this is the first you've heard of it. As for sauces, well you've got me stuffed.
You should have taken more note of the coloured phrase before sounding off though.
All AOS trained staff have been ordered on to full time AOS duty for the next six weeks.
At least one serious plot has been averted already.

Dark wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Maniototo Man wrote:

booji boy wrote:[qu

Not ruling out Kiwisaver was just insane but nothing surprises me coming from that smarmy cnut Cullen. The irony being that he established Kiwisaver to ensure New Zealanders save for their retirement and wouldn't have dreamed of applying a CGT to it when he was in Govt. But pay him a $1,000 a day to pontificate on it and he'll come up ways to tax us from every angle.

As for Labour painting themselves into a corner their out might be NZ First refusing to support it. Listening to Winston being interviewed it's clear that if it goes through at all it will be an extremely watered down version of the complex monstrosity the TWG have proposed. He has said repeatedly 'the law must be simple and not create an industry for valuers and accountants'. So in other words no valuation day. That rules out CGT on businesses. Maybe rental property and baches will still be in the firing line as we have valuations based on govt valuations. I'm hoping he'll go a step further and introduce grand fathering where the tax is only applied to property acquired in the future, after the introduction of the CGT.

Come on Winston, my man, you know you want to, it is the only way!

Bryce Edward's column and the articles* it links to are worth a read.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12220797

* (Not including Hosking's rant.)

Thanks, good article.

It's funny re Hosking. There was a time when I absolutely couldn't stand the plum. But recently I've started enjoying his breakfast radio show. I find him and his offsider (technical producer?) quite entertaining. Whatever you think of him, and he is f**king opinionated and fairly right wing, but you have to admire his grasp of the detail. Quite clever.

I never watch his rants though. Like Stu Wilson, the only thing worse than listening to him is when you can actually see him!

I think he's ok to you because you like his politics - his articles in tandam with his wife are comedy gold sometimes. I don't get to hear him much but I'm currently in NZ and listening and I've decided that all talkback hosts are like that drunk opinionated uncle at a party who wont shut up even though 90% of what they spout is bullshit. I'm unsure if it is worse now, because I used to listen to talkback exclusively when I lived here.

Dark wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Media lies.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ticle.html

Grant Robertson has blasted the New Zealand Herald for a now-deleted article claiming he and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed for the Crusaders name change.

On Tuesday afternoon, he called the article "an appalling piece of writing".

"It is absolutely baseless; they haven't had a single conversation with the Crusaders, neither has the Prime Minister," he said.

The article claimed a source close to the Crusaders told NZME that Ardern and Robertson have been driving a push to change the team's name in the wake of the Christchurch shootings.

He demanded the organisation take responsibility.

"Newstalk ZB needs to take responsibility for the fact the journalist wrote a story without contacting either the Crusaders, or the Prime Minister's office, or my office."

"They've just gone on some sort of rumour."

Earlier on Tuesday, Jacinda Ardern told The AM Show the article was "inaccurate".

"It's odd. I have not expressed an opinion publicly or even privately actually," she said.

"Apparently I've been applying pressure. I didn't even know about it. It is inaccurate."

When asked about Ardern's denial of involvement on Tuesday afternoon, Robertson had a simple question.

"So why was the story in the Herald then?"

Robertson told journalists on Tuesday the story raises difficulties.

"It's actually quite difficult when you're asked to respond to a story, because then they say we've denied something that was without any basis, in fact, whatsoever."

That's appalling. That's just flat out lying in reporting from one of the country's largest media organisations.

How can you possibly take anything that outlet says seriously?

Pretty bad the PM would get involved in the name change argument tbf

Jesus Dark, we know you hate Jacinda but WTF are you doing here?

He casts, he gets a small nibble, then a massive bite

Aren’t we past the “I was only fishing” as an excuse these days?

What is perinent is that your previous posting suggests this would be an honest comment from you.

UncleFB wrote:

Dark wrote: He casts, he gets a small nibble, then a massive bite

Aren’t we past the “I was only fishing” as an excuse these days?

What is perinent is that your previous posting suggests this would be an honest comment from you.

Don't blame me because you can't take a joke

The Givealittle page for Victim Support for CHCH is over $10 million now...

People amaze me.

Oye!

It is only fair when I do it!

jambanja wrote:

BillW wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Dark wrote:This whole "On alert" canceling ANZAC day commemorations things is getting on my tits.

It was one dude from Aus ffs

Just swear in and arm the blimmin soldiers who are there for the day anyway if you are that paranoid snowflakey.

It does seem to be going a bit far.

The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.
Not sure whether the people involved really believe we are under imminent threat of further attacks or whether they are just bureaucrats feeling like it is time to justify their positions.

The mad cvnt is locked away, isn't it now safer than ever?

After that episode, police investigations have lifted a few rocks and uncovered all sorts of things, not necessarily related to the mosque
shootings.
There's no shortage of nutters out there.

Rubbish, and if this is the case please show us your sauces because this is the first I'm hearing of it! Sounds a lot like closing the proverbial.

What, so because an Australian nutter decided to go postal, this is now encouraging other like minded nutters to go "oh well if he had a crack we might have a go too, especially given we're going to have to hand in our semi-autos soon, this might be the last chance we get"

Yes that will be pretty much be exactly the thought process minus your heavy dollop of hyperbole of course. The terms copycat & revenge killing exist for a reason. Of course more likely for some mentally disturbed f*cker to get tipped over the edge by recent events.

Of course if it did happen and the police/government hadn't taken adequate precautions it would be moaning twats like you clamouring all over the internet calling for heads to roll (no pun intended).

RuggaBugga wrote:

jambanja wrote:

BillW wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

booji boy wrote:
It does seem to be going a bit far.

The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.
Not sure whether the people involved really believe we are under imminent threat of further attacks or whether they are just bureaucrats feeling like it is time to justify their positions.

The mad cvnt is locked away, isn't it now safer than ever?

After that episode, police investigations have lifted a few rocks and uncovered all sorts of things, not necessarily related to the mosque
shootings.
There's no shortage of nutters out there.

Rubbish, and if this is the case please show us your sauces because this is the first I'm hearing of it! Sounds a lot like closing the proverbial.

What, so because an Australian nutter decided to go postal, this is now encouraging other like minded nutters to go "oh well if he had a crack we might have a go too, especially given we're going to have to hand in our semi-autos soon, this might be the last chance we get"

Yes that will be pretty much be exactly the thought process minus your heavy dollop of hyperbole of course. The terms copycat & revenge killing exist for a reason. Of course more likely for some mentally disturbed f*cker to get tipped over the edge by recent events.

Of course if it did happen and the police/government hadn't taken adequate precautions it would be moaning twats like you clamouring all over the internet calling for heads to roll (no pun intended).

Well then he’s won hasn’t he, and this will also encourage others who may want to disrupt the NZ way of life. Just look at what has happened to the ANZAC dawn ceremonies that have been canceled! It’s like we’ve played right into his hands

Gun laws have passed third reading in the house just now. Just awaiting Royal Assent, which I understand is tomorrow?

BillW wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Dark wrote:This whole "On alert" canceling ANZAC day commemorations things is getting on my tits.

It was one dude from Aus ffs

Just swear in and arm the blimmin soldiers who are there for the day anyway if you are that paranoid snowflakey.

It does seem to be going a bit far.

The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.
Not sure whether the people involved really believe we are under imminent threat of further attacks or whether they are just bureaucrats feeling like it is time to justify their positions.

The mad cvnt is locked away, isn't it now safer than ever?

After that episode, police investigations have lifted a few rocks and uncovered all sorts of things, not necessarily related to the mosque
shootings.
There's no shortage of nutters out there.

Security Analyst Paul Buchanan says the terrorists slipped through the cracks "and it's a failure of intelligence." He says the failure is in the lack of priority given to white supremacists. "What fell through the cracks were concerns white nationalists in this country would turn violent, even though they have a track record of violence," Mr Buchanan says. He says white supremacists in Christchurch have committed multiple acts of violence in the city over the years.

https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/prog ... ugh-cracks

guy smiley wrote:Which Dawn Services have been cancelled?

58 in Auckland.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/111890 ... cellations

booji boy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Which Dawn Services have been cancelled?

58 in Auckland.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/111890 ... cellations

Note: not all of those services cancelled are dawn services.

BillW wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Dark wrote:This whole "On alert" canceling ANZAC day commemorations things is getting on my tits.

It was one dude from Aus ffs

Just swear in and arm the blimmin soldiers who are there for the day anyway if you are that paranoid snowflakey.

It does seem to be going a bit far.

The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.
Not sure whether the people involved really believe we are under imminent threat of further attacks or whether they are just bureaucrats feeling like it is time to justify their positions.

The mad cvnt is locked away, isn't it now safer than ever?

After that episode, police investigations have lifted a few rocks and uncovered all sorts of things, not necessarily related to the mosque
shootings.
There's no shortage of nutters out there.

And no shortage of semi-automatic guns either. It sounds OTT to me too but they are being safe rather than sorry.

Airport security in Chch has returned to normal now with regional passengers no longer needing to go through the same security as jet passengers. I went through the heightened security 3 times and was expecting chaos. But the airport opened all the lines for a change and put in extra staff and it was a breeze.

guy smiley wrote:

Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote:

booji boy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Which Dawn Services have been cancelled?

58 in Auckland.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/111890 ... cellations

Note: not all of those services cancelled are dawn services.

Exactly.

It's a consolidation of various services and marches... hardly end of the world stuff. It is a shame when an act such as the Chch attacks forces change on the accepted routine but changes like this aren't new to NZ. The changes to security arrangements at airports after the WTC attacks were comprehensive and they're ongoing.

If it is really that much of a stretch on police resources over one Aussie one off nut burger, I really think then swear the armed forces in for the day as cops, as they did with them after the earthquakes and the Aussie cops who came over with the mosques and arm the soldiers who will be there any way.

It is total over reaction, when you have trained people there who are used to using firearms (more than the cops are)

Make the head honcho whoever out of the cops and soldiers have the most experience at each event

Fat Old Git wrote:Airport security in Chch has returned to normal now with regional passengers no longer needing to go through the same security as jet passengers. I went through the heightened security 3 times and was expecting chaos. But the airport opened all the lines for a change and put in extra staff and it was a breeze.

How did that work? Did you have to go upstairs and then come back down?

guy smiley wrote:

Ghost-Of-Nepia wrote:

booji boy wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Which Dawn Services have been cancelled?

58 in Auckland.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/111890 ... cellations

Note: not all of those services cancelled are dawn services.

Exactly.

It's a consolidation of various services and marches... hardly end of the world stuff. It is a shame when an act such as the Chch attacks forces change on the accepted routine but changes like this aren't new to NZ. The changes to security arrangements at airports after the WTC attacks were comprehensive and they're ongoing.

What difference does it make whether it’s a march or a service, it has changed the way we go about living our lives, it has caused disruption and this will be seen as encouraging to those who would be likely to do this sort of thing.
This guy must be loving the fact that all these changes have been bought about because of him, it’s what he wanted and we’re just playing along perfectly.
Of course changes like this are new to NZ, this is much bigger than more stringent airport security , oh and how are they ongoing, 5 years ago I flew to Zim from Auckland and I did the same this year, no difference in security, if anything it was easier this time round

JB1981 wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:Airport security in Chch has returned to normal now with regional passengers no longer needing to go through the same security as jet passengers. I went through the heightened security 3 times and was expecting chaos. But the airport opened all the lines for a change and put in extra staff and it was a breeze.

How did that work? Did you have to go upstairs and then come back down?

Yep. They blocked off access to the regional gates so you couldn't get to them without going through security upstairs.

Tehui wrote:

BillW wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

booji boy wrote:

Dark wrote:This whole "On alert" canceling ANZAC day commemorations things is getting on my tits.

It was one dude from Aus ffs

Just swear in and arm the blimmin soldiers who are there for the day anyway if you are that paranoid snowflakey.

It does seem to be going a bit far.

The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.
Not sure whether the people involved really believe we are under imminent threat of further attacks or whether they are just bureaucrats feeling like it is time to justify their positions.

The mad cvnt is locked away, isn't it now safer than ever?

After that episode, police investigations have lifted a few rocks and uncovered all sorts of things, not necessarily related to the mosque
shootings.
There's no shortage of nutters out there.

Security Analyst Paul Buchanan says the terrorists slipped through the cracks "and it's a failure of intelligence." He says the failure is in the lack of priority given to white supremacists. "What fell through the cracks were concerns white nationalists in this country would turn violent, even though they have a track record of violence," Mr Buchanan says. He says white supremacists in Christchurch have committed multiple acts of violence in the city over the years.

https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/prog ... ugh-cracks

The mosque shooter wasn't associated with those groups so it wouldn't have made any difference whether the intelligence services were monitoring them or not, the only thing that would have made a difference would be if they were monitoring him. Paul Buchanan's wider point is probably valid but his statement that the event of March 15 was a failure of intelligence is not accurate and is based on fallacy

I think I posted recently about the greens pursuing a political objective and strategy I don't particularly like with Greens making noises about hate speech legislation.

There seems to have been a lack of quality opposition to it but perhaps that might be due to it flying under the radar.
Just read this today so thought I'd share if anyones interested


https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/polit ... Ky0Z0zzI_E


Noted
Religion the flashpoint in free speech debate
by Graham Adams / 09 April, 2019
Opinion


Like many campaigners against hate speech, Green MP Golriz Ghahraman would rather not discuss how a law change would affect freedom of religion.

If there is a case to be made for stricter hate-speech laws, you’d have to say Green MP Golriz Ghahraman doesn’t appear to be the best person to make it.
Watching her argue for tougher laws on Newshub Nation over the weekend, it was impossible not to wonder why a lawyer educated at Auckland and Oxford universities seemed so unaware that she was repeatedly making highly questionable assertions and wild jumps in logic.

In the debate with lawyer and free-speech advocate Stephen Franks, Ghahraman said, “This is a conversation we need to be having because our hate speech laws aren’t actually fit for purpose right now”, but she didn’t come close to explaining why our laws need reforming — apart from implying the Christchurch massacres themselves were reason enough.

Among a number of dubious claims, Ghahraman said that Facebook doesn’t “regulate hate speech” when, as Franks pointed out, it actually spends a lot of money doing just that.

As it happens, the European Commission just last week reported tech companies, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, removed 72 per cent of illegal “hate speech” on their platforms in 2018. Facebook removed 82 per cent of such inflammatory posts, up from 28 per cent in 2016.

When Franks turned the conversation to religion, Ghahraman said that under hate-speech laws, “You can always criticise a religion.” This is patently untrue, including in the UK and France.

She must have missed best-selling novelist Michel Houellebecq being put on trial in Paris in 2002 for saying “Islam is the stupidest religion” which is just one very famous example of how a negative opinion about a religion can land you in court.

In London in 2008, an unnamed 15-year-old was given a court summons for demonstrating outside the headquarters of Scientology with a sign that read: “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.” His sign was confiscated by police because the word “cult” was deemed “abusive and insulting”.

Religion, of course, is where advocates of stricter hate-speech laws always come unstuck. When Franks pointed out that passages in the Bible incite hostility against adulterers and gays by recommending they be killed, and that the Koran advocates the slaughter of infidels and apostates, it was clear Ghahraman didn’t want to debate that particular issue — even though they would be clear examples of hate speech under such laws.

Franks said he didn’t think inflammatory sacred texts should be banned but rather their unpleasant messages should be countered with “more speech and persuasion” but, clearly unwilling to discuss the issue, she abruptly changed the topic.


“So let’s look at what’s happening in New Zealand right now,” she said. “We’ve had an outpouring of absolute love and unity across the country. New Zealanders have told us they don’t want to live in a divisive, hateful world.”

How anyone — let alone a trained lawyer — would think that such an “outpouring” is evidence of a general desire for stricter hate speech laws, which is what I assume she meant, is beyond bewildering.

It’s true that an impressive and heartening number of New Zealanders turned up to rallies to support the Muslim community but that’s no clear indication that many (or any) of those attending would welcome stricter laws governing what they can say about the Muslim faith or other religions. And it certainly says nothing about the views of the vast majority who didn’t attend rallies or visit a mosque in sympathy.

Ghahraman finished the debate on a triumphant note after Franks implied there was no compelling evidence for a link between hate speech and hate crimes.

“How about the words ‘UN Migration Compact’ being written on the butt of [the accused's] gun?” she cried, as if that irrefutably confirmed a link between hate speech and the Christchurch killings, presumably because she assumes that opposing the compact always amounts to hate speech towards immigrants.

Unfortunately, Ghahraman’s performance cannot be put down to nervousness from being under the gaze of TV cameras. She seems just as confused on Twitter.

On April 3, she tweeted: “We’re not immune from the politics of hate speech leaking into NZ from all over the world and allowed to grow here unchecked. Most of us would be shocked to find our laws don’t protect religious groups, gender or the Rainbow community. Time for change!”

It’s possible that her Green friends and colleagues may be shocked but it’s highly unlikely “most of us” would be, especially anyone who is aware of how such laws have been enforced overseas.

And many of us understand, like Franks, that some of the most influential purveyors of opinions hostile to gays, lesbians and transgender folk are organised religions that rely on fundamentalist interpretations of sacred texts. Knowing that, why would anyone who supported gay and lesbian rights want religions to be protected from criticism?

As has been well publicised, Brian Tamaki of Destiny Church in 2017 described gay and lesbian clergy as a “contamination”; a year earlier, he said that, according to the Bible, gays were responsible for earthquakes.

Just days before Ghahraman’s April 3 tweet, leaders around the world — including Winston Peters — condemned Brunei’s strict Sharia laws that prescribe death by stoning for homosexuals and adulterers.


When asked on Twitter if she would also condemn these laws, Ghahraman didn’t answer the question. Instead, she replied: “White supremacists are historically big into mass murder of the Rainbow community right? If you want to associate an entire race or religion with the way extremists treat minorities you would have to start with people of Western European descent. Wonder why you aren’t.”

Clearly when faced with the dilemma of condemning Sharia law or standing up for gays in countries subject to its lethal punishments, Ghahraman ducks for cover.

And the Brunei laws can’t even be passed off as a remote aberration. In 2005, Muslim Labour MP Ashraf Choudhary would not condemn the traditional Koran punishment of stoning to death for some homosexuals and people who have extramarital affairs.

On TV3's 60 Minutes programme in July that year, journalist Mark Scott asked Choudhary: “Are you saying the Koran is wrong to recommend that gays in certain circumstances be stoned to death?"

Choudhary replied: “No, no. Certainly what the Koran says is correct,” adding, “In those societies, not here in New Zealand.”

It’s clear that his opinion would be classed as hate speech under hate-speech laws and it is exactly in situations like this that such legislation runs headlong into the right to freedom of religion — ie, the right to believe and say whatever you like in accordance with your faith.

Justice minister Andrew Little — who two years ago declared our hate speech laws were working well (describing himself as “a bit of a free speech sort of nutter”) and who in March this year oversaw a blasphemy law being removed from our Crimes Act — has changed position. In the wake of the Christchurch massacres, he now says our laws are narrow and inadequate and that he will review them with urgency.

He will need to proceed very carefully. Expanding hate-speech laws in a country that has been remarkably secular and open to free speech for decades is dangerous ground for a politician.

New Zealanders — whose national museum, Te Papa, refused to remove the “Virgin in a Condom” statue in 1998 despite vigorous and sometimes violent protest by Catholics, and whose Supreme Court in 2011 overturned the conviction of an activist who burned a New Zealand flag at an Anzac Day remembrance service in the service of free expression — may not take kindly to being told there could be new restrictions on what they can say.

Simon Bridges and Winston Peters are waiting to see concrete proposals for hate-speech laws before taking a position but warn that freedom of speech should not be tampered with lightly. Act MP David Seymour is totally opposed to expanding the existing laws.

Labour and the Greens may be buying themselves an extremely bitter and damaging fight. They could well find during its bruising rounds that many New Zealanders care more about retaining freedom of expression and their right to offend than campaigners such as Golriz Ghahraman might guess.

guy smiley wrote:Stopped reading here, because it doesn’t conform to my ideas so head back in the sand until someone comes up with something I agree with

Among a number of dubious claims, Ghahraman said that Facebook doesn’t “regulate hate speech” when, as Franks pointed out, it actually spends a lot of money doing just that.

Facebook is demonstrably unable or unwilling to make meaningful change to the regulation of content on its platform, regardless of what it says or the appearance of money spent.

Fixed for you.

You’ve just said that Facebook is unable to make meaningful change, so what would you suggest, because if you had bothered to read the rest of the article, hate speech laws ar certainly not the answer, well not in the guise that Ghahraman wants them to be, if she actually has any idea herself, because she seems to be at odds and somewhat contradictory in her opinions preferring to focus on the emotive side of things.

booji boy wrote:

UncleFB wrote: I think he's ok to you because you like his politics - his articles in tandam with his wife are comedy gold sometimes. I don't get to hear him much but I'm currently in NZ and listening and I've decided that all talkback hosts are like that drunk opinionated uncle at a party who wont shut up even though 90% of what they spout is bullshit. I'm unsure if it is worse now, because I used to listen to talkback exclusively when I lived here.

I've always fundamentally agreed with his politics but I still couldn't stand the plum for most of the last decade.

Haha, fair enough, he's got a very punchable face.

Dark wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Dark wrote: He casts, he gets a small nibble, then a massive bite

Aren’t we past the “I was only fishing” as an excuse these days?

What is perinent is that your previous posting suggests this would be an honest comment from you.

Don't blame me because you can't take a joke

I don't blame you, but the issue at hand here is that due to your previous posting in this thread it wasn't obvious you were making a joke.

The irony about Golriz's stance on hate speech is that her support base are exactly the kind of people who throw around flippant comparisons to Nazis and Fascists and who will happily stereotype whenever it suits them. They're probably more likely to fall afoul of any law change surrounding free speech simply because their opponents on the right tend to have had a more conservative upbringing and are therefore in possession of manners.

UncleFB wrote:

Dark wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Dark wrote: He casts, he gets a small nibble, then a massive bite

Aren’t we past the “I was only fishing” as an excuse these days?

What is perinent is that your previous posting suggests this would be an honest comment from you.

Don't blame me because you can't take a joke

I don't blame you, but the issue at hand here is that due to your previous posting in this thread it wasn't obvious you were making a joke.

Well tbf you have taken my criticism of some of Arderns working as strangely me "hating" her, when I don't hate anyone (Except for the shooty shooty bang bang guy) so you do seem to easily misguided in your conclusions

deadduck wrote:The irony about Golriz's stance on hate speech is that her support base are exactly the kind of people who throw around flippant comparisons to Nazis and Fascists and who will happily stereotype whenever it suits them. They're probably more likely to fall afoul of any law change surrounding free speech simply because their opponents on the right tend to have had a more conservative upbringing and are therefore in possession of manners.

Absolutely correct.

Has anyone been following the Shane Jones Northland trucking company story? Speaking to the CEO of NZTA about a live prosecution when you are related to and have received a donation from the managing director is crazy. This guy has no concept of a conflict of interest.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/11197662 ... rt-company

guy smiley wrote:Stopped reading here

Among a number of dubious claims, Ghahraman said that Facebook doesn’t “regulate hate speech” when, as Franks pointed out, it actually spends a lot of money doing just that.

Facebook is demonstrably unable or unwilling to make meaningful change to the regulation of content on its platform, regardless of what it says or the appearance of money spent.

I can't say I'm a fan of Facebook's practices (and I know as a user who doesn't pay for their "service", I'm the product rather than a customer), but the rest of the article is worth a read.

And regarding Facebook and co it states the following

As it happens, the European Commission just last week reported tech companies, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, removed 72 per cent of illegal “hate speech” on their platforms in 2018. Facebook removed 82 per cent of such inflammatory posts, up from 28 per cent in 2016.

Which if the source is true may be believable if the figures didn't come straight from Facebook and co. Especially as you would hope the EC would have wanted some kind of independent verification.

Far far from perfect, but would seem to support the position that Ghahraman's claims aren't all that credible.

In the context of reviewing hate speech laws and the current fragile political climate in NZ, Joe Rogan's recent podcast with Nicholas Christakis should be mandatory viewing for anyone debating on the topic

If you've got a spare couple of hours it's definitely worth a watch or listen

booji boy wrote:

deadduck wrote:The irony about Golriz's stance on hate speech is that her support base are exactly the kind of people who throw around flippant comparisons to Nazis and Fascists and who will happily stereotype whenever it suits them. They're probably more likely to fall afoul of any law change surrounding free speech simply because their opponents on the right tend to have had a more conservative upbringing and are therefore in possession of manners.

Absolutely correct.

Haha, I'm stealing the that.

Gee blardy whizz DD I don't know if I have the attention span for that. I might give it a go this weekend if the rain continues

deadduck wrote:

Tehui wrote: https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/prog ... ugh-cracks

The mosque shooter wasn't associated with those groups so it wouldn't have made any difference whether the intelligence services were monitoring them or not, the only thing that would have made a difference would be if they were monitoring him. Paul Buchanan's wider point is probably valid but his statement that the event of March 15 was a failure of intelligence is not accurate and is based on fallacy

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... rists-list

Not a single right-wing extremist or white supremacist is listed on the United Nations' register of terrorists.

guy smiley wrote:

Man In Black wrote:
You’re pissing into the wind trying to get GS to accept criticism of Ghahraman.

You're still butthurt because I suggested as a UN Human Rights lawyer she'd know more about human rights than you?

The article actually points out that she was a well educated lawyer and expressed surprise at her position given that. The person she was debating it with is also a lawyer, although they don't mention his education.

Watching her argue for tougher laws on Newshub Nation over the weekend, it was impossible not to wonder why a lawyer educated at Auckland and Oxford universities seemed so unaware that she was repeatedly making highly questionable assertions and wild jumps in logic.

In the debate with lawyer and free-speech advocate Stephen Franks, Ghahraman said, “This is a conversation we need to be having because our hate speech laws aren’t actually fit for purpose right now”, but she didn’t come close to explaining why our laws need reforming — apart from implying the Christchurch massacres themselves were reason enough.

Fat Old Git wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Man In Black wrote:
You’re pissing into the wind trying to get GS to accept criticism of Ghahraman.

You're still butthurt because I suggested as a UN Human Rights lawyer she'd know more about human rights than you?

The article actually points out that she was a well educated lawyer and expressed surprise at her position given that. The person she was debating it with is also a lawyer, although they don't mention his education.

Watching her argue for tougher laws on Newshub Nation over the weekend, it was impossible not to wonder why a lawyer educated at Auckland and Oxford universities seemed so unaware that she was repeatedly making highly questionable assertions and wild jumps in logic.

In the debate with lawyer and free-speech advocate Stephen Franks, Ghahraman said, “This is a conversation we need to be having because our hate speech laws aren’t actually fit for purpose right now”, but she didn’t come close to explaining why our laws need reforming — apart from implying the Christchurch massacres themselves were reason enough.

It’s almost as though once she became a politician, all logic and reasoning have flown right out the window, to be replaced by emotive whataboutery and party line retoric

Tehui wrote:

deadduck wrote:

Tehui wrote: https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/prog ... ugh-cracks

The mosque shooter wasn't associated with those groups so it wouldn't have made any difference whether the intelligence services were monitoring them or not, the only thing that would have made a difference would be if they were monitoring him. Paul Buchanan's wider point is probably valid but his statement that the event of March 15 was a failure of intelligence is not accurate and is based on fallacy

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... rists-list

Not a single right-wing extremist or white supremacist is listed on the United Nations' register of terrorists.

As I said, his wider point is probably valid but this argument doesn't hold for the specifics of this case.

BillW wrote:

jambanja wrote:

BillW wrote:

merlin the happy pig wrote:

booji boy wrote:
It does seem to be going a bit far.

The idea that we have a "heightened threat level", or whatever terminology is used seems tenuous at the very least.
Not sure whether the people involved really believe we are under imminent threat of further attacks or whether they are just bureaucrats feeling like it is time to justify their positions.

The mad cvnt is locked away, isn't it now safer than ever?

After that episode, police investigations have lifted a few rocks and uncovered all sorts of things, not necessarily related to the mosque
shootings.
There's no shortage of nutters out there.

Rubbish, and if this is the case please show us your sauces because this is the first I'm hearing of it! Sounds a lot like closing the proverbial.

What, so because an Australian nutter decided to go postal, this is now encouraging other like minded nutters to go "oh well if he had a crack we might have a go too, especially given we're going to have to hand in our semi-autos soon, this might be the last chance we get"

I can't help it if this is the first you've heard of it. As for sauces, well you've got me stuffed.
You should have taken more note of the coloured phrase before sounding off though.
All AOS trained staff have been ordered on to full time AOS duty for the next six weeks.
At least one serious plot has been averted already.

Again, could you please link the story to this please because I haven't heard about it and am interested to know what is going on

Murmurs of a Bridge about to be burned

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... brien.html


I know it's Newsgrub but a challenge to Bridges is in the offing: "numbers firming up for Judith Collins".

but then Tova says: "it could happen quickly, it could happen in months, it might not happen at all"