Recent Posts...
Page 8 of 11
Archive
A hypothetical question | Nov 01, 2005 00:13
If I called Wayne Mapp cognitively-challenged, would he have to demand that I call him "retarded"?
(Worst. Post. Ever.)
An Open Letter to the New Zealand Right | Oct 28, 2005 07:49
Dear Thatcher-humping liberals,
I'm a firm secularist and I believe that the state is there to provide public good, not to dictate private mores. Funnily enough, my biggest philosophical objection to liberalism is the idea of objective, absolute human rights. As an empiricist, I wouldn't know what to do with them, but I remember reading somewhere (er... every text on liberalism ever written?) that liberals like human rights. Lots.
And you know what? I like liberalism. It's a nice, logical system, and at it's heart, it's driven by rationality and the desire for just society. That's nice. I even like a lot of liberals.
But you know why everyone thinks you're racist, fascist, baby-killers? You know why everyone hates you, calls you fuckface, and throws mud on your best tie?
The National Party. That's why.
There's already been a lot said about Wayne Mapp making an arse of himself, but let me offer a subtly different view: He didn't simply say the wrong things - he laid bare the true sentiments behind National's "one-law-for-all" rhetoric; he explicitly articulated what National had previously only dared to imply.
You know how you were all saying "we're not racists - we're just liberals"? Well, Wayne Mapp, on behalf of the National Party, is on his hands and knees, begging to differ.
In his National Radio interview, he started talking about powhiri and other Maori religious observances that are becoming institutionalised by the Government. He pulled out the great S of Secularism, and said that: "in a secular state, all beliefs should be treated equally, because that's what secularism means. Instead, this Government puts it into law that one set of values has a preference."
So Sean Plunket asks if he wanted to get rid of the Lord's Prayer at the start of each Parliamentary session. "No, I think that's part of our history," says Mapp.
Who's history? "The nation's history. The nation's history."
There's no mistake - he wants the majority, with its boundaries drawn along culture, class and sexuality, to take control of the very instruments that you claim are intruding into your lives. Listen for yourselves.
It's time to face facts, dear liberals. The National Party is not interested in building a modern secular state, it's not interested in a colour-blind society, it's not interested in reducing the role of the state in individuals' lives.
The National Party is about reasserting, in state institutions, the dominance of the cultural and moral norms of an idealised white majority.
It's about linguistic, cultural, moral, religious control of and by the state. It's the very kind of nanny-state bullshit that you hate, but in White-Middle-Class-of-the-50s flavour.
Go join ACT - hell, join the Libertarianz - but christ, stop deluding yourself that National is a party of liberalism, of freedom, of modernity. They are using your ideals as cover for their old-school, telly-ho-let's-shoot-some-peasants brand of conservatism.
They are pissing on your ideology in the processing of trying to piss on everyone else.
The Incredible Winston | Oct 25, 2005 12:03
Winston Peters. Winston Peters. Winston Peters. Like everyone else, I can't stop talking about Winston Peters! Winston Peters!
He really has been having a tough time with the media at the moment, with SST's Anthony Hubbard's explicitly putting him on trial, even. It's a great read, but although it was insightful, sharp, pointed, and applied forcefully in a downward, stabbing manner, it was like a silver sword through a vampire's chest - it went in, you saw it go in, but somehow, it just didn't do the damage it was supposed to.
I've seen - and been wowed - by Winston in front of a live audience. The Winston doesn't take form unless he is being watched, but when he is - whether it's an audience of thousands, hundreds, or a dozen - his powers grow as he feeds off the attention. My hypothesis is that Peters is only vulnerable when he transforms into The Winston, and he is hit with a massive dose of public humiliation. Or delta radiation.
Or not. He's in politics for the love, for the status, for the glory - especially the glory of being persecuted. The more he's being attacked, the more he feeds off it and grow stronger. Perhaps one more blast from the media's Why-Do-You-Keep-Lying-to-Us Ray will finish him off? No, he just soaks it up.
I thought the delta rays were finally getting to him in his interview on Agenda. Hell, he actually got flustered! Usually, whenever he is stumped for an answer, he just bellows outs "I WINSTON! MEDIA WRONG!", and by sheer force of will manages to make everyone else seem wrong. In this interview, he stumbled at even this - though it was only a temporary lapse.
To Winston's credit, though, the odds were well-stacked against him. Garth Bray was good on the attack, but he was also flanked by The Scientist (Jonathon Boston) and The Overcompensatingly-Angry Heroine (Gillian Bradford from ABC). Having the journos tag-team Winston was a bit unsporting, and to some extent counterproductive, too.
I thought that sharpest, most piercing observation came from Boston:
The issue that concerned me yesterday was the statement by his deputy leader that New Zealand First was an opposition party not a government party. Now I think this is really pushing the limits of logic.
You cannot have the leader of a party representing the country internationally as the Foreign Minister, claiming at the same time that it is an opposition party. The only way you could realistically maintain that position would be to decouple the leadership of the party from the party, that in effect would mean Mr Peters leaving his party.
Unfortunately, Bray didn't give Winston a chance to answer that, and went straight to Bradford instead. It's something I'd like answered: Is he first and foremost a Minister of the Crown or the Leader of NZ First? Does his loyalty belong to NZ First or to Helen Clark's government?
(Oh, and yay Agenda for putting up transcripts!)
Back in da hood | Oct 21, 2005 03:03
Went down to Parliament yesterday to try to "catch the vibe" of the new Government. All I caught was the scent of tequila, and that was coming from me.
There really isn't much happening down there at the moment. It's been a bit of a ghost-town since the election, outside of those (metaphorically) smoke-filled rooms, and even that's done now. All the Ministers have gone home reading up on their portfolios ("Is immigration the one with an 'e' or an 'i'?" "Whaddya mean the Minister of Racing don't have any powers over boy-racers?"), and all the staffers are busy brushing up their CVs for the upward game of musical chairs.
Will be interesting to see who takes over as Labour Whip, after Jill Pettis stood down. As my learned tequila-buddies were saying this afternoon, there will be a lot of big egos in the Labour caucus this term, and a lot of maneuvering - subtle or otherwise - in preparation of the Dear Leader's ascension from the Beehive. Caucus discipline will become an issue and the Whip could be the key to the stability, and/or a strategic rallying point for the leadership battle.
When everyone gets bored with picking the next National leader, I'm sure it'll be ripe time to start putting odds on the next Labour leader. Heard David Parker's name mentioned twice today. Never met him myself, and don't know much about him, but as one of the new Favoured Ones to be brought into Helen's loving embrace, I understand he's going to get a fair bit of the spotlight on him soon enough.
The hills are alive with the lack of politics | Oct 17, 2005 00:25
Ah, the sun is bright and warm, the air is clean and crisp, the politicians are consensus-building and commentless. New Zealand: what a country!
The dark clouds will gather over Wellington again before long, no doubt, but until then, there's absolutely nothing political that we need to concerned ourselves with. Except for the coalition negotia-
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!
Nope. Nothing at all.
I saw on the news the other day that, apparently, the election is now over. I guess that means I should probably stop with the whole election commentary thing. I doubt that there will be anything to say even when a new government is formed, because every permutation will be unstable, and that instability will be the new Government's salient feature. It'll certainly be interesting to see whether this Government can wobble its way to a full third term, but for now, I'm signed up to a three-month unilateral moratorium on giving-a-shit.
None of the particular coalition permutations worries me too much. Not even Winston Peters. I may live to eat these words, but I think he may be the most docile of the centre-pack. Sure, he's made his reputation as "Nobody's Poodle", but that was before he got mostly-neutered. He's already lost Tauranga (aka "Lefty") and the NZF Party Vote (aka "Righty") is dangling by a 0.72% thread. One wrong move...
Anyway, this is more a pointer post than anything else. With a sentimental sob, I have officially left student media, my home for the past five years (with a 2-year exile in the middle, admittedly). Russell has invited me to stay on with Public Address for a bit longer, so I hope to blog a bit more over these coming months and perhaps reinvent the blog under a different name, with a different, broader focus.
In the near future, I'll be (finally) posting my interview with Tom Scott and resuming the Maori seats debate I was having with Che before we were interrupted by the injunction. At the risk of getting too introspective, I also want to blog about some of the lessons I've learnt this year about political journalism in general and blogging in particular. It'll be a good way to get some closure on Poll Dancer.
As for closure for my time in student media, I don't think I could have done it any better than the last story I wrote for Salient, about the injunction. This is the final paragraph:
In a post-modern statement juxtaposing the institutional authority of the university and the under-resourced informality of student media, Salient drew penises all over the confidential papers. These have now been returned to their original owner, Professor Pat Walsh.
The paragraph had a little trouble getting past Salient's legal department. Graeme noted a particularly thorny legal issue: since the penises were on the confidential documents, they may well have been covered by the injunction and the subsequent settlement, too, making their release illegal. In the end, it was decided that Salient would "release the penises".
It's been, however, an uphill struggle trying to convince people that it really was a post-modern exercise in contextual art. It was originally intended for the courtroom, so that when the documents were presented in the High Court, we would see the judge reviewing, as evidence, a simple yet elegant illustration by Salient Designer Dave Batt entitled: "Pat Loves the Cock".
Our legacy for student media.
[Also of interest: Salient sums up the year with a line-up of celebrity columnists, including Jane Clifton, Alan Duff, Bill Manhire, Jon Johansson, Chris Knox, Sean Redmond, Lauren Pyle, Uncle Russell, Michael Appleton (former Salient Editor and more recently of frogblog), outgoing Salient Editress Emily Braunstein and incoming Editor James Robinson. Phew that's an awful lot of linking.]
Salient Sells Out for Media Freedom | Oct 10, 2005 13:42
Salient's fight to overturn the High Court injunction blocking its publication last week has left it with around $8000 in legal fees and lost advertising revenue. The first copy that was liberated from Victoria University is now being auctioned off on TradeMe to help Salient recover its costs.
It is hoped that this auction will help demonstrate the strength with which New Zealanders believe in freedom of the press and transparency in our public bodies.
This gesture will also underscore the lesson for any future organisations that would consider using a similar tactic.
Oh, and it's a great read!
Auction can be found here.
We will now return to your regular broadcast. | Oct 06, 2005 01:21
As per the terms of the settlement between Vic and Salient, I can't comment on the case. I'm pretty sure that what I would have said wouldn't come as a surprise, anyway.
The settlement allows me, however, to talk about everything but the case.
Now that we've settled, we'll no longer be a test case for media law. However, we have done our best to demonstrate what happens when an organisation tries to injunct a media outlet - however small - and we have spared no effort or expense in doing so.
We've done our little bit for press freedom in New Zealand, now I hope that you, dear Public Address readers, will be willing to help us cover the cost of fighting this battle. Anything you can spare would be greatly appreciated.
If you are able to help out, please write out a cheque to the Victoria University of Wellington Students' Association and send it to Salient Defence Fund, C/O VUWSA, PO Box 600, Wellington. Or deposit the money into VUWSA's account, 06 0606 0008285 00.
[UPDATE: Generous contributor Stephen tells me that donations to VUWSA are tax deductible.]
A special thanks to those who have already contributed!
Anyway, now that the scythe has passed over our collective heads, I think it's safe to reveal that I was only a co-writer of the story. The other writer was my able deputy, Nicola Kean, who I hope will take over my job next year. The story was uncredited for her protection while the legal shitstorm approached, though I was pretty happy to revel in the chaos.
A lot of people have asked me why we didn't just go ahead and run the story without checking with the university. We were aware of the consequences of seeking comment from the university, and we were aware of the option of bypassing it altogether. We chose not to.
I'm generally not one for doing things the hard way when there's an easy way. But this wasn't about doing things the hard way, this was about doing things the way we wanted them to be done, and if anyone was to get in our way, well, we'll fight that battle on that ground.
And I have absolutely no regrets. As it is, I can stand by our article as a solid piece of reporting on a good story, right down to our attempts to balance the glaring numbers with the context that the university could've offered (but didn't). Hell, we even presented the university's case reasonably, in their absence.
We did our jobs. The university management and their lawyers did theirs. The issue came to a head. The outcome, which I can't comment on, speaks for itself.
And it's good to finally see the full version of the article bask in the light of day. (Or at least what was left of a very cloudy late afternoon today.) Still, I'm feeling a bit sheepish, since the hype had overtaken the substance of the story a long time ago, and the story has become a bit of an anticlimax as a result.
Seeing the MSM pick up on the question of whether there's a widespread trend of fee-rise around the country, though, made me feel that the article had done its job (even before it was published).
Strange, crazy world.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank Salient's in-house counsel, Graeme Edgeler, who has guided us through some pretty treacherous legal waters, and has had the perseverance and tenacity to restrain me from breaking the law on many, many occasions. He got us through those crucial first few days, before we even hired a lawyer, and his tireless work and level-head advice (poised against my sound strategies of total mayhem) since then has been a critical part of Salient's multi-pronged attack/defence.
We couldn't have fought the juggernaut without him.
He's currently looking for a more lucrative post than Salient, so if there's a law firm looking to hire, just drop me a line and I'll pass his details along.
Now, all we have to worry about is putting out next week's magazine...
It makes you think. | Oct 04, 2005 13:33
I got a letter today from Victoria University's lawyer saying that:
We understand that you are the primary contact person for the Aotearoa Student Press Association and further that you provided the confidential material which had been supplied to Salient to the other members of ASPA, notwithstanding the injunction which has been issued.
The supply of that information to other members of ASPA is clearly a breach of the interim injunction and potentially contempt of Court. We seek an immediate undertaking on behalf of ASPA and its member organisations that the information will not be published by any of them so long as the interim injunction remains in place.
Should this undertaking not be forthcoming immediately, we will seek an extension of the interim injunction to cover ASPA and its member organisations. In seeking to extend the interim injunction we will be obliged to advise the Court that you had the opportunity to provide us with an undertaking not to publish the material but declined to do so.
Unless we have a satisfactory response from you by 9.00am tomorrow, Tuesday 4 October 2005, we will proceed to seek further High Court Orders.
The letter is dated 3 October. I called the courier, who informed me that the letter was delivered at 8:51am on today, 4 October.
For the legalese-adverse, that third paragraph was a threat to put a gag order on ASPA and all the student magazines that are members of ASPA. Here's a list of all 13, for the University's convenience (I like how it looks so long in a column):
Caclin (Lincoln)
Canta (Canterbury)
Chaff (Massey, Palmerston North)
Craccum (Auckland)
Crew (UCOL)
Critic (Otago)
Debate (AUT)
gYRo (Otago Polytech)
InUnison (Unitec)
Magneto (Massey, Wellington)
Nexus (Waikato)
Salient (Victoria)
Satellite (Massey, Albany)
So, to rephrase, Victoria University threatened to put a gag order on every single student magazine in New Zealand. (Slight hyperbole. I suspect there might be a few polytech magazines that are not part of ASPA.)
I'll leave the comment to others.
But I do feel like repeating myself.
Victoria University threatened to put a gag order on every single student magazine in New Zealand.
Perhaps Otago should replace "Get Over It!" with "We won't gag you!"?
I'm also a bit peeved that they are trying to say that we've breached the terms of our injunction by putting the story-that-we-can't-mention on the Aotearoa Student Press Association newswire.
We put the story on the ASPA newswire on Thursday, as we always do, because that's when everyone goes to print. Vic filed the injunction, ex parte (i.e. they didn't tell us), on Friday, and it wasn't served to us until we asked for it and went and got it ourselves on Sunday evening. If we hadn't taken the initiative, it would have been served to us on Monday morning, four or five hours before we were due in court.
When the article was placed on the newswire, the injunction was not in effect, the injunction had not been granted, the injunction had not been filed, we weren't notified that Vic even wanted an injunction.
We were not obligated to and we did not keep the article under wraps on the basis of "gee-maybe-Vic-will-file-an-injunction-at-some-point-in-the-future-but-just-won't-tell-us-because-they-want-to-keep-us-in-the-dark".
Over the weekend, we emailed the Vice-Chancellor and the Public Relations Director. Neither responded. We advised them exactly where and when we could be found. No reply.
While we weren't jumping at the opportunity to tell them that a story on our story (that's what the ASPA story was) was published elsewhere, had they simply asked us who else had we told, we would have duly told the truth.
They didn't ask. They didn't respond to our requests. They wanted us in the dark. We were. And now they're complaining that we didn't respond to their complaints quickly enough - i.e. that we didn't act as if the injunction was in place three days before they serve us with it.
The fact that this injunction is holding the fruits of our labour to ransom hurts us immeasurably, but we have respected and observed the law. Speaking of which, we need help. Lawyers are expensive. If you have $10k (or part thereof) sitting around in your bottom drawer and you are happy to throw it at a bunch of dirty student journalists sticking it to The Man (and protecting the ability of the media to cover stories based on leaks), we'd love to hear from you. Email me at keith@salient.org.nz.
This is not just about a large organisation being able to squash the little guys. This is a case that will have an impact on *all* leaks. If this leak is stopped, it won't be the last.
It makes you think.
We interrupt your regular programming... | Oct 03, 2005 11:55
All 6,000 issues of this week's Salient are being held in an unidentified, secure location at Victoria University at the moment, after our Vice-Chancellor took out an ex parte High Court injunction against us. We got served.
Actually, we had to pick the injunction up ourselves. So it's more like self-service.
So much for all the cheap puns. It's been a grueling few days, after some hard partying at the Aotearoa Student Press Association awards on Saturday (we got served there, too, by Otago student mag Critic). There was much drinking and karaoke-ing.
The fun part was the next day, trying to prepare legal documents on a 4-inch iPAQ screen and talking legalese over a dodgy cell connection on the Desert Road in a crumby van while hung-over and sleep-deprived (damn daylight-saving). Our mobile HQ was wicked. Like the Turtle-mobile, except we were student journalists, rather than ninja-turtles, and we were fighting lawsuits, rather than Shredder.
Then we drove straight back to the office where we've been since last night, working in shifts to keep this media-train running. I used bound copies of Salient as my pillow - it was beautiful.
All this kerfuffle, of course, was over an article we printed saying that censored censored censored were going to injuncted injuncted injuncted because embargoed embargoed embargoed. That's all.
Ahem. Given they put an injunction on my ass, I guess you'll have to get the details elsewhere.
We're due in court at 14:15. It's all fun and games until the lawyer's bill comes...
Page 8 of 11
Archive