Hard News: That Buzzing Sound
757 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 23 24 25 26 27 … 31 Newer→ Last
-
Crown prosecutor Dierdre Elsmore said the incident took place on December 19, 2007, at the Bridge of Remembrance in central Christchurch, when the boys aged four and two-and-a-half were riding their bicycles which were equipped with trainer wheels.
The older boy rode down the ramp, could not operate his brakes and crashed into a railing, hitting his head.
She said Mason got the boys to the flat area at the top of the bridge where he shouted at them. He picked up the bikes and forced them down onto the ground while the boys were still sitting on them.
He then pulled the elder boy’s ear, yelled at him to shut up, and punched him around the eye with a closed fist.
The actions were seen by a woman and her teenage son who would give evidence at the trial. A police officer also came by and spoke to the woman and then spoke to Mason. He said he had hit the big one in the face “and that’s what I do and that lady should mind her own business”.
You may wish to refer to this entry on Family Integrity's Section 59 Blog: Anti-Parental-Authority Law Criminalises Loving Father. It actually reads like satire.
-
I don't believe she [Helen Clark] would have been willing to die in a ditch over same-sex marriage -- or risk a shit fight inside the party -- but I just wish she'd tried.
Amen to that. I remember thinking when the CU Bill was passed that for all the meetings, emails, energy, time, money, letters to the editor etc, we should have actually gone with the simple change to the marriage act (with consequential amendments in other acts). Doing so would have been far far simpler, easier, and miles more equal for the fags at the back of the marriage bus for the same amount of energy/shite expended over the CUB.
I know that some inside the Labour Party were sacred of attracting opprobrium about equal civil rights in marriage laws, and go figure, thought Civil Unions would attract less.
So here I am and I'm still unequal to my siblings. They can get married, or have a Civil Union, but I can't chose between those options - I'm restricted to having a Civil Union. HOW EQUAL IS THAT?
-
HOW EQUAL IS THAT?
How unequal is it? Are the rights confered by CU's different from those associated with marriage? I got married, my wife wanted not a single mention of God though we did have a female priest do the officiating. If we'd been able, we may well have got CU'd (with or without said preist). I understood, possibly incorrectly, that CU's were equivalent to marriage; are they not?
Perhaps the point you're making is not that the quantum of rights is different but that there's no reason to deny same-sex couples what straight couples have? I get that.
-
Oh, Steve, it was all about the hypocrisy of a closeted lezzer in a sham marriage of convenience with a gay bear pushing her covert far-left homosexual agenda down kiddie's throats. At least, I think that's what Ian Wishart said before my ears started bleeding and I lapsed into a welcome coma.
Okay, but those accusations were silly and speculative, and anyway that’s not hypocrisy in relation to her stance on the issues. It’s not like Clark is generally seen or portrayed as holding conservative moral views, that were then shown to be in severe contrast to her actual behavior.
but there's a legitimate aspect to it: revealing private actions when they are hypocritical in light of your public stance on issues in which you may have some influence.
So, it really would have been useful to remind everyone that Ron Mark was convicted at 17 of having (consensual) sex with a 15 year old, got off with a fine (presumably from some wet, PC wally) and went on to take a rather harder line where others were concerned?Wasn’t there an attempt a few years back to change the law around such situations, to prevent a 17 year old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old from being treated as a sexual predator? If that debate was going on now, and Mark was leading the calls against the change, I think that would be relevant. There would certainly be nothing wrong with the media pointing that out in such a situation.
-
@Chris:
Doing so would have been far far simpler, easier, and miles more equal for the fags at the back of the marriage bus for the same amount of energy/shite expended over the CUB.
It perhaps did seem that way after the huge shitfight that it turned out to be, but I don't think that was apparent in advance.
Civil unions had the virtue of having been party policy for several years, so there could be no accusation of springing a surprise. And CUs had majority support in nearly every public poll, while marriage didn't (although attitudes were notably age-related on it).
@Paul:
Perhaps the point you're making is not that the quantum of rights is different but that there's no reason to deny same-sex couples what straight couples have? I get that.
Me too, even though the distinction isn't personally important to me and, like you, I'd be more likely to opt for a CU than a marriage if it came to it. But I can understand that people would feel strongly about having an equal choice.
-
So here I am and I'm still unequal to my siblings.
I do not want to invite derision but Christopher you are still here and you are equal. You may not have a bit of paper that declares you married but seriously before the CU Bill was passed, marriage was the only choice and I do appreciate that now I don't have to do the marriage and can get a bit of paper, but I don't want to prove anything to anyone so wont.I understand your wish for equality in the name of te Law but seriously, compromise is sometimes all we can wish for and at least in NZ one must accept that we must compromise for the entire nation. You are equal.
-
Wasn’t there an attempt a few years back to change the law around such situations, to prevent a 17 year old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old from being treated as a sexual predator? If that debate was going on now, and Mark was leading the calls against the change, I think that would be relevant. There would certainly be nothing wrong with the media pointing that out in such a situation.
I wrote about that here. Tony Ryall fed the story to the Sunday Star Times, which wrote a monstrously inaccurate shock-horror story quoting Ryall, who later crowed about it in the House and said it was opposed by -- wait for it -- "mainstream families".
But I think Ron Mark's behavior around it was pretty reasonable. Goff, unfortunately, was stampeded into removing the "similar-age defence" which would have given a defence where there was consensual sexual activity between under 16 year-olds.
The whole thing was depressing. And now Tony Ryall's in government ...
-
And now Tony Ryall's in government ...
That's fucking depressing...
And just for the record, I have no idea what Mark's views or comments were on that matter, I was just running with the example brought up, as a hypothetical case.
-
I think she was, actually. I don't think the public has a right to know too much about the circumstances leading to the suicide of a woman who was married to a man who's recently married someone else who has recently been appointed to the Board of a public body.
I've had this argument with crusty old journalists before: you'll find it very hard to convince one that a story has to be in the public interest to be written.
But, out of interest, do we accept McAuley's friends' and family's right to be upset and offended at Rankin's appointment? Or should they simply STFU? Genuine question for everyone.
-
But, out of interest, do we accept McAuley's friends' and family's right to be upset and offended at Rankin's appointment? Or should they simply STFU? Genuine question for everyone.
Without wanting to pre-guess responses, I wonder if, subconciously anyway, the Wellington posters may differ in replies from the rest of the country on this.
-
do we accept McAuley's friends' and family's right to be upset and offended at Rankin's appointment?
Absolutely.
How Rankin or anyone else manages to blame Lefties for this debacle is beyond me.
Maybe she's wearing one of those special shields from God that protects her from her own hypocrisy and the wisdom she should have acquired in her oh-so-public life that would have told her not to take the job. maybe it's Paula Bennett's head they're really after.
-
I wrote about that here.
Rereading that reminded me of why I usually don't disagree when people criticise the media. 'Then the first, thrilling sentence: "Sex between children as young as 12 will be allowed under a shock law change, horrifying teen pregnancy experts, educators and counsellors".'
Shock law change?!! It was a "shock" because the SST declared it to be one. But I know I've ranted before about the media's begging-the-question style of making up the news.Anyway, it looks like the Mark situation wouldn't have been covered by that change anyway. It was only going to apply to those under 16 (and over 12). Still, it should have.
As you were.
-
Twp points in one post for RB
You may wish to refer to this entry on Family Integrity's Section 59 Blog: Anti-Parental-Authority Law Criminalises Loving Father. It actually reads like satire.
And pig-ignorant stuff like that is among the reasons why Family First has disassociated themselves with the Family Integrity lot.Ha! Russell did you know that?
But, out of interest, do we accept McAuley's friends' and family's right to be upset and offended at Rankin's appointment? Or should they simply STFU? Genuine question for everyone.
Well, had the media STFU earlier, you would never have asked the question.
-
But, out of interest, do we accept McAuley's friends' and family's right to be upset and offended at Rankin's appointment? Or should they simply STFU? Genuine question for everyone.
The friends? No, if it means trampling the right to privacy of the family. The family? I'd like some reassurance that they knew the story would break and were okay with it from the start - they are notable for their absence from the reports in the Sunday 'papers' and I suspect that they commented once the damage to their obvious wish for keeping the matter private had been done.
-
I've had this argument with crusty old journalists before: you'll find it very hard to convince one that a story has to be in the public interest to be written.
I understand that. There's a space between defamation law and the role of the Press Council that I'd always thought editors ought to fill (lest parliament do it). I can't help but think in this instance, the Herald's editor has failed (again).
Future regulation of media anyone?
Well, had the media STFU earlier, you would never have asked the question.
Seems a bit of an angry way to make a point in response to a fair question but yeah, I kinda agree.
-
@Dave
And pig-ignorant stuff like that is among the reasons why Family First has disassociated themselves with the Family Integrity lot.Ha! Russell did you know that?
No. It seems odd given that Family First has been nothing but supportive of Mason, and Bob McCoskrie declared himself "astounded" that Mason was even charged.
But Bob's always been pretty good at running for cover when it all goes wrong ...
-
Well, had the media STFU earlier, you would never have asked the question.
Would still think it was jobs for ya mates and I still wouldn't like Rankin or Bennett though.
-
Sofie there's legal equality, which we don't have, and there's social equality, which we also don't have. Some of the social inequality is reinforced by the legal inequality. The option to marry is a huge part of that. Adoption rights are another part.
Paul, CUs will be equal to marriage when we have the choice of them. While we're barred from marriage they remain unequal. I get your point about legal rights being conferred by either, but that's only part of the picture.
-
Paul, CUs will be equal to marriage when we have the choice of them. While we're barred from marriage they remain unequal. I get your point about legal rights being conferred by either, but that's only part of the picture.
@Mrs Skin, sure I get that point - I was just trying to clarify the nature of the inequality. I don't mean to diminish your or others' points, but do think it worth noting that both confer the same status/rights. I think of them as equivalent if not equal.
-
Would still think it was jobs for ya mates and I still wouldn't like Rankin or Bennett though.
That's the part that I don't get: leaving aside her position on s59 and Maori whanau for a moment, she's a family campaigner associated to people who think that divorce is abhorrent and has been married four times. There's your hipocrisy. What need was there to drag Margo McAuley into this? But even now that it's done, how does McAuley's suicide make that particular divorce special? Should Macintyre have stayed in that marriage because her wife had mental health issues? Is developing feelings for somebody you're not married to wrong? I don't know what this lurid story is supposed to even mean.
-
Sofie there's legal equality, which we don't have, and there's social equality, which we also don't have. Some of the social inequality is reinforced by the legal inequality. The option to marry is a huge part of that. Adoption rights are another part.
Paul, CUs will be equal to marriage when we have the choice of them. While we're barred from marriage they remain unequal. I get your point about legal rights being conferred by either, but that's only part of the picture.
Thanks Mrs Skin for saying what I wanted to say, and in a much better way than I could have done so.
Yes, it's social equality as well as legal equality that I want.
-
I don't mean to diminish your or others' points, but do think it worth noting that both confer the same status/rights. I think of them as equivalent if not equal.
It's semantics, but semantics matters. How I know it matters is that I wouldn't get married if my life depended on it, but was perfectly happy to enter into a civil union. That said, the actual legal protections that one achieves with such an arrangement are significant, and it's hard not to see their long overdue availability to gay people as real progress. We'll get to the name too.
-
I didn't realise just how tied into the "Anti-Smacking" Petition the Sake of our Children (where Rankin is CEO) people were. The conflict of interest seems massive, what with that referendum still to be held and the Families Commission presumedly at the forefront of advice out the back of it?
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Ms Rankin or her organisation have made comment somewhere about poor old Mr Mason being "victimised" by the S59 law actually - certainly their comrades in arms have. If someone drags that up right about now (or if/when he gets convicted) then that'll be a pretty big blow.
-
@Sofie
I understand your wish for equality in the name of te Law but seriously, compromise is sometimes all we can wish for and at least in NZ one must accept that we must compromise for the entire nation.
I would agree with you, but sometimes, Rosa Parks doesn't want to sit at the back of the bus, you know?
And yes, of course, the good folks of Waterview Mt Albert must compromise for the good of the nation... I know that's NOT what you are meaning in this case - I'm sure you would mean that they shouldn't compromise in this case... ;)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.