Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There's something about being told where you can and can't go that rankles
I think what rankles more is that it is being done in an effort to regulate what you can and can't say.
BTW, I hope the sight of the disruption to Sydney will convice Kiwis that we should never, ever, host such a meeting here. And if it doesn't, just think what closing the Auckland motorway so that Bush doesn't get stuck in traffic on his way to the airport would do...
-
. . . attempts to convert people??? Sorry, to me that's hardly a tenet of genuine religious faith. In a tolerant society the need to constantly proselytise is more an indication of an ongoing need to reinforce a shallow and unexamined belief system.
In which case a fair chunk of NZ's self-described Christians fall into that category. Yet we accept their religious beliefs as genuine all the same.
My point here isn't to talk about what Christianity is or isn't - I'll leave that fight to the Christians. Instead, it's that different standards are being applied - standards which we would find highly insulting if applied to ourselves. And that is wrong.
(Still, it could be worse - Panah could be an atheist. How the hell are meant to prove that?)
-
It's hard to divine a basis for allowing him to stay in New Zealand.
Not really. What matters in assessing the danger Panah will face if deported to Iran (and despite the Minister's claims to the contrary, that is the only option. Quite apart from the fact that any transfer to a third country will inevitably result in return to persecution in Iran, we don't accept other people's political problems; why should they accept ours) is not Panah's beliefs then, but his beliefs now. And any objective assessment of his religious activities can only reach the conclusion that he is a genuine Christian.
As I pointed out yesterday, Panah talks about his god, goes to church, prays, and attempts to convert people. This is more than most New Zealanders who profess Christianity ever do, and if we were presented these same facts about anyone else, we would have no difficulty in accepting the genuineness of their faith. And yet we don't when it comes to Panah. Is it because he is brown?
The RSAA may be legally forbidden from reaching that conclusion (their findings of fact are final, so that initial finding in the first decision was carried over unexamined into the second, and will no doubt be reiterated in any subsequent appeal regardless of the actual facts), but the Iranians will certainly reach it, and Panah will face persecution and possibly murder as a result. And that is what matters to me: the government is proposing to deport a man to persecution and possible death. That is morally unacceptable, and if it is what "process" requires, then so much the worse for process.
-
Maybe Moore should take up blogging?
-
Amusingly they might know a lot about whisky but are unimaginative when it comes to naming their sons: there was John the founder then his son George and his son George and his son George and his son John and now his son George. Or something like that.
Still, maybe it is a Scottish thing: I was born in Edinburgh and my Dad was a Graham and so was his father.
It's that famous Scottish stinginess. They can only afford two names, so they have to alternate.
(I understand that early UNIX suffered from a similar thing with its commands :)
-
Danyl: "de-Rogered", then. Because it is something that needs to happen.
Personally it's important to me because they might be the next government. If the answers are good then perhaps they should be.
Unfortunately, National simply doesn't want to tell us. Which is highly suspicious in itself, and an affront to the democratic system. Yes, people are entitled to vote for whatever reasons they want, but it would be nice if politicians treated elections as something more than a beauty contest.
-
John Key has also announced that he wants to 'improve' Kiwisaver. I'm betting these improvements will involve either freezing or scrapping the employer contributions.
That would fit with their general "bait and switch" tactics.
-
Michael: No, that was The Merry Widow.
-
And the worst bit? He stayed sober for the entire performance.
Definitely unAustralian.
-
The most succinct condemnation of Chavez is a simple comparison with him to President Lula of Brazil - a centre left politician who really is doing something for the less well off, without the benefit of all that oil money.
Well, Chavez "really is doing something for the less well off" as well. The difference is that Lula is doing it constitutionally and properly, without transforming his country into a dictatorship.