I think you probably are drawing too long a bow. The police are generally not backwards in coming forwards in support of earlier closing hours, and lower drink-driving alcohol limits, and raising the alcohol-purchasing age, and other things not supported by the liquor industry. For all its power, I'd be very surprised to find Big Liqour able to affect police policy to this extent.
Also, it's clear the contract isn't only demanded of Dr Gilbert, but of all researchers wanting to access police statistics.
The beginning of a backdown? Hopefully.
That would be great, but a backdown in Dr Gilbert's case isn't sufficient: the whole policy needs to go. It's completely unacceptable. As an academic who regularly uses government-sourced data, I would never sign an agreement like that. Earlier this year I was seeking data from a private company, and we had a fair bit of wrangling to ensure the non-disclosure agreement signed with them wouldn't compromise my ability to publish. I have huge admiration for that company that they took a leap of faith and agreed to a pre-agreed paragraph for the limitations section of subsequent publications, rather than wanting to hold results back if they weren't favourable for them, knowing that there is potential for the results to have adverse implications for their business.
And even their original non-disclosure agreement wasn't as restrictive and draconian as that required by NZ Police.
Except that even the military doesn’t think it’s OK to bomb hospitals (though of course does by mistake), and really prefers and tries not to kill civilians when it’s trying to take out military targets. There is a difference between treating civilians as people you try to avoid killing, and treating civilians as the people you are trying to kill.
There may not be much difference to the civilians who are dead, or their families, but there is still a difference.
Er, my french is a bit rusty, but I think that last sentence should read “They did not know that war had been declared on them”. It’s a rather different meaning, so would be nice to have a proper francophone confirm either way?
ETA: I have checked with the francophones I know, and they also say it is “They did not know that war had been declared on them”. An example of the risks, but also the poetry, of Google translate, because the incorrect translation seems to me at least as meaningful as the actual translation.
The found passport bothers me too. If you were going to go and carry out an attack like this, why would you have your passport with you? I didn't think it was compulsory to carry ID in France any more?
If women feel strongly enough that the male-dominated parties don’t represent their views, then start a Women’s Party.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the reason to argue for gender quotas is so that women's "views" are represented. That's not it at all. Women make up half the population. Half of it. Or even slightly more. We're not a "single issue" group.
Well, if you take the meaning of "speaker" as something that magnifies the volume of sound input elsewhere...
utter fucking horrorshow
A perfect description. Chills of horror is exactly what I felt watching it – to see all those women shut down… If you want to know what rape culture looks like, that’s (one facet of) it.
And here’s the video of one of Key’s DPS guards pushing Kelvin Davis after he told Key he was “gutless” in the foyer earlier.
It’s not the worst assault ever, but that’s beside the point. Key was in no danger – he was already on his way. And Prime Ministerial security guards do not get to lay a hand on Members of Parliament who are doing their jobs.
I'd read this before I read any other accounts of it. Both Audrey Young ("MPs should have the freedom to walk the corridors of power without being verbally assaulted by anyone, the public, the media, or political opponents.")and Tracy Watkins ("It's one thing to have your opponents yelling insults across the House, and quite another to be waylaid by a fellow MP in the corridor and verbally abused.") paint Davis as the assaulter, and Key as the assaulted.
What B Jones said. If Key wants to run the line that Labour are supporting rapists, then the logical conclusion is that Key wants the rapists to come to New Zealand, not stay in Australia. How on earth does that manage to win him votes?