Let's not get too silly. A "telecommunications service" is about connectivity - the means to transfer the data bits. A website is as much a "telecommunications service" as a phone call.
So this was ALL implemented at the behest of National govts only? Hardly. Labour is obviously just as complicit.
As for the Greens, I don't have time to look, but do they have an anti-spy policy? For NZ's own citizens?
But that's the difference between a pop star -someone who is reported on in terms of their work - vs a celebrity, who is reported on "just because".
It doesn't matter that they are often embodied in the same person - the way in which they are reported on is quite different depending on the objective.
I didn't follow the Hoskings case, but what exactly is the test of the difference between this kind of papping and stalking/harassment?
From what I can tell (irony alert), it seems to boil down to being paid to do one and not the other.
I certainly want to protect the right of members of the public to photograph what and who they like on the public street, but if courts can differentiate between "(ex) friends/partners" or "fans", and stalkers, then surely they can differentiate between those paid to carry out similar actions.
If someone is going to turn their promotional blitz into a shill for various less-than-proven therapies, I think that essentially gives the interviewer licence to stop with the promotional routine and start playing hardball with these "facts".
Perhaps that would encourage Sewell to stick to the interview topic. Alas, can't see it happening.
While I'm not someone who runs around wailing "triggurrrrr!", I would have walked out of the show after it descended into that area (at least, as it was described).
Maybe the dude is being all "edgy" and "clever" by playing on the audience's touchy points, but I think art done purely for the sake of being edgy and shocking is often crap. Look at Tracey Emin and her bed - yeah, "clever" in one way. Artistic merit? Not so much for me.
While it's not very pc to say there are some no-go areas in humor - and of course it's subjective as hell - I don't find rape funny. Or taking the mickey out of rape victims amusing. And I would not use "uptight" as a term to describe myself.
Mocking how rape is viewed/dealt with? Great. Satirising how misogyny plays out in real life? Awesome. If he'd been doing lines like, "Everyone calls me a misogynist, but I don't know what those skanky whores are complaining about" - that might have been funny.
But there's a difference between joking about rape vs rapists. I do think you could definitely do jokes about rape, but they would need to be VERY heavy on the satire.
It depends on the proportion of CBD (mellowing) vs THC (hallucinogenic). Some strains are naturally a bit higher in CBD, and some more are being bred to enhance it, to position them for medical use. Not a very well-studied substance yet.
I think I've missed your point somewhere, but how many other politicians full stop are making such statements. Very few? Mostly the women? Frankly, I think this nit-picking for the guy's first interview is quite petty.
He's saying the right things, even if they're not all the things that could be in our anti-violence shopping lists. Some more experienced politicians could step up as well, frankly, since it's hardly an issue confined to Maori. There don't seem to be legions of them lined up to read from this "script" or garnering all these pats on backs.
I have to agree that the ins and outs of which lawyer and/or firm drafted the letter is a distraction from the issue.
It's the trust boards and their principals who are acting at best defensively and at worst quite aggressively against individuals and journalists asking hard but fair questions.
Let's point the finger there, please. And if I were a member of a community whose funds were being used and their blood, sweat and tears, I'd want some answers myself.
Because there appear to be some feather beds being well-lined by some elites in those groups. I often think the "if you have nothing to hide" argument is tosh, but for publicly-accountable trusts, being open is a good thing.
And thanks for the message that society is about adjusting, Sasha. For everyone.