Posts by Tim Hannah

  • Hard News: Spring Timing, in reply to steven crawford,

    You should read Meteria's third reading speech on the Foreshore and Seabed bill - about a third of the way down this page.

    This Parliament is at a pivotal moment in our nation’s history: to return to our paternalistic past, or take the path of justice and peace, and we are about to blow it. We will blow it on greed, on the desire for power, on intellectual fallacies, and on political expediency. All New Zealanders will hold this Parliament to account for the wrong that the Government is about to commit. For Māori, we have been here before and, no doubt, we will be here again, defending our right to be Māori in our own country. We welcome our Pākehā friends and colleagues who object to this raupatu in their name, to join us in this struggle. Together, we will continue to seek justice and peace in our country—ka whawhaitonumātouake, ake, ake.

    I guess you could claim that she's sold out and would vote differently now - though that isn't what you did claim - but you'd need to provide some evidence, especially as your initial claim was really quite wrong.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 222 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    I have no words. Nice for you that you don’t have to care.

    [oh wait, I do, do you actually think that you've "elevated the entire roastbusters debate" or was that retweet deliberately ironic?]

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 222 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…,

    [Deleted as overtaken by events]

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 222 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…,

    Some of you should go read WE NEED TO CHANGE HOW WE TALK ABOUT RAPE. It is, as far as I can tell, written by a man, basically to men. So it’s worth reading.

    (Deal with the caps lock, you get used to it and it’s worth getting past it.)

    [Should say there's some pretty triggering stuff in there, apologies for adding this late]

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 222 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    How so?

    Where did they stop making it clear that speaking up wasn't futile?

    I don't think that actually happened. Could be wrong but my recollection of events goes something like:

    1) Make it clear to Amy and listeners that speaking up is futile
    2) Apologise for any offence caused by reasonable position that speaking up is futile
    3) Hang up on callers / throw Hooten out
    4) Stop discussing it at all
    5) Get stood down

    In the middle there they did stop saying speaking up was futile, but the words were still on the table, not retracted. Impact can be seen in places like this, where not many women are speaking up, and those that do are frequently ignored.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 222 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…,

    Anne R. has said much more of interest than anyone else on this page, maybe this whole damn thread. Quick cis dudes, let's not acknowledge her.

    (Honest, I'm going to enjoy the last of the sun, promise)

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 222 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Mark Hubbard,

    Maybe if you dropped the link to your blog in twitter a bit more you'd have more readers.

    It's not fucking about you.

    Now I'm done. Lovely evening.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 222 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…,

    (Apologies if this has already been said in comments, I skimmed 177 of them.)

    No, I don’t think it has. And it was good, thanks.

    I take your point about how easy it is for many of us cis guys to congratulate ourselves and each other on our right-on-ness.

    On the other hand, it’s sometimes really hard to see these comments made by other guys and say, ah, I’ll leave it for a woman to answer that, that can be their job. Maybe especially on a post concentrating on Tamihere and Jackson’s ‘freedom of speech’, why should you have to bother? But maybe excuses.

    But yeah, I’m done. Lovely evening.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 222 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to john Drinnan,

    – Is willie and JT being on full pay really the most important issue.

    Your first engagement in this debate here (I think, could be wrong) was complaining that somebody called somebody else a rape enabler on twitter, and how terribly uncivilised that was, and you want to rag on me for making a mountain out of a molehill?

    But, no. Obviously not. Jackson and Tamihere are a sideshow. The entire 'freedom of speech' argument that all of us guys are so keen on having is very very far from being the most important issue.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 222 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to john Drinnan,

    why aren;t people talking about the rape rather than how important it was to get rid of two people who were crap at handling a discussion about it – because its much simpler

    That’s a really good question John.

    (I think it’s mostly because people keep starting conversations about how terrible it was that they were stood down, for six weeks, probably on full pay, because that’s terribly important and a violation of their rights. Why do you think it is?)

    [Edited to add quote and note that I realise John gave his theory for why. I think he’s wrong though.]

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 222 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 23 Older→ First