I find the wording of the boycott and Whipp-authorised fact sheet interesting
(1) "The makers of feature film The Hobbit – to be shot in New Zealand next year have refused to engage performers on union-negotiated agreements."
(2) "For some years performers in New Zealand have struggled on non-union contracts."
(3) They are now resolved to "seek a union contract for all performers on The Hobbit."
(1) and (2) seems at best economical with the truth. (3) is incoherent for independent contractors. It also clearly seeks to make the production a closed union shop.
Peter Jackson had negotiated residuals for the first time ever. I can't help wondering if that was what drew in the Aussie union - the opportunity to clip the ticket on Peter's generosity.
So ironically, if Peter had been less generous, perhaps none of this would ever have happened.
MMP has real problems - but so do all systems. I think MMP has at least made both major parties more centrist. As right-leaning centrist myself, I think that's a pretty good thing.
Um, Lockwood Smith said that if they wanted to do something new, they would have a discussion document for consultation.
Doesn't sound very secret to me.
Craig, I made comment not because I didn't know who the Borg are, but because I do. Your comment wasn't "Queen of the Borg". It was "Queen of the Fem-Borg." The "Fem-Borg" appear nowhere in Star Trek that I am aware of.
I was also surprised to see you treat "feminazi" as a reference to the Third Reich. This is a current political term, whose definition can be found here, although I think you must be familiar with its use from kiwiblog.
Queen of the Fem-Borg.
Why don't you just say "feminazis" and be done with it. Really Craig, your language betrays you.
Shep & Kyle: thank you for your thoughtful answers.
So let's get this right. It's okay to destroy things you morally disagree with, provided you are willing to take the consequences of your actions, and don't intend to hurt people? Have I got that right?
I don't see how any kind of society could function with that kind of violent anarchism. It seems to justify everything. After all, people always believe themselves justified in their actions. It reminds me of Professor Paz in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", who described himself as a rational anarchist. However, he followed his anarchist logic to its conclusion, and was prepared to kill if he thought he ought to . After all, once you demonize somebody as part of an oppressive clique, any action against them becomes justified. Doesn't it? How far can property damage and reckless disregard be taken?
The inevitable suspicion is that you only intend such rules to apply to people you like. I wonder how you would feel about people using the same tactics, but to opposite political ends?
It's their actions and aims that they should be judged on, not their inspiration. As such religion isn't the issue
Oh, and I must point out that you seem to be defending their actions and aims based on their inspiration. I am quite happy to judge them on their actions and aims:
- Actions: significant vandalism with reckless disregard for the consequences.
- Aim: disarmanent.
I'm sorry, but the Waihopai dishes weren't armaments. They can only be regarded as armaments by reference to the broader arguments I introduced earlier.
As you note Shep, we must agree to disagree.
By the logic you cite, it seems to me that the 9/11 attacks were a horrifying and unprovoked surprise attack on innocent civilians. Certainly, voting for a political party and filling up your car seems less offensive than attacking a military installation.
To me, that raises the question what the US should have done in response to 9/11. My view: Invaded Afghanistan, deposed the Taleban and eliminated Al Quaeda as an effective force. And left Iraq completely alone. I'm intrigued whether those who attacked the spy dishes would also have supported the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan? I assume they would not have supported the 9/11 attacks ... ?
These are not intended as trick questions. My very real concern is that it all too easy to duck the hard issues by hiding behind a veil of pacifism. It turns out that a belief in non-violence doesn't protect you from the 9/11, Madrid, London and Bali bombers. Let alone the other plots that have been frustrated.
So should we just turn the other cheek? If not, how can we justify interfering with our defence? These vandals have not turned the other cheek, yet they expect us to, I think?
It seems very self centred to me - an attempt to feel better about a local issue, and damn the global consequences.
Hmmn. That sounds familiar.