Up Front: In Committee
51 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
ChrisW, in reply to
This has reminded me of making submissions on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill:
Good story – but “smiling gentle bigotry” doesn’t quite gel with my memory of the nasty snarling variety expressed by opponents of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill during its 1985-86 progress. Those Wellington memories via the media of the day corroborated by NZ History online leading its story with Invercargill MP Norm Jones’s 'Go back into the sewers where you come from' as more the norm.
Seems more like the Civil Union Bill of 2004?
So I checked. Lianne Dalziel did not enter Parliament until 1990, but she was indeed a member of the 2004 Justice and electoral select committee which heard submissions on the CUB. And Wikipedia tells me Graham Capill was a student rather than a church leader in 1985-86, stood down as leader of the Christian Heritage Party in 2003, and was convicted of sex crimes against children in 2005.
So yes, 2004. It was different a generation earlier.
-
I am still amazed by the amount of pride some people take in their ignorance, you may call it bigotry but if you delve a little deeper you will see that I am right, pride in ignorance is a National Disgrace.
Allow me to illustrate.
I have a guy that helps me out with ditch digging, carrying heavy things and entertaining us with his searing insights on Humanity. He is not so good at things like Maths because, as he says… “They tried to teach us that new maths at school so I didn’t learn anything… all that A+B=C shit. What’s all that about eh?”
I did attempt to enlighten him on Pythagoras, as a way of ensuring things were square… “If you measure 3 metres along this edge, 4 along this edge then the diagonal should measure 5 because the Square on the Hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other 2 sides. 3x3=9, 4x4=16, 16+9= 25 and the square root of 25 is?”
The blank look gradually turned to anger “Roots, squares? what the fuck are you on about you fuckin’ geek?”
Oh Joy.
He is a sweet enough guy apart from his exceptional ability to exemplify Conservative attitudes toward anything that… well anything really. He has a cute little dog that he treats like a small child. I must point out that if it were indeed a small child he would be doing hard jail time for his intimacy. Back to the cute dog. I mentioned to him, jokingly, that if he were to continue treating his dog in this way little Billy could grow up to be Gay. His reaction to this piece of misguided humour on my part shocked me to the core…
“If Billy turns out to be Gay I will leave him chained up outside”
What, I wonder, is he actually frightened of?.So. Pride in ignorance is the hurdle we must conquer, otherwise we may find ourselves chained and barking up the wrong tree.
-
Coming late to this party, but . . .
I am looking forward to seeing the first weddings being celebrated on Saturday 1 June. (Is it inappropriate for me to note that is Queens Birthday?)
Given Parliamentary processes, plus the needs of the bureaucrats to get everything lined up (they might need a month or so) I think 1 June is achievable.
-
Sacha, in reply to
fuckin’ geek
very good #roots
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
The blank look gradually turned to anger “Roots, squares? what the fuck are you on about you fuckin’ geek?”
"NERRRRRRRRRRDS!"
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
F..n new maths, that bleeding pythagoras. Next thing you'll be telling us there's such a thing as zero.
When I was at school, we learnt proper maths. Divide MCMLXXII by LXC by break time or it's the headmasters office for you, boy.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Have you ever really used trig in your joinery, though? Most people I see building stuff use set squares to work out if something is square.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Have you ever really used trig in your joinery
I have! And algebra! I also delve into things from art like golden rectangles and proportions.
Of course knowing how to pull apart and rebuild when all that goes wrong is mportant too.
-
I recommend spending some time with "The Times" archive from between 1840 and 1907 and reading the editorials, opinions and letters to the Ed. about the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act in Britain. EXACTLY the same arguments ("unnatural!", "unBiblical!!" "ruination of family life!!!").
And we all know that traditional marriage and family life ended forever in Britain in 1907, don't we?Some of the arguments are hilarious
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Of course knowing how to pull apart and rebuild when all that goes wrong is important too.
I like how you said "when" rather than "if". Confession!
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I like how you said “when” rather than “if”
That was the point I actually started to enjoy woodwork as a hobby, when I discovered everyone stuffed up and good woodworkers had all these tricks for fixing their mistakes.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Like chucking the trig out the window, and measuring instead :-)
-
Islander, in reply to
It used to be rule of thumb and then! rulers (of the measurement kind.)
I am very sure all people who build/have built & who post here, can also go by eye measurement (I can instantly & accurately gauge whether a three-dimensional object will fit in my van- or anywhere else...) -
Bart Janssen, in reply to
It used to be rule of thumb and then! rulers
Oh sure, the eye is the ultimate arbiter of success after all, and so using the eye to decide shape is critical. But I love the design phase as well and often my thoughts about what is possible need to be tested with some math first.
As for rulers, they have their place but one lesson I learnt was using a story stick, it doesn't matter if all the legs are 2 mm shorter than you intended but it does matter that they are all the same - a story stick does that when a ruler doesn't.
-
Ben Cragg, in reply to
My old man's a builder, and he uses trig a lot - calculating fall, that sort of thing. Also I think the old 3-4-5 is still the best way of getting something square on a larger scale...
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
I think the old 3-4-5 is still the best way of getting something square on a larger scale
We have a project that's going to call for this very soon :)
-
Here is approximately 30 meters of Hose. (for reasons that will become apparent)
Interesting input as usual from the usual suspects ;-) and completely ignoring my point thus causing a derailment of the topic at hand. Well done. Only on Public Address could we go from marriage equality to tape measure inequality.
For the record and for those of you that can’t remember records, they were mostly black, like Guinness. (see what I did there?) I do, indeed use all kinds of mathematical trickery in both design and construction, why wooden eye?. Here’s one most people miss and is very useful. When you have a coil of something, like wire or a hose OWHY
then figuring out the quantity of material on that coil is as simple as the number of turns X the mean diameter X 3. This will give you a good approximation of its length.
It won’t, on the other hand, give any indication of the moral stance you should take on anyone having a relationship with a hose or length of #8 fencing wire which is, as I am sure we would all agree is a very important insight into the Kiwi psyche. -
My old man’s a builder, and he uses trig a lot
he wears cor blimey trousers, and he lives on a council plot?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
:-D Ace
-
Gareth Ward, in reply to
I am looking forward to seeing the first weddings being celebrated on Saturday 1 June. (Is it inappropriate for me to note that is Queens Birthday?)
Ha, rad.
-
The Select Committee have reported back. Their report, for those interested, is here.
The recommendations are as follows:
- clarification of Section 29 of the Marriage Act to make it absolutely clear that no celebrant is obligated to conduct a marriage that conflicts with their religious views or the views of their organisation
- the repeal of Section 56 of the Marriage Act, which currently makes it an offence to impugn the validity of any person's marriage, as incompatible with the Bill of Rights
- delaying the commencement to allow Internal Affairs time to prepare. The suggestion is a four-month delay
- consequential amendments to 14 other pieces of legislation " to ensure that there will be no legal differences between different kinds of marriages". "We note the concerns raised by a number of submitters regarding the potential for New Zealand to follow overseas experiences of removing gender-specific language from statutes. Most of the numerous statutory references to "husbands" and "wives" and other gender-specific terms are not affected by this bill."
And that's it. I'm not sure what's so offensive about the word "spouse".
Other things of interest to note.
"We wish to highlight" the distress caused to transgender people and their families by having to divorce or convert to a civil union if they change the sex on their birth certificate.
The committee notes the absurdity that single LGBT people can adopt as individuals, but not as couples. "We consider that allowing same-sex couples to marry would grant an appropriate legal right to those families that are already raising children."
The dissenting, minority opinion noted in a couple of cases boils down to "you have civil unions, that's good enough surely."
-
The dissenting, minority opinion noted in a couple of cases boils down to “you have civil unions, that’s good enough surely.”
Just saying no - but I'll have to sit down and properly digest this evening. Emma's summary suggests there's going to be little (if anything) to substantively quibble with, so time to go draft a letter to my local MPs urging them to hold the line. And in a few cases, get on the right side of history while they've got the chance.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Does Garth McVicar believe that oral-genital intimacy is an obstruction to inter-state commerce?
I suppose a trucker getting pleasured in an NV cathouse might prevent the prompt delivery of a load of widgets in CA.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
And in light of Darth McVicar's spout-out on 'gay crime waves', I'm also wary of press releases that say something to the effect of, "the spokesman's views are his own and do not represent the wider views of the organisation". It's not all that different from saying, "some of my best friends are (insert hated minority group here), but..." or some other No True Scotsman fallacy.
-
Is there an update to the earlier analysis (lost the link sorry) of how MPs voted at the first reading of the Bill and on the Civil Union Bill? Have any MPs shifted their response?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.