Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Steve Parks,
I think you’re giving more power to s15 of the BORA than is intended. A civil servant such as a Work and Income officer (for example) could not refuse to grant a benefit to a person just because they have a genuine religious belief that that type of person shouldn’t receive state support.
If you are refused a social welfare benefit, for whatever reason, this is recorded and will be a hurdle to gaining that benefit. If you are refused a marriage licence by a church, this is not a hurdle in any way whatsoever to gaining a marriage licence ever.
By your reasoning would a comment deleted from a website be a violation of free speech rights?
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Chris Waugh,
This is where I (and I believe TracyMac also) see a problem.
What problem?
People are free to choose their religion and undertake a marriage according to their beliefs freely and without undue regulation. Where is the problem?
As far as I can tell the only "problem" suggested here is that in NZ it might not be possible to force a religious person to officiate the marriage of a couple the religious person does not wish to have marry. But this does not impinge upon anybodies right to marry as there are always other choices of officials.
In other words, in properly, fully secular states there is absolutely no overlap in religious and civil functions.
Try wearing a burqa in Paris or being a scientologist in Berlin. And you say China has "absolutely no overlap in religious and civil functions"... umm... just wow.
-
So, a Catholic priest or an Anglican minister can say, "No, we're not going to bless your union with our sacrament, in our church." But currently that person is also, automatically, a civil celebrant. And in that capacity, they can't refuse to perform the state function (witnessing the marriage certificate) on the basis of sexual orientation.
You might find that the ability of the NZ state to compel people to act against their religious faith is (thankfully) significantly less than I/S presumes. If a Catholic or a Salafist have a religious belief that they cannot perform a marriage that means they can not perform a marriage.
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
Actually, they are forced to conduct them, thanks to ss3(b) and 19 of the BORA,
But they cannot be forced to conduct an action against their religious beliefs, thanks to section 15.
-
There are other high profile examples. Following their investigation into Darren Hughes Police announced that "After this careful consideration, the allegations do not reach the evidential threshold required to bring charges. As a result, no charges will be brought against Mr Hughes." Nothing particularly concerning about this, but following a public statement released by Mr Hughes that he had been "falsely accused", Police felt it necessary to publicly state that they had no concerns about the validity of complaint.
Hardly the same. Attempting to pervert the course of justice is a criminal offence and Darren Hughes stated that he was a victim of being "falsely accused". The police had to comment as to why they were not prosecuting this crime.
And like, John Banks, and Bradley Ambrose, Hughes is placed in a position where the sole official conclusion is the untested one of Police detective.
Perhaps Darren Hughes can bring a private prosecution and gain a suitable official conclusion instead of a police opinion. Might not happen.
-
That logo is everywhere.
-
"I've not given it any thought."
I haven't survived this long in politics by thinking about things.
-
There was, of course, a greater crime: Gianotti was using the perennial whipping-boy of every font geek on the planet -- Microsoft Comic Sans.
Inspired Microsoft product placement?
-
Hard News: The frustrating politics of…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
If you take the Venn diagram of populations indulging in illegal activities (drug users, boy racers, copyright violators...) then you start to cover an (un-) surprisingly large chunk of the population.
...firearms...
To an extent it seems that this could be the point. If everybody is criminal in some manner, the justice system has universal power to coerce information from anybody. Makes their job easier and everything runs smoother.
-
Hard News: Strange days for journalism, in reply to Matthew Poole,
When we talk of the stock value falling with 20% of the company being dumped on the market, we're not talking about a period of three years we're talking about a period of a few weeks. The value depression will occur nearly immediately and could take years to recover.
Recover?
The world is awash with liquidity right now, if this is a good solid investment the price will rebound within a couple of weeks.
Well anyway Matthew, there could soon be a great number of Fairfax shares available at much lower than todays prices. You 'll be borrowing a bit of capital and buying up large presumably. After all on todays low interest rates you'll make a killing when the shares "recover" and soon you will be debt free. This will be your opportunity to prove you opinion correct and mine completely wrong - and make a sweet profit. Fill ya boots.