Posts by webweaver
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Kewl! I get to be in the cranky and shrill and, god forbid, mad group with Stephen (and quite a few others here, I think).
Do we have a logo? A badge? What's our mission statement? Do we have an official name? CaSagf__M__ Group is a bit long-winded... ;)
-
And now to agree with Kyle (cos he's having a bit of a hard time here at the mo') when he says:
And I believe there's an appropriate balance between doing that [using non-terrorism laws in NZ], and civil liberties. We've had conspiracy crimes for ages in NZ, I've never thought of it as controversial.
I'm sure there is an appropriate balance to be found.
What concerns me, as a US politics junkie who spends way too much time reading progressive US political blogs, is that we might be in danger of heading wayyy off balance into the "it's all different since 9/11" world of the US's systematic destruction of everything that that country supposedly stands for.
And I haven't felt like that about NZ thus far, ever. I think up until now (before the Urewera 17), we were doing pretty well at resting the US's global demands that everyone stand behind them in their "war on terra". Now I'm not so sure.
-
Kyle said:
I think that's how all warrants work isn't it? You get a warrant under the arms act, because you believe someone is breaching that act. You get a warrant under the crimes act, to pursue someone under the crimes act.
You're completely missing my point, Kyle. I'm saying that it seems to me that the Act was invoked for the purpose of getting wire-tapping warrants which they otherwise couldn't have obtained, rather than because the police already had evidence to suggest that these people were terrorists.
Getting a warrant under the TSA allows the authorities freedom to do stuff they otherwise aren't allowed to do. Therefore I reckon there should be more of a requirement to show SERIOUS probable cause in order to be granted a warrant under the TSA. Otherwise what's to stop the police invoking it all over the place?
Or what David said.
-
Kyle said:
Umm, yes. I don't have a problem with conspiracy crimes, or attempted murder crimes etc.
And I suspect the familes of victims of terrorism would probably tend to agree.
And I say...
I suspect you might not be entirely right about that, Kyle. Take, for example, the group "Peaceful Tomorrows" which is:
...an organization founded by family members of those killed on September 11th who have united to turn our grief into action for peace. By developing and advocating nonviolent options and actions in the pursuit of justice, we hope to break the cycles of violence engendered by war and terrorism. Acknowledging our common experience with all people affected by violence throughout the world, we work to create a safer and more peaceful world for everyone.
one of whose goals is:
To call attention to threats to civil liberties, human rights, and other freedoms in the U.S. as a consequence of war.
They're not the only 9/11 families of victims group to state that the post-9/11 actions by the Bush government are "not in my name", either...
-
The thing that's really niggling at me (amongst all the other things that I'm concerned about with this case...) is the whole "we had to use the TSA in order to get a warrant to bug/video/listen in to people's private conversations - because otherwise we wouldn't have been allowed to do that" from the police.
Now I'm not entirely sure whether that's an assumption that people have made about the police's reasoning behind using the TSA, or if that's a paraphrase of a direct quote from the police - but if it's the latter, then that really worries me.
Because what that's saying is "we wanted to get evidence about a bunch of people in a way that the laws of New Zealand don't normally allow (bugging etc). The only way we could do it is by invoking a very very serious law (the TSA), that deals with a very very serious crime (terrorism)."
As we all know, the Solicitor-General felt there was not enough evidence to meet the high threshold required to authorise prosecutions under the Act, which means that whatever evidence the police obtained during their year-long bugging operation wasn't sufficient to show that the Urewera 17 (and their mates) were actual, you know, terrorists.
So we have a number of people (who knows how many) whose private conversations have been listened into for a year by police. Nothing any of them has said is sufficient for them to be charged under the TSA. Their right to privacy has been breached, some of them have been remanded in custody for a month, and those 17 individuals will most likely never be able to travel overseas without tremendous hassle if at all.
I'm veering away from my point here - let me pull myself back to it...
My point is... it feels to me as though the TSA has been used to justify a fishing expedition in which our individual right to not have the police listen into our private conversations has been breached.
It's all back to front - to me, it seems wrong that the police were able to invoke the TSA in order to get evidence that they hoped would convict people under the TSA. Seems to me, you shouldn't be able to use the TSA to bug people unless you already HAVE a bunch of evidence which VERY strongly points in that direction anyway.
Otherwise you're using a law that may not actually apply to your suspects in order to gather evidence in a way you normally wouldn't be allowed to do in New Zealand.
And that, to me, is wrong, wrong, wrong.
I'm in the same camp as Stephen Judd with the monkeys flying out of one's butt thing. (heh) If the price we as a nation have to pay to "protect" ourselves against the (IMO) teeny weeny threat of "terrorism" in this country, is a gradual and insidious loss of our rights to privacy, our civil liberties and our freedoms to express ourselves and engage in legitimate protest, then I for one think that's way too high a price to pay. (See USofA as a perfect example of where I do not want to end up...)
-
... post 9/11 USA here we come... losing our rights a drop at a time...
another reason why I vote green and not labour.
-
The amendment bill is a crock and should be thrown out. Unfortunately, it will probably pass by a massive margin of 111 - 10. Fundamental human rights? Justice? What are they?
Who's voting against it, I/S? The Greens and the Maori party, presumably?
-
Morning chaps!
Dragging the thread back to the original subject here...
I came across this exact question about our Pacific Island-born players on the Guardian blogs last night - They like the Irish in Bordeaux, and they like their wine too
The question was:
Is it true that a fair number og the NZ team are in fact Samoans, Fijians, Tongas aand so on , and if so how many?
Is it true that if players from these islands want to play rugby for teams in NZ or OZ they must first agree first forgo any ambition to be selected for their home country's national sides and be availbale to play only for the NZ OZ national team?
After trawling through the ABs website for the numbers and posting my first response (and putting them straight on the whole "can't play for their country if they play in the S14" misconception) I found this post and "borrowed" a bit of it to further enlighten the Guardianistas - hope you guys don't mind.
A couple of interesting responses from the Guardian blog this morning:
make it 96.5% for South Africa, Percy was born in waalvisbaai when it was actually a part of the Cape Province of South Africa and not part of what was to become Namibia.
Pedantic I know but hey, I only found this out last week when reading that he was Namibian!
and
Of the five Irish players you mention Ronan O'Gara, Malcolm O'Kelly and Frankie Sheahan were all born to Irish parents who happened to be living abroad when they were born and all were schooled in Ireland.
So there you go - and now you know!
-
I just want to thank Anke as well - these last few weeks have also been a bit of a shock to my rose-tinted view of EnZed. And yes, I blogged about it also. I really must approve that pro-smacking comment I got on it the other week - but not until I've carefully composed my reply...
I was completely shocked by the absolute fervour with which some people appeared to be fighting tooth and nail to retain the right to hit their kids. It really horrified me. I felt quite ashamed of my adopted country - and still do. Not a nice feeling at all.
In the end, I want to live in a country where we believe - as a nation - that it's wrong to use physical force on anyone - especially those smaller and weaker than ourselves. I want to live in a country where we all understand that physical violence is not an appropriate way of dealing with - well, anything, really.
Is that too much to ask?
Hooray for the art of compromise on the Bill! Thank goodness for that...
And thanks to all those of you here who have been saying the things I've been thinking over the past month or so.
-
Although I am much more of a lurker here than a poster (thus far) I've found Public Address to be far and away the most civilised and intelligent political community here in Enzed. You're "my kind of people" and I spend quite a lot of time here in the shadows.
The only reason I don't post more is that, as a linear thread rather than a nested one, I often find the conversation has shifted direction by the time I read a post I'd like to respond to - and by then it's too late to respond.
I spend a lot of time at Daily Kos - and unlike Tze Ming Mok, I've decided that it's not dead to me. I still find it a great source of news, debate and information about American politics (about which I have a slightly unhealthy obsession). There are so many great frontpagers and diarists on DKos, that I feel I can ignore Kos's occasional idiotic statements, and just appreciate the others. I don't post much there either, but boy, do I lurk!
The reason why you won't find me anywhere near Kiwiblog and the like is that, on the rare occasion I've visited, it seems to be populated entirely by bigoted right-wing jerks, and as I wouldn't pass the time of day with any of them in RL, I'm certainly not going to waste my online time on them.
Although it's not obvious from my screenname, I am a girl, and I am also a blogger. I wrote a big piece on Kathy Sierra, misogyny on the web, and the Blogger's Code of Conduct when Kos first made his stoopid comments, and I've just written a post for Take Back the Blog!, if anyone's interested in reading them.
I was surprised at how hard I found the Take Back the Blog! post to write, actually. I am fortunate in never having been subject to online harrassment in any of my online communities over the years, and never on my blog either. But I couldn't help worrying that by simply putting that fact out there on my blog I would be tempting fate, or worse.
And, like other women here, I'm not sure what I can do about that, aside from not blogging any more. And I don't want to do that. No way!