Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
All the nice wishes in the world can't change the reality of drunk people doing stupid things, and thus needing to be kept away from flaming furniture or heavy, wheeled weapons
No, I disagree that the state needs to keep them from doing these things. I think the community *does* have an interest in stopping them endangering non-participants, and having the cops do that (e.g. pull people over for drunk driving in the middle of Wellington) is reasonable. But if people want to fuck themselves up setting fire to sofas, why is it governments job to stop them.
(Mainstream dangerous activities, like rugby, fishing and unhealthy eating are of course not suppressed by the state. Go figure).
-
Alternatively, if I take off my anarchist's mask for a second and try and answer within the constraints of current majoritarian democracy:
Having a range of laws that address "antisocial" behaviour by criminalising various acts (mostly without identifiable victims) and using the police to try and enforce behavioral standards is inherently going to lead to conflict.
A less confrontational approach to policing events like the Undie 500 would be to establish a zone of tolerance (maybe a park, or certain streets) and allow the participants to drink in public, do burnouts, burn sofas or whatever away from most of the public that don't want to participate. The event organisers could maybe fund clearup (they raise a bunch of money for charity from the Undie 500, after all).
This pretty much goes on already when it's "mainstream" people letting their hair down. After all, what is "party central" going to be if not a (taxpayer funded) zone for heavy drinking and raucous behaviour?
-
gave verbal orders for the crowd to disperse
I dispute that the cops have a right to prevent people from remaining in a public place. I dispute the concept that the police are above the people and entitled to order them to do anything.
That's based on my personal worldview, not NZ law as it stands. Many people believe that the majority has a right to use violence (which is what the police force ultimately amounts to, legally sanctioned violence) to force people to behave as they want. I don't.
-
A bit late to this, but:
The Herald reports the charges against the students and others. I noticed that nobody has been charged with a crime with a non-police victim, such as assualt against a member of the public or criminal damage.
That suggests to me that the violence was mostly a result of the police attacking the students in order to try and force compliance with various social control laws, such as alcohol bans and the like. Had the cops kept their distance, it's quite possible that we'd have had a few charred sofas, a lot of vomit and broken glass, but few real crimes committed.
Also, why should the university get involved? We are in a world of corporate capitalism, and the uni simply provides educational services to their student customers. They are no more in a position to punish the students than Shell or Toyota, for instance.
-
we do check candidates credentials.
Something like:
1. Are you engaged, or do you plan to engage, in large scale theft of public money?
-
Prejudice against the rural poor is legitimate in our society
Rural poor? Or rural stupid? The mechanism of how Whanganui and similar places get their redeckness is typically that the town has no culture or interesting work, so people with a brain leave as soon as they can. Which of course self-perpetuates.
Mind you, I just visited some towns in rural California that were nice places inhabited by nice middle class Democrats. How did that happen? Well, when the mines died, there was no welfare, so the ex-miners had to leave or starve. Hence the rednecks got flushed, and the town got populated by middle-class liberals with dollars and hobby businesses. Ironic, really?
-
Foucault's Pendulum
Isn't that all plagiarised from The Da Vinci Code?
-
Does anyone actually have a mayor they wholeheartedly approve of?
If we had council leaders indirectly elected by a majority of councillors, they'd have to have the confidence of a wider section of opinion and not just be the person who could start the biggest bandwagon.
-
there was once serious discussion about whether a minority people (Maori and Polynesian in our case) could actually be racist. Because, the argument went, racism was about power so the only people who could be racist were the power-holders.
As far as I'm concerned, that argument is correct. Racism matters when it's exercised by a group with a power relationship to a weaker group.
-
Heh, even stupider voters.
Yeah, the same ones that voted for legalised child abuse recently. Not to mention voting for "change" last year.