Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I don't think we're disagreeing much now Steve. If we can agree that the right to freedom of speech is not paramount, much less absolute,
Well, I don't believe in absolute rights, so I agree that far. Whether it's paramount or not depends on what you mean; it is paramount in most cases - that's why we put it in an Act. If we override it for the specious reasons given in this case, it seems pointless having it in the bill at all.
...then all we're discussing is the extent to which a council could breach that right wrt items of clothing in their patch. I think it's a weak expression of a weak right being overridden by a weak justification...
There's the problem with a blasé attitude to freedom of expression: if it is a weak right, as you still seem to be maintaining, why would you need more than a weak justification to override it?
-
Yeah I know it's your opinion, but it's an opinion based on a guess.
Those exceptions are usually caused by the fact that rights often conflict with other rights ...
Exactly. One of the key reasons to limit a right is because it conflicts with another right. By its nature "Freedom of Expression" often conflicts with other rights - much more often than your right to "be told of the reasons for your arrest or detention". If a right conflicts with other rights a lot, it is more likely to be subject to justified exceptions. That doesn't mean we consider the right to be "weak".
I gave a number of examples.
There are examples of limits to the of the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of "sex, marital status, religious belief" etc... but that doesn't mean we don't value that right very highly. On the contrary, it is extremely important. But again, it often conflicts with other important rights, and so is not a given in a particular real world situation. Also, some rights have inbuilt "caveats", such as: "the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search or seizure", making it hard to compare on the grounds of which right has more caveats.
-
Figures from the Ministry of Education show a 88 per cent increase in suspensions of eight-year-olds from 2000 to 2008 ...
..."It is significant that as schools have removed corporal punishment, schools have become more violent," Family First national director Bob McCoskrie said today."
When did the law change re: corporal punishment? I thought it was many years before these figures.
[McCoskrie:] "School yard bullying by pupils on other pupils and staff is now the new form of 'corporal punishment' in schools."
What an ignorant fuckwit.
Auckland Primary Principals Association president Marilyn Gwilliam said schools were struggling to handle the children because by law, they were not allowed to touch children to calm them down, even when they "kick and they bite and they hit."
What the hell? I'm going to be fair to Gwilliam here and assume that that quote is out of context.
-
Darn, if I'm gonna be a smart ass to someone, I should at least spell their name correctly. "Damian".
-
Exactly, Joshua. I don't think where you are listed means much. Otherwise, why the hell would Damien Christie be second??
-
Which begs the question...
Raises the question.
(yeah, I'm that guy.)
-
As a human right, freedom of expression is not well down the list. It's right up top.
Not really. It's probably the one most subject to caveats of all.
Is it? That looks like a guess. Regardless, I didn't say it didn't have a lot of caveats. That just indicates it’s a broad, complex notion that brings up many situations for qualifiers. The principal itself (sans whatever justified caveats there may be) is an important right that you (should) need strong justification to override. (Whereas, the right to wear “a particular item of clothing in a particular place” in itself might not be that high on the rights scale.)
(As an aside, I don’t see all the examples you used as direct “freedom of expression” caveats. Of the ones that are, most are clearly justified, and at least one is pretty much an anachronism.)
-
Further to what I said earlier in response to:
the ban on patches is not a ban on association. It's a ban on wearing a particular item of clothing in a particular place. As a human right, that's well down the list.
Yes, it's a freedom of expression matter. Here's the BOR on such (my emphasis):
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.
As a human right, freedom of expression is not well down the list. It's right up top.
-
Human rights are slippery beasts, and the ban on patches is not a ban on association. It's a ban on wearing a particular item of clothing in a particular place. As a human right, that's well down the list. I still think it's a right, it's just quite a weak one.
Isn't it a 'Freedom of Expression' issue?
Does anyone know what part of the Bill of Rights that gang member (the Tribesman guy) is intending to use in his defense?
-
I assumed Christopher Dempsey was probably referring to the council members who made and passed the law. Glad to see that assumption was correct.
Breaching someone's human rights on the basis of who they associate with, not their behaviour in the instance, is the hallmark of facism not liberalism.
Spot on. (And an "Obscene Language" law is another silly law that should be dropped.)
[Laws apparently said] Louise Nicholas is a pathological and vindictive liar who needs to get over the "mere sensual excesses" she was subjected to and move on
He said that? Geez, I didn't think it was possible, but he is even more of a dick than I thought.