McCoskrie: Jumping at Shadows

Poor old Bob looks as though he is jumping at shadows again:

“We were contacted by a concerned staff member who was stunned when they tried to access our website to sign the petition, and told that the site was deemed ‘Hate’ and that the web page ‘contravenes Dunedin City Council’s Acceptable Usage Policy’. The staff member’s response was that ‘if the concept that marriage should be between a man and a woman is offensive, then I despair for the future of this country.’ We agree,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Only issue for Bob is that it all seems rather kosher.  The filtering process (run by a US company) has blocked Bob’s site.

Council communications and marketing manager Graham McKerracher said the council did not control the filtering process, which was done by a United States company.

Mr McKerracher could last night not say why the Protect Marriage site was blocked.

But a block meant the site, or someone leaving a comment on the site, might have used language determined by the filter to be offensive, resulting in the site being put on a banned list.

Bob then cries a few tears:

“It is highly hypocritical and inconsistent that one side of the debate can be blocked, but not the other. This is discrimination at its worst and [the council] seems to be initiating their own version of hate speech laws.”

Except that the Council isn’t intentionally blocking anything.  Bob, rather than stomp your feet that public servants can’t view your propaganda how about you do as the Council suggests and encourage people to look at your site from the privacy of their homes.

  • http://twitter.com/michael__ward Michael Ward

    You seem to be missing the point again Cam. This is a one sided “debate” because the tolerance police are unable to tolerate the traditional view being shared.

    Bob is right, it is hypocritical for those preaching tolerance of all views to then condone/accept/encourage censorship of the opposing view.

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      McCroskie et al are allowed their views – I dont think anyone has an issue with people expressing concerns about homosexuality whether the relationships or the push for marriage.

      It’s when people expect their views have the right to dictate other peoples personal lives that people get riled up.

      The crux of this issue is that it is not anyones business but the LGBT community themselves and society and most likely the government will ensure this is reflected in the Marriage Act.

      Ironic that an American company blocked the site though dont you think? They after all have people like the American Family Association!

      • Guest

        Homosexuality ( anal sex with a man) is a choice that some men make.
        Lesbianism ( sex with toys and other bits and pieces) is also a choice some women make.
        They are both crass and to class these unions as marriage is just downright absurd and repulsive to me.
        However if these unions are what some people want and if people choose to live with same sex partners then they can.
        What is the real issue here?

        • Gazzaw

          Guest, the problem is that the word ‘marriage’ adds weight to the myth that these choices are normal. Call them civil unions, call them whatever you like but marriages they are not.

  • JPN

    Look Cam it’s simple. Marriage is a traditional instituion whereby a man and a woman are together to procreate and raise a family.
    But I am not intransigent on this. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise when babies are delivered from men’s arses

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      And what do you say about lesbians? Homosexuality also includes them and bisexuals….any number of combinations which can result in a woman becoming pregnant.

      “Marriage is a traditional instituion whereby a man and a woman are together to procreate and raise a family” – so if that is the standard then you want to also outlaw infertile and young and very old couples?

      Definition of marriage as changed for many people whether it be procreation, roles within the household, open marriages/swingers.

      IVF is becoming standard for so procreation has become a possibility for all walks of life.

      WO – funny Dunedin CC ‘accidentally’ blocked the protect marriage site. Poetic justice for sure.

  • cows4me

    I can’t see much debate on this issue, seems New Zealand is going to get this rammed down it’s throat like it or not. And is the “filtering process” a new definition for censorship? Or is it a new excuse to cut short debate that isn’t going the way it should, I’m picking the second one.

  • Rolla

    Its not supprising, the DCC internet blocking blocks a lot of sites that most people would consider relatively normal websites, and they can change the block settings locally with ease. They had to when the web filter blocked a well used site for council staff, which had somehow ended up on the blocked list, yet at the time it wasn’t blocking a lot of porn. Go figure….
    Says more about the DCC and the way they operate internally, than it does about anything else.

  • LesleyNZ

    But it is OK for Dunedin City Council staff to access the pro gay marriage websites during work time? “Council staff were still able to access gay marriage websites, and at least two other websites blacklisted by web filters at other companies were able to be accessed by council workers.” Now that Mr McKerracher is aware of this blocking he should allow access, otherwise he is showing personal bias. Pretty obvious. I wonder if this Whaleoil blog is also blocked as the language posted by some at times is not good. What you think is propaganda is not what others think is propaganda. Bob was there during the “Kill the Bill” free speech marches in Queen St – he is OK. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Protesters_march_for_free_speech_in_New_Zealand You shouldn’t be so mean about him just because he doesn’t happen to agree with you on gay marriage. Think there is a lot more to this blocking than just an automatic filter. Free speech has been stopped. I wonder what hateful words blocked the site? It would be interesting to find out how this filter worked and what words it picked up on.

109%