Sunday General Debate

d2XPWJX

Morning all.

All yours.  Let ‘er rip.

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • David

    Segment on the Akl Mayoralty on The Nation this morning, turns out Hone stays at Sky City every time heirs in town. You couldn’t make this shit up, Hone, Labour politicians in the Sky City box we need the trifecta with maybe the Greens super scheme being Sky’s biggest shareholder

    • Jimmie

      Probably plays the pokies as well – called know thy enemy….

    • dyannt

      Well of course he stays there, because it is the most likely place he might run into one of Sky City’s shareholders then he could tell them what he really thinks about them. You can’t do that if you’re somewhere else.
      And anyway, as Hone said; It’s easy for people who want to see me to find me.
      Which says to me that he thinks his constituents are illiterate and can’t find their way around a paperbag.

      • dyannt

        Of course another theory could go something like this.

        Hone believes Sky City is where his constituents hang out.
        Hold the Mana meetings in the Pokie Hall and save on hall hiring costs because he thinks his followers wouldn’t bother to go to meet him anywhere else.

  • Pete George

    The GCSB Amendment Bill could substantially widen the scope of the GCSB to spy on New Zealanders. That’s us.

    8C 1 (d) any department (within the meaning of the Public Finance Act
    (1989) specified for the purposes of this section by the
    Governor-General by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the
    Minister).

    “Any department”

    (a) means—
    (i) a department or instrument of the Government or any branch or division of the Government; or
    (ii) the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives; or
    (iii) the Parliamentary Service
    The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet could also be included.

    So the Prime Minister could potentially get the GCSB, dominated by
    ex-military people and headed by the person he headhunted, to spy on us
    by getting it signed off by the Governor General, who is an ex military
    officer and ex head of the GCSB.

    Maybe we can trust all these people now. But can we trust all of this, all done in secret, in the future?

    Or should we be concerned?

    • Boring, and stop link whoring by coming onto my General Debate and providing a link to your blog. Either contribute here or fuck off.

      • Pete George

        Touchy. It’s common practice (on some blogs) to link to more detail.

        I think this is a substantial contribution on a very topical and important issue. Why don’t YOU contribute to the debate by discussing that instead of just attacking the messenger?

        • Because it is boring, because this is nothing new to ME, and because no one actually gives a fuck.

          Ask a munter in South Auckland what the GCSB is and they won’t have a clue. It is a beltway issue or one for liberal hand-wringers with nothing better to do. In a years time no one will even remember about it.

          • Pete George

            I expect this sort of attempt at censorship by bullying and bluster from lprent, but I thought blogs on the right, especially those that aspired to be the biggest and the best, might stand for free speech and robust debate.

            Maybe you’re just having a bad Sunday. Otherwise you might consider detailing banned topics we know what we’re allowed to talk about.

          • Muffin

            It’s not censorship, like whale we just don’t see the problem.

          • Pete George

            Who is “we” referring to? National? they certainly don’t seem keen on it being talked about.

            You don’t see a problem with trying to shut down topics on a “general debate” thread? Not even The Standard does that.

          • Muffin

            Your post is there, stop bleating about censorship, useless whining pinko.

          • “You don’t see a problem with trying to shut down topics on a “general debate” thread? Not even The Standard does that.”

            Just don’t link to your own blog posts on someone else’s blog. It’s got the man irritated, and when it is done more than occasionally is just poor form.

            You’re better than this Pete, especially the bleating about “not even TS does that”. Let’s take a step back, realise what the true problem is, fix it, and we can all get back to being a happy family.

          • Pete George

            He/you could have just said “please don’t link”. Sorta like you have done here. If you don’t want links I have no problem with that, a bit odd seeing as linking is what blogs are all about but your call..

            I’ve had some experience of leftie blogs shutting down messages they don’t want to hear. I thought it was different here. At least this was in the open, Red Alert and Bradbury just block and delete on the quiet.

          • I have told you repeatedly not to link whore, you try it on periodically…don’t come over all…what not me…oh noes…

          • Pete George

            I don’t remember you ever asking me not to. And that isn’t what I reacted to anyway, I didn’t “oh noes’, I commented on it and left it at that.

            So you don’t want me coming here with topics for discussion, initiating comments, page views. Your call, but seems a bit self defeating. Unless message control is more important to you.

          • Oh come on Pete, take the high road, please.

          • Orange

            pfft, everyone knows the B stands for Bank, and probably one in Canterbury at that.

          • No shit…I was talking to a guy on the tools the other day and he was wondering why people were going on and on about a bank he has never heard of.

          • Polish Pride

            now I know you have to take MSM polls with a grain of salt but Tv3 poll shows 85% of kiwis against the GCSB bill.
            The fact that you think the topic is boring and have the number one blog in the country which normally always covers controversial topics and you have chosen not to give the GCSB bill air time, is in itself very strange and very interesting………

          • Kimbo

            …and how many of those 85% could give specific and detailed objections, or propose specific and detailed modifications that would improve the proposed legislation

            …and how many are oppossed in the same amorphous dog-whistle way that when you mention the words, “nuclear power” Kiwis instinctively, in accordance with the conditioning that has been occurring for decades, say “no!”?

            You can guarantee that the same group would also indignantly demand to know why the intelligence gathering services were unable to detect a security threat if one ever maifested itself at the cost of their welfare.

          • Polish Pride

            If this is a democracy and we are talking about democratic rights such as the right to privacy – none of the above matters.
            You are talking about what arguably 85% want or in this case do not want. That on its own should be game set and match. But the fact we are talking about extending powers that take away right to privacy is abhorrent and not something that should be happening in a democratic country.

          • Kimbo

            Depends how you interpret democracy. And you’ve misinterpreted what in means in New Zealand.

            Last time I looked, we are not an absolute democracy, i.e., binding referenda.

            Instead we are a representative democracy. Every three years we elect those whose judgement will be exercised to shape our legislation. Which they are doing now…

            I note Matt McCarten was moaning and misrepresenting history this morning about rugby contact with South Africa back in the 1970s and 1980s: “My second attendance was at protests against the cynical use of our national sport by apartheid sympathisers to give sustenance to the
            fascists in South Africa. We risked arrest and getting our heads mashed in.

            Sir Robert Muldoon won re-election after calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist, and many took pride that New Zealand was boycotted at the 1978 Commonwealth Games”.

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10897840

            What Matt overlooks in his simplistic re-writing of history is that

            1. Norman Kirk stopped the 1973 Springbok tour to New Zealand, DESPITE the majority being in favour

            2. Rob Muldoon pledged no interference in sporting links with South Africa, and the All Blacks toured South Africa in 1976 – which the majority AGREED with

            3. In 1981, Rob Muldoon discouraged (as per the Gleneagles Agreement) but did not interfere in the 1981 Springbok tour (as Kirk had done), when the country was SPLIT 50-50 on the matter

            4. In 1985, Lange actively discouraged, but was not able to stop the proposed 1985 All Black tour to South Africa, despite the majority probably being AGAINST it by that time. It took court action by two members of the rugby community to stop it, NOT the actions of elected representatives.

            5. Finally, despite active discouragements and attempts to offer inducements and threaten penalties, Lange was unable to stop the private individuals who made up the Cavaliers touring South Africa in 1986, DESPITE the majority being against the tour.

            As the opinions of our representatives and the public are not necessarily always in allignment, I fail to see where the “game set and match” you are talking about exists.

            Thus endeth the New Zealand Constitution lesson 101.

          • Polish Pride

            All of those examples pale in comparison to what the Government is trying to do to new Zealanders with the GCSB bill.
            And none of those examples were an attack on the ongoing rights of every New Zealander. But thanks for highlighting what is wrong with our political system.

          • Kimbo

            “All of those examples pale in comparison”

            Why? Because you say so?! Do you have anything to support your assertions? Let’s look at the so-called “facts” you’ve brought to the table: –

            “And none of those examples were an attack on the ongoing rights of every New Zealander”

            That is not how the voters interpreted Kirk’s actions in cancelling the 1973 Springbok tour. Part of the reason for the massive reversal Labour suffered in the 1975 election was because Muldoon’s and National’s policy (which was a genuine conscience decision their part – NOT because they supported apartheid as McCarten alleges) had great resonance with the electorate – who thought it was a basic human right to associate and play sport with whomever they wanted, without government interference.

            Also, the reason for the split in the 1981 election (which Muldoon just won) was because while many didn’t especially support rugby, they were not going to tolerate the democratic rights of New Zealanders to play sport with whom they wanted trampled on by law-breakers. Their vote for Muldoon was a vote for democracy and freedom against anarchy and civil unrest.

          • Polish Pride

            “Their vote for Muldoon was a vote for democracy and freedom ”
            And your on which side of the GCSB bill ??
            The side taking away our freedoms. Freedoms that should exist in any democracy…. or the side trying to uphold them!

          • Kimbo

            Democracy is never absolute. And I note you’ve shifted the goal posts. Are you now willing to concede our democracy is “respresentative”, rather than absolute as was the premise of your orginal flawed argument? I realise you don’t like “representative” democracy and prefer the supposedly “absolute” version, but that wasn’t your initial argument.

            Now, on the supposed “abhorrent” (to quote your emotive phrase) nature of the GCSB Amendment Bill, I’ve yet to hear anyone, even the radical left, say that we do not need some form of surveillance or a capacity to identify dangerous threats to freedom and democracy should they exist. Or at least the only ones who do are like the lot caught in the Ureweras, who, by any reasonable measure were engaged in activities that were potentially threatening to national security, and deserved surveillance, no matter what some pompous arse of a judge subsequently ruled. If it was a bunch of Neo-nazis running around with weapons, you can be very sure Minto, Sykes, and all the other malcontetnts from that end of the political spectrum would be bleating about political collusion and corruption buttressing the forces of fascism.

            Which is why most reasonable people understand that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

            However, it seems to me the radical left and the opportunists (like the Parliamentary Labour Party) dissemble and rationalise what that means in practice. The GCSB Amendment process is simply a negotiating over where personal freedom ends, and the need for corporate national security begins. And I note that it is being done in the open forum that is the submissions process. I guess I’ve missed Commissar Key rolling the tanks into Wellington.

            I note the otherwise “common sense” Peter Dunne was fussing over the number of people the GCSB would be accountable to – one wasn’t enough for Dunne. Instead he wanted three. FFS!! What a lot of quibbling and angels on a pinhead nonsense.

          • Hazards001

            Exactly, Dunnes legacy seems to be the instituting of taxpayer funded commissions and any other needless bureaucracy he can pull out of his arse.

          • Polish Pride

            You gotta learn to stop creating arguments yourself and then injecting them into the threads Kimbo. I said we are a Democracy. This is a statement of simple fact. You said that the form of democracy we have is representative also a statement of fact. I know this and never disputed it. so I haven’t shifted my goal posts at all. Perhaps what you fail to understand that the idea of a representative democracy is to elect individuals who are supposed to represent the will of the people. It is not supposed to be an elected dictatorship. That is not democracy.

            As for “I’ve yet to hear anyone, even the radical left, say that we do not need some form of surveillance or a capacity to identify dangerous threats to freedom and democracy should they exist.”

            No one is saying that. What they are saying is that what we have legally is sufficient and there is no justification for the GCSB amendment bill. They are saying that not only is what is being proposed unnecessary but that it is an attack on democracy and what is acceptable in a democracy.

            “Which is why most reasonable people understand that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

            This is also true which is why arguably 85% of people in this country are against this bill. 85% is not just left wingers, If it were we would already have a Labour Green Govt. So don’t delude yourself that the those opposing this bill are the radical left. Far from it. This is a cross section of all New Zealanders who understand the importance of democracy and the right to privacy in a democracy.

            As for The GCSB Amendment process is simply a negotiating over where personal freedom ends, and the need for corporate national security begins. It is far beyond this point and is being pushed through under urgency. That is far from negotiating where the boundaries should be.

          • Kimbo

            “Perhaps what you fail to understand that the idea of a representative democracy is to elect individuals who are supposed to represent the will of the people.”

            Nope.

            http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

            Edmund Burke:”Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his
            repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.

            But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his
            enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, toany man, or to any set of men living. These he does notderive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and theconstitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your
            opinion”.

          • Polish Pride

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

            read the whole thing and don’t just select one small snippet that supports your argument. It’s disingenuous.

            While your at it look up the meaning of ‘theory’ and ‘theorists’ as in “Theorists such as Edmund Burke believed…….etc, etc.

            So it would seem you HAVE failed to understand that the idea of a representative democracy is to elect individuals who are supposed to represent the will of the people.
            or as the first part of Wiki put it
            Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people.

            If your not happy with that then there’s always the Oxford definitions
            http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/representative?q=representative
            &
            http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/democracy?q=democracy

            The question then becomes who is John Key really representing when trying to push through the GCSB bill because it is certainly not 85% of New Zealanders…..

          • Kimbo

            Now you are just making stuff up.

            “Theory” in the contexts of most disciplines (including constitutional studies) means “explanation”. And seeing as how John Key seems to trust his judgement over the 85% who disagree with him, it seems to be a valid explanation of what “representative democracy” really means.

            But, OK, to keep you happy I’ll read the whole thing. Please tell me where, in the following, “the idea of a representative democracy is to elect individuals who are supposed to represent the will of the people” is espoused?

            “My worthy colleague (i.e., a representative)

            says, his will ought to be subservient to yours (for Polish Pride, that means, “the will of the people”).

            If (which means, PP: the following premise is conditional) that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior.

            But (Aha! Note, PP: That means Burke doesn’t agree)

            government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination (note for PP: That means, “the will of the people”);

            and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

            To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men (that’s right, PP: You get the right to an opinion. BUT…);

            that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear (but note, PP: Not necessarily agree with);

            and which he ought always most seriously to consider (but note, PP: Not necessarily agree with).

            But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,–these are things utterly unknown
            to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

            Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local
            purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly
            drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for”.

          • Polish Pride

            So just for clarification your still going to hinge your whole argument on what is in essence the opinion of one man..?
            I am actually more interested Kimbo in the reasons that you want the rights for New Zealanders privacy to be taken away by the GCSB bill. I am sure your not sitting there in constant fear of a terrorist attack so what is it. What makes you think that it is required?

          • Kimbo

            “So just for clarification your still going to hinge your whole argument on what is in essence the opinion of one man..?”

            No, I’m hinging my argument on the opinion of a man, whose opinion is an accurate summation of how “representative democracy” has evolved and has worked for the past 250 odd years….

            and which is why John Key and his government are not “undemocratic” when they chosose to ignore the supposedly popular opinion of what the laws of our land should be in general, and what they should be regarding the GCSB Amendment Bill in particular.

            Don’t like it?

            Then avail yourself of the democratic option of getting yourself elected into representtaive government in 2014 and repeal whatever is passed.

            Over to you…

          • Polish Pride

            Kimbo that’s cold. It is technically correct, but it is cold. Don’t you have love and pride for your country and what it is that makes living here the greatest place to be in the World? Don’t you have pride in the freedoms we have?

          • Kimbo

            “Kimbo that’s cold. It is technically correct, but it is cold”.

            And now you begin to perceive that representative democracy doesn’t always give you what you want. I don’t make the rules – I just report them.

            “Don’t you have pride in the freedoms we have?”

            Yep, I do.

            And in order to preserve those freedoms I’m willing to see power given to the GCSB to collect information on New Zealanders and NZ residents.

          • Polish Pride

            I think this where our difference in opinion lies. You see the threat to our freedoms as most likely coming from a terrorist type source, be they internal or external i.e. from a group within New Zealand or from a Group outside of New Zealand.
            I see the biggest risk to our freedoms coming from Government and not from some terrorist source.
            Right now the government is helping me prove my point with the GCSB bill.

          • Kimbo

            “What makes you think that it is required?”

            In an age of cyber and other terrorism, I have no principial problem that an agency like the GCSB, subject to some form of external supervision, should have the right to gather information if required about New Zealanders, or New Zealand residents, or anyone who is in New Zealand.

            No, I don’t sit in continual “fear”. Kindly stop putting up Straw Man arguments, Polish Pride (or is that unsol?)..

            However, the Kim Dotcom showed up the farcical situation whereby someone (and I’m not necessarily referring to KDC as such) can be immune from investigation that MAY prove necessary. It is a case of arming people to do they job they are required to do, i.e., protect national security.

          • Polish Pride

            No straw man at all. You simply read it wrong. It was meant as, from how I’ve seen you post ( you can think rationally and use logic) I can make the assumption that your not sitting there in their in fear. So that being in the case why, are you not opposed……? It was a genuine question.
            Your response is interesting, in that what you say, is on the face of it a very reasonable argument. It assumes they get told what to do and they simply go and do what they are told. And as they also have oversight they can’t step out of line without being found out. But what I think it misses, is the concern around those giving the orders and their motives. Especially with being in a position to use information to target, discredit and silence any political dissenters that might threaten you. That is not a positive thing for a democracy.

          • Kimbo

            “But what I think it misses, is the concern around those giving the
            orders and their motives. Especially with being in a position to use
            information to target, discredit and silence any political dissenters
            that might threaten you”.

            I’m not unaware of it, but as someone else may have noted on this thread, there is a trade-off with that POTENTIAL problem, and the possibly more dangerous potential problem of subverives and terrorists.

            Law is never a guarantee. Instead, freedom is maintained by continual vigilence.

          • Bafacu

            What you really mean is 85% of the respondents of that particular survey, surely? Or did I miss the national referendum on this?

          • johnbronkhorst

            Same ones that believed the mantra…”MMP will make politicians more accountable” which was the advertising at the first MMP referendum> They seem to have forgotten it lately!

          • That wasn’t a poll, it was a revenue generating dog-whistle by TV3 that was self selecting, ie those who wanted to pay to send in a result…whats the bet the fat german had his whole household voting several hundred times in the hour.

          • Polish Pride

            As such polls always are….. but you can’t ignore the fact that 11,000 people is a decent number, far more than they use to run polls on who supports party blue and party red. As for the fat german comment … a little conspiratorial don’t you think.
            You’ve got to remember, This legislation isn’t necessarily about now. It’s about what happens when this gets into the hands of those who want to abuse the power it provides..

          • Chuck Taylor

            No one gives a fuck? You might want to check your position on this one.

          • Bunswalla

            Conversely, the point Cam has been making (all day, but many seem to have been pretending not to notice), is not to be a thread whore, or something. If Pete George can’t get anybody to visit his blog several times a day, he should look to himself rather than try and piggy-back on this blog. Poor form.

          • Pete George

            No, the main point is attempts at political game playing and message control rather than being an open forum.

    • dyannt

      I don’t know the answer, so I’m asking. How many of the suicide bombers in England were either British citizens or residents?

      • MarcWills

        I’m pretty sure they all were (tube/bus bombing, Glasgow airport, and lately the coward street murderers.

        • dyannt

          So there is a cry against observing criminals or potential criminals if they happen to be NZ citizens or residents?

    • Anonymouse Coward

      Why are people so up in arms about about extending the funny police powers of surveillance? I think I know the answer.

      The general publics most frequent experience of the Governments anti-terrorist efforts is when they encounter the Lotus Eaters at airports. They watch the Lotus Eaters paranoia over water and fruit juice.

      This causes them to worry other parts of the Governments anti-terrorist efforts are prone to the same quality of joined-up thinking.

    • Dave

      Pete.

      There is no fool like an old fool.

      They are welcome to spy on me any day the like. I also understand from the bill, and the likes of yourself that John Key now reads all my email, and my snail mail, well, what a talented man to be able to open everyones email.

      Once they have looked through my background, and current situation they will realize I have no skeletons in the closet, my kids are living, i pay my bills and taxes, and don’t watch child porn or have 12 mistresses. Then, they will move on and eventually find someone intent on harming the country, other residents, or even friends of friends. IE DO SOME GOOD TO ORDINARY KIWI’s.

      The benefits of this far outweigh the negatives for ordinary law abiding citizens. Its a bit like being breathalyzed every day, whilst annoying, you know they will catch more offenders and make the roads safer.

      PS: The more the convicted criminal Mr DotCon dislikes it, the better it must be for NZ.

    • Get A grip

      This clip is a bit long.But it fits why we should be worried about the Gummint selecting pieces of our lives. Especially interesting is the rebutal to the point that if you are innocent you have nothing to fear.

      Don’t Talk To Police Under ANY Circumstances. The video includes a cop of 23+ years WHO AGREES!

      • Polish Pride

        just watched half of this. very eye opening. I am never talking to the police after having seen this. Everyone should take the time to watch some of it

      • MarcWills

        Remember this applies in the USA – there they can lie and mislead you as part of an interrogation collecting evidence that can be used against you in court. If they tried that here, the judiciary would throw any case out before it hit the courts. Look at how the Urewera evidence was thrown out on what was essentially a technicality. Keep your tin-foil handy though, it could come in handy for a hat.

    • PlanetOrphan

      Do you think they might investigate their own Pete ?
      How would you keep them Honest ?

    • Steve (North Shore)

      Good job today Pete, more links than chain mail.
      Spray and walk away – as usual

    • AngryTory

      Simple question: Does NZ need more powers to deal with terrorrists, unionists, environmentalists, leftists, protestors, picketers, demonstrators etc — or less? The answer is obvious: an awful lot more.

  • Jimmie
  • motorizer

    i got an invitation to ‘like’ the greens partys sookbook page the other day.a sponsored post. i took a look to see what friends have been sucked in….. man some of my friends are stupid.

    • Get better friends, or conduct an intervention.

      • motorizer

        yes. i think we need a GREENTERVENTION page to direct people to see the error of their ways.

  • Pete George

    Hone Harawira looked a bit uncomfortable on The Nation when he
    explained why it is convenient for him to have stayed at Sky City a bit.

    @TeUruroaFlavell
    The Nation pointed out that Hone said he would get slam SkyCity but had
    stayed there twice in last 3 months. He has stayed since way back!!

    But it’s ok, John Minto said he would have a word to Hone about it. Dealt with.

    • Dave

      Why doesn’t Hone stay with Minto, Hone could support local business on the way by picking up two crates of Lion Red, and a huge bundle of Fish & Chips, problem solved!

  • unitedtribes

    In a post yesterday someone referred to Helen’s ex husband. Is this true? have they really split.

    • Tom

      Hah were they ever really together?

  • blokeintakapuna

    Anyone else hear about the GP in Blenheim that told a female she has a “breeding duty” so he wouldn’t renew her contraceptive pill?

    I would have told him to “get fucked. Mind your own business and keep your opinions to your self” and possibly even punched him on the nose. Then taken my business elsewhere, whilst never returning.

    What an arsehole that Doc is!

    • Hazards001

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10897927

      Yeah I read it this morning. God botherer needs to keep a sense of perspective, The sanctimonious prick. And good on the lady for speaking out. Takes courage to put your self in the spotlight over an issue like this.
      Hope she’s planning on changing GP’s. As should the rest of Blenheim.

    • Dave

      Bloke. You forgot, after punching him on the nose, to tell him NOT to take any pills, as he should be bleeding.

  • LesleyNZ

    Ok – it is afternoon – windy, raining and cold. Yesterday I read the NZ Herald story about the woman Owen Glenn is alleged to have assaulted – but he didn’t at all. And then read today’s story.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10897925
    “In the background, her 3-month-old baby daughter Calin babbles. Shaw and her wife Beth Stowell, a chief mate for Seattle State Ferries, also have a 2-year-old daughter, Atley. Shaw was birth mother to both.”
    Gay marriage may be a reality but lesbians are going to have to choose another word instead of “wife”. It does not sound right – at all. In fact it sounds ridiculous – “and her wife”. I am a wife and I have a husband. I am not equal or the same as a lesbian “wife” – totally different. I don’t care if my inequality is of lower value to a so-called lesbian “wife”. Lesbians must find another word to describe their spouse – leave the word “wife” to those of us who have a husband. Vice versa for male homosexuals who call each other “husbands”.
    http://www.opposite-word.com/w/wife The opposite of wife is husband.
    What is the opposite of a lesbian “wife”? It can’t be husband and it just can’t be wife.

    • snakebit

      Could not agree more.

    • Kimbo

      Umm, I’m not sure I agree or disagree with gay marriage, but your argument. “Lesbians must find another word to describe their spouse – leave the
      word “wife” to those of us who have a husband. Vice versa for male
      homosexuals who call each other “husbands”

      …seems to imply that language is static.

      Which it is not.

      Or do you think that the word “gay” “must” be returned to its original (non-sexual orientation/call-it-what-you-will) meaning?

      Just saying…

      • LesleyNZ

        Yes I do think the gay word should be returned – and the rainbow. It is illogical for a wife to have a wife.

        • Kimbo

          good luck on that…

          • snakebit

            Ah lesleyNZ….we took the work ‘gay’ back and it now means ‘crap’…. they can keep the rainbow….they are gay.

  • Hazards001

    Should be able to view the race riots in Florida soon.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10898111

    • LesleyNZ

      Yes…………………….

  • LesleyNZ

    What is going on here? 11 year olds? We live in a very sad mixed up old world where children can no longer be children. Boys at 11 don’t know if they are Arthur or Martha. Who are these so-called ‘Health Experts”. As for Rainbow Youth – why would you welcome this? As a charitable organisation you should be promoting abstinence – especially at the age of 11 – then they won’t catch these awful viruses and cancers.
    Jab for gay boys under study – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10897861
    “Health initiative proposes vaccination priority for males from the age of 11 who identify as homosexual.
    Health experts want to target boys from the age of 11 who identify as gay to be first for vaccinating against genital warts and a range of cancers.
    The Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee is considering whether males aged between 11 and 25 who identify as men who have sex with men should be given priority for a publicly funded human papillomarvirus (HPV) vaccination.
    Experts say targeting such a specific group before they become sexually active poses problems despite the potential for their being at high risk of contracting warts and anal and throat cancers.
    Gay youth advocacy group Rainbow Youth welcomes the health initiative but warns of any actions that further isolate young gay people…..”

    • GregM

      Yep saw that. I remember when I was that age ( vaguely ) and I wasn’t really interested in girls, or boys for that matter. When the kid reaches puberty his or her orientation could change anyway. I think it’s way too early.

    • TomTom

      Lesley, in the good old days gone by, many girls were expected to be married and pregnant by 15 or earlier. I think you can remove the first part of your post and leave the rest.

      Giving sex-related vaccines doesn’t necessarily imply that those who get it will go right out and engage in sex. The fact is, the vast majority of kids (you’d hope) don’t engage in sex before 15 or 16.

      But there will always be kids determined to do whatever they want – and what’s wrong with making sure that the consequences won’t be so severe if they do manage to get themselves into situations they shouldn’t be. Abstinence does nothing, and is for god botherering kids who ain’t gonna get any. My school heavily promoted abstinence, and in my year of 80 students, 4 girls got pregnant. That’s 10% of the girls.

      • snakebit

        Abstinence and waiting for marriage has fallen out of fashion. Thankfully we’ve been shown the light by the baby boomers who went to Woodstock to trade their morals for relativism. Thanks to them none of us must pay for our sins anymore – finally personal freedom without any of that pesky personal responsibility!! Now if only we can just get socialism to not keep fucking us over we wont have to work anymore either….cant wait….progress rocks!

        • TomTom

          I have no idea what you are trying to say wrt to baby boomers, and “relativism.”

          You’re not one of those nutters that oppose the General Theory of Relativity because of the concept of moral relativism, are you?

          • snakebit

            Oh I’m sure you dont.

            And no,

  • blokeintakapuna

    Got the National Party flier in the post on Friday here in The Bays on the Shore. Gotta say, it reads fantastic. All the metrics on how a country should be measured are all pointing in the right direction. (Pun intended)

    …and how NZ is doing by comparison to other countries… it bodes exceptionally well for the future of NZInc. Although, our fortunes are somewhat largely hitched to Aussies fortunes and they’re really struggling as an economy at the moment, politically also …and combined with the risks of Europe still being a basket case…

    But good on NZ. And thank God NZ had National when we did. Thanks team National, keep up the good work. Cheers!

    • Kimbo

      hmmmm.

      You must have missed the deprivation, brutality, and threats to democracy that assail our fair land at every turn.

      Or at least that’s what National’s critics, who get all that air time in the MSM claim.

      But then I shouldn’t try irony. Only Sir Cullen’s Sidekick does it really well :)

31%