Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, February 18th, 2025 - 134 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
They call themselves "the most moral army in the world." But the renowned Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein calls them "the most cowardly army in the world."
Judge for yourself…
https://x.com/umyaznemo/status/1890454467868262611
https://x.com/ytirawi/status/1852121268222386436
Re the first link, I draw your attention to the replies with variations on "Those aren't bombs, you fucking idiot."
Re the second link, it's beyond me how so many on the left are outraged about IDF soldiers arsing about with the clothes in the buildings they take over, but are apparently entirely OK with Muslim terrorists going house to house executing Jews in cold blood or kidnapping them for ransom.
It’s a double standard, they don’t really care about human life or human rights. The Israelis are supported by the USA and the West, therefore the Israelis are bad… presumably just like you and I
Perhaps its the disproportionate scale of the Israeli response? What's it up to now, more than 20 to one in deaths, let alone casualties? Plus the razing of 2 million peoples' homes and livelihood?
Kinda like the Nazis shooting 30 people for every german soldier killed in a partisan attack. And that's people, not men: babies, children, mothers, doctors…
But nowhere approaching the scale of the ethnic cleansing/mass murder in Sudan
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/07/world/africa/sudan-genocide-numbers.html
The difference being that the civilians in Sudan have the option to flee across the borders – the Palestinians are ruthlessly held in place by their surrounding Muslim neighbours.
Apologist?
This Sudan evil is bigger than that Israeli evil, so this smaller Israeli evil isn't actually evil? Nah, I don't think that's a real argument. Did I say I approved of Hamas’s attack. It was evil, too.
apologist?
You seem to be doing the same thing as Belladonna.
what I'd really like to know is why so many leftie/liberals are spending a lot of time on Palestine and not much on climate.
Not spending time on Palestine. Spending time on the comments that try to downplay state-wide violence.
Together with the new twist of Trump's ethnic cleansing plans, the treatment of Palestinians remains a true and current humanist nightmare.
The great evil of gaia-cide for profit doesn't negate the great evil of Palestine destruction and obliteration by Netanyahu and Trump (and keep-quiet allies).
that doesn't answer my question.
Climate doesn't tie det cord around an eighty year old mans' neck and use him as a human shield.
yeah, it really does. One of the most frightening things about the climate crisis is how humans are responding and going to respond. If you think climate change doesn't create war you are woefully underinformed. It already does, and it will do so even more as the crisis deepens. And part of that is how brutal humans can be towards each other.
But, you didn't actually answer my question.
And, to clarify, I'm not saying people should choose climate over Palestine.
Maybe it's because (some) leftie/liberals feel they can't do much more on climate (change) – beyond shrinking their personal carbon/consumption footprint and maximising resilience, joining/supporting/voting for pro-environment organisations and political parties (Forest & Bird; Greenpeace; the Greens), and occasionally comparing what various groups and individuals have been saying, and doing or not doing, for decades. There are only so many Thunbergs in the world – going forward.
And, of course, most leftie/liberals can't do much about Palestine, or Ukraine, or Trump either, other than talk/write about and discuss such matters. It's not a lot, but it's marginally better than nothing – imho.
sadly, that might be part of it. The left does seem to have lost its capacity for activism.
But if we're talking about the TS specifically, it doesn't make sense. The ratio of discussion about Palestine to climate tells me something else is going on.
But it's not telling you what that 'something else' might be. Maybe in part the tendency of leftie/liberals to support perceived underdogs?
Or maybe the commentariat here is as anti-semitic as Corbyn
lol. I think it’s probably a combination of things, including underdog sentiments, and latent anti-semitism, and climate avoidance. But I’m also curious about the support for Palestinians but not women in Afghanistan. So it looks like attention on the issues that have a movement that is closer to one’s personal views. That women in Afghanistan are now forgotten doesn’t surprise me, I see the same pattern with US identity politics, where there is concern for gay and trans people but a noticeable lack of mention of women. I think this is probably unconcious, but does reflect the values and politics of the liberal left.
I will add that I find the Palestine/Afghanistan/Climate dynamic strange, but I find the lack of discussion about the US to be frankly bizarre. The whole geopolitical landscape is changing and we’re sitting on our hands whistling. We need to understand Ukraine and Palestine, but the US is in the process of becoming the most dangerous force on the planet. I find it terrifying, not least because I think the only that that will probably stop it is climate change (note, not the only thing that could stop it). But a lot of suffering in the meantime and over timescales we are not used to.
Why are we not talking about this? Is it because people don’t think it’s that bad?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_women%27s_national_cricket_team
And I'm also curious about the support for Israelis – Bibi in particular – but not women in Sudan.
Quite a few "gay and trans people" are women, and you make a good point about unconcious bias – it plagues all flavours of politics.
right! So why are those women subsumed into other categories? It’s very obvious that’s what good for Afghanistan (men) is not good for Afghan women. See the pattern?
Sounds about right, always remembering that we also face a few domestic problems we might actually be able to do something about.
I can't influence the ebb and flow of US (geo)politics (obviously), but there's an excellent online forum which encourages Kiwis to 'voice' their opinions, even about events that are totally beyond their control. It's a great opportunity and service – imho.
Women are subsumed into "gay and trans people" and men aren't?
Imho, for all our individual triumphs, Homo sapiens as a species really has lost the plot, and men are largely responsible. ( #notallmen )
Maybe our species will have another shot a getting it right. If not, then spaceship Earth has a lbillion years or more to nuture something different – plenty of time for a new species with three sexes, or none.
Well I was talking about women, not men, if you followed the thread of the argument I was making. But no, men aren’t subsumed in the same way. Again if you follow the thread of the argument.
This is sad. Why are people so willing to give up?
I'm not following the thread of the argument you are making.
Most people aren't willing to give up (anything) – live for today!
Some of the people who understand the longer-term implications of current global warming trends, and the likelihood of turning them around in a necessarily timely manner, will be pessimistic – others will be optimistic. Imho, the most important starting point (which I hope we share) is to be honest about the magnitude of our growing and self-created predicament, and realistic about addressing it.
In the interest of honesty, I confess to being pessimistic about the future (not more myself, of cousre – I'm old), but I haven't given up.
Here's a video from three years ago – what's your honest opinion about how civilisation is doing now?
Disproportionate is a word I first learned at intermediate school, after a class mate got picked on by the class bully. Unfortunately for the bully, the guy he picked on was only too happy to fight back…
Reframing genocide as a playground spat. Nice.
Well I guess up until modern times, if people picked a fight with a much larger foe, they either won, or they were vanquished. One side in this war needs to realise that they can’t win without the compete destruction of the other, or they learn to live with the enemy
or they learn how to do peace.
“They make a desert and call it peace.” — Tacitus
quite.
the common thread through all of this is men. Not all men, obviously, but patriarchal societies that empower men to run things without checks and balances, and disempower those who would do things differently. We think the patriarchy is inevitable and TINA, but it's only five thousand years old. We can replace it with something much better.
True, and it's also misused in this case. Proportionality refers to individual military engagements, not overall strategy. If Gaza ends up a complete wasteland from one end to the other because Hamas refuses to surrender despite losing every proportionate individual military engagement, that's still a "proportionate" response from Israel.
We both know that "if Gaza ends up a complete wasteland from one end to the other", it will be due to IDF munitions – why are you hitting yourself?
It's not about Hamas – it's about Gazans, because every Gazan is a potential freedom fighter, and the Gaza war is taking too long. Next – the occupied West Bank.
"The only viable plan" – 'solution' if you like – there is no alternative
Er, yes. Destruction of the losing side's territory is courtesy of the winning side's munitions. I'm no military history specialist, but it's pretty clear that surrender has consistently been a good option for the losing side to prevent their territory being laid waste.
I don't have skin in the 'game' – perhaps ask Palestinians and Ukrainians.
All Palestinian territory is occupied territory – has been for generations.
I hope that any peace plan negotiated by Israel and the US, or Russia and the US for that matter, doesn't involve large-scale forced resettlement, but Trump clearly sees the real estate potential of Gaza sans Palestinians.
There is no "Palestinian territory" – Palestine ceased to exist in May 1948. Muslims claim there's a "Palestinian territory" because Islam allows no non-Muslim self-determination anywhere in lands conquered for Islam and they're happy to maintain a forever war until the great shame and insult to Islam that is the state of Israel is wiped from the map, but I'm not a Muslim and they can fuck off with that bullshit.
That opinion (erasing Palestine) is clearly important to you, but I couldn't deny any country's right to exist, Israel included.
Gaza, “the Riviera of the Middle East” – just not for Palestinians?
It doesn't matter how many governments declare something untrue to be true, it remains untrue. When the Palestine Mandate expired, only one country was declared to replace it: Israel. The Arabs of the Mandate didn't declare a state. We could agree that in hindsight that was foolish of them, but it doesn't alter the fact that only Israel replaced Mandate Palestine.
I wish the Kurds had their own state. They need one a lot more than Israel's rejectionist Arabs need one. However, if the Kurds were to declare a state in the areas where they're currently a majority, there'd remain the not-insignificant problem that those areas are currently Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and no matter how many other countries were to recognise that Kurdish state, it wouldn't actually exist.
That doesn’t make sense – Israel came into existence by declaration.
If the US joined the 75% of all UN member countries that currently recognise Palestine as a sovereign state, then that would matter, imo.
If a two-state solution (that NZ supports) was to come into effect, then that would matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution#Support
Five million Palestinians won't go quietly. I personally recognise Palestine as a sovereign state, but let's agree to disagree – funnily enough, Iran and Israel are currently united in their opposition to a two-state solution – most (all?) other countries are in favour.
I'd tend to agree, but more so because I can't see any solution that doesn't involve an endgame of peace.
I still don't know what Hamas' strategy was. Did they think the world would rally and put sanctions on Israel? It's hard to understand.
I don’t think anyone knows what the end game was for Hamas. Maybe they believed that the attack would be so successful, that the Arab world would rise up, or maybe they wanted to prevent a normalisation of relationships between Israel and the Arab states in the Middle East.
Back in the 80’s I worked with an engineer from Jordon. He is living back there, and works for a high tech Israeli company and was commuting between Israel and his home in Jordan. I’m guessing this is the type of thing that Hamas would like to destroy, but who knows…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Israeli_settlements
I'm guessing that, with the benefit of hindsight, many Palestinians, surviving Gazans in particular, would have ‘chosen’ the then status quo – i.e. living in Israeli-occupied territories, however challenging. And they might have been permitted to live there for many decades more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Israeli_resettlement_of_the_Gaza_Strip
I'm wholly skeptical about anything that's supposed to be a peace process. The Israelis who previously didn't want the whole place to be a Jewish state now know that no two-state solution is possible so the people who do want the whole place will continue calling the shots, and all Muslims know that Allah requires them to restore all of 'Palestine' to dar al Islam, however long it takes.
I think the "however long it takes" part is Hamas' strategy. As long as there's a continuous supply of jihadi martyrs, they attack the Jews until the Jews decide to cut their losses and go somewhere else. The problem with that is the Jews won't be going anywhere.
I don't think the current leaders know what peace is nor how to achieve it. That's probably true of many countries, it's just not as obvious because we're not at war. Then there are those who desire conflict…
I think it's even worse than that, ie the current leaders don't want peace and have no interest in achieving it. Their own dead citizens suit their propaganda agendas quite nicely. I just cringe at western politicians still mouthing platitudes about a "two-state solution." Which two states do they imagine they're talking about?
this is fair I think, on all sides. People are out of their minds, and it’s an end point of civilisation built on oppression.
What disproportionate scale of the Israeli response? If people from Gaza had gone through my town casually murdering my family, friends and neighbours while cheering each other on, I'd want Gaza to look like the surface of Mars. The Israeli response appears very restrained by comparison.
As to the claimed 20 to one death ratio, Gaza's leaders themselves currently value one Israeli as being worth at least 50 Palestinians, and took deliberate measures to maximise civilian casualties. The responsibility's all theirs.
are you saying that civilians are legitimate targets in war?
What if 'leaders' in your town had murdered people in a neighbouring town, would it be restrained for that town to come and reduce your town to look like the surface of Mars?
If my leaders had arranged and carried that out, I'd expect my town to round up everyone involved and hand them over for justice to be dealt to them, not for us to dance, give out sweets and chase after the utes bringing back dead bodies of the victims as trophies, in hope of a chance to spit on or slap the corpses.
And no, civilians aren't 'legitimate' targets in war, but they are inevitable ones, so it's up to their leaders to first, not start a war, particularly against a far better armed opponent, and second, if a war starts, not to deliberately put their own civilians in harm's way.
yeah, that sounds good until you realise that most people won't act.
Quick google says Palestinian support for Hamas is around 40%. How many of the 60% are responsible and thus shouldn't complain about Israeli response? How many of those are children?
Thanks for stepping into the fray, weka, I appreciate your good contribution in the disproportionality debate, despite your preferences.
thanks tWig! Not sure what you think my preferences are 😉
Your question about gaza via the environment as a focus for left-wing comment.
The 60% are welcome to complain about what their leaders deliberately chose to subject them and their children to. A lot of Germans didn't support Hitler either, but once a war starts everybody's life and livelihood is on the table.
how do you think a young mum would fair in Gaza if she spoke out against Hamas? Let alone tried to organise a group to forceably stop them. Your arguments aren’t making sense Milt.
I can’t answer that question, it’s always the innocent ones who suffer. The same questions could be asked of the young Israeli mums, or for that matter the young mums in Nazi Germany who suffered the destruction of Germany by the Soviet Union and the allies. Unfortunately most people in the world live under a form of dictatorship and dissent is severely punished.
I'm arguing that when a country is attacked militarily, it has to respond militarily. Any govt that refused to respond to attacks that kill its own citizens because fighting the attackers would kill innocent civilians on the attacking side wouldn't still be the govt a few months later.
Young mums in Gaza and their children are not being slaughtered by Hamas fighters. It's not Hamas fighters that dress up in the underwear of murdered women and girls and post their grisly celebrations on social media; Hamas fighters don't mock murdered children by parading around with their teddy-bears.
It was however Hamas that poked the bear that is now eating Palestinians. Why poke a bear when you know what it will do? It’s not a rhetorical question, I’d actually like to know what the plan was.
Maybe there’s no real plan, just hate revenge, tit for tat, jealousy on one side, resentment on the other side. My Scottish ancestors had feuds running for generations. History is littered with one tribe battling another tribe.
You do realise that Hamas only has the support that it has in Gaza because of 75 years of Israeli occupation and harassment. Israel's continued harassment can only foster continued resentment from subjugated people.
Unfortunately this is what happens in a civil war. The Arabs, Jews and Christians that were happy to live together, do so in a country now called Israel. Those who lost the civil war have carried on for decades fighting and losing
And will be happy to do so for 100 years, or 200, or however long it takes. Religion is one hell of a drug.
I do realise that you're peddling Soviet-era propaganda that Muslims and NGOs also still continue to peddle despite the reality of the situation, yes.
🙄
So The UN pushes Soviet propaganda!! lol Wow!
So when was the last time Hamas permitted a general election? And before you go for the obvious, there have been plenty of opportunities during ceasefires.
Any "response" by Israel is not only disproportionate, but completely illegal. The October 7th death camp breakout targeted IDF soldiers, who were, and are, enforcing an illegal blockade (since escalated to out and out genocide) on the Gaza Strip.
A large number of Israeli civilian deaths were due to the IDF putting into operation its infamous "Hannibal Doctrine."
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/army-was-ordered-kill-israelis-7-october-defense-minister-confirms
The response is at least 50 to 1….60000 Palestinians versus 1200 killed at the festival.
But this is all about destroying the two state solution. The problem is that the disproportionate Zionist response has pushed world opinion back towards the two state solution.
IDF oldiers arsing about with the clothes in the buildings they take over,
They dress up in the clothes of women they have just murdered. And they do this with the toys of children they murder:
https://x.com/KhalilEJahshan/status/1762098999702552622?lang=en
but are apparently entirely OK with Muslim terrorists going house to house executing Jews in cold blood or kidnapping them for ransom.
Your fantastic misrepresentation of the Oct. 7 breakout from the death camp is beyond contempt. It belongs with your tone-policing of people who, unlike you, are moved to comment about these brutes.
Do you think we need something like this here?
Unduly Lenient Sentences | The Crown Prosecution Service
Provided it doesn't compromise the independence of our judiciary.
And make it neutral (unduly harsh/lenient) – otherwise it looks like the work of political parties and lobby groups (e.g. the SST) that advocate for harsher criminal penalties.
I would rather Judges just get the word that parole is a gift of grace to offenders and by no means a right. I just wouldn't give Collins an inch,
I see NZ Speak up for Women FB page is keen on applying an appeal of the sentence to the person convicted for assault at Albert Park.
Can you elaborate?
please provide a link for that claim.
No, generally, leave it to the justice system.
Why? 1. Trial by social media 2. those with the money, time and energy, or cray-crays to follow up with this will be the ones who chase it. 3. Victims already have a say in actual sentence length in violent crime at early release hearings, essentially giving them power over the term spent in prison. I don’t know if the UK has this.
The UK is more 'corrupt', as in dodgy policing, and in even identifying, let alone addressing, racism in charging and sentencing than NZ. It is more blood-thirsty, with a rabid rw press that thrashes individual cases for the dosh.
Push instead for the clearing of court case backlog, so trials are held within a reasonable timeframe. Andrew Little spent the 2017 having a really good clean-up of Justice.
Don't buy into the Nats' lauranorder story, and the baying of the gallows crowd.
Talking of L&O, leniency and bootcamps RNZ says,
'Just last week, [Chhour] was questioned by Labour's spokesperson for children Willow-Jean Prime, asking if it was true that eight of the 10 pilot military style academy participants had allegedly reoffended, and that six were "apparently back in youth justice facilities." ' And of course, one died when they crashed a car into another vehicle, injuring others.
How did this not get on primetime news?
The cost per participant is $200k pa, apparently. This is a reddit comment, so unsubstantited, but sounds like someone in the know:
$200k was the cost of arts and culture programmes for kids in care in the Justice system, 180 only any given day, 80% who are on remand. This government axed that.
Value for money, which do you think would have a better outcome?
Paywalled satire – the visible bit is on target, imho. Get Land Rovers back on ‘track’
Not paywalled! Just brilliant!
Though I suspect PeeWee Brown might take it as literal!
Thanks Tony – yes, paywall is off now.
Every pedestrian must go!
Pretty dark that neither anyone in government nor the Human Rights Commission have come out in defense of those who were attacked and ridiculed in Te Atatu on the weekend.
Sure hope the review of Destiny's charitable status gets revoked. But even if it were, we need to be represented by leaders with a moral spine.
Great to see Hipkins come out so fast and forthright. Keep at it.
At the risk of being awkward, I'd much rather
a) we concentrated on the merits, or otherwise, of people in drag reading to children
b) the role of libraries, usually council/ratepayer funded and supposed to be havens of peace
So if we find merit in toddlers being read to and I'm prepared to concede that with good safeguards strangers reading to children is laudable/beneficial:
Does this still apply to readers with the dress standards exhibited at many of these events? On this I'd say no. Some of the outfits are not age appropriate being more suitable for places catering to adult entertainment
So I think reading to children is good and fancy dress is enlivening and fun for children. Many of the drag costumes are not suitable.
Then we come to the venue.
So we've got children being read to by readers wearing age appropriate fancy dress.
Is it appropriate for this to happen in a library?
On the face of it, yes, it is fine for children to be read to in a library by figures dressed in age appropriate fancy dress.
Drag dress however is not, in my view age appropriate fancy dress.
In my childhood I was entranced by the costumes that people wore for their jobs, like ballerinas, traffic cops, fire officers and also people dressed as characters from our kids books. I would have welcomed some of these people reading or being with us so we could look at their uniforms and to their credit the fire and police officers who visted our schools soon got used to kids wanting to look at hand cuffs, truncheon things, their radios, hats etc.
Drag belongs to adults is my belief.
How so? Were they exposing themselves in some way? How is a flamboyant outfit any different to, say, a clown? Do you also police children's dress-up boxes? I put on dresses as a child and I can't say the world ended. Gender play is actually quite normal for children.
Many parents think that costumes emphasising genitals or breasts is not the type they want their toddler children to see/be part of. It is not the flamboyance or the bright colours or the cross dressing per se.
In some events overseas there are pictures of men in drag at childrens' reading events with no knickers and wide open stance while sitting.
I see a difference between fancy dress and drag. Fancy dress or kids dressing up boxes are not what I am talking about. Sorry I did not make my self clear.
It is the dress worn by adult performers ie adults who perform often very risque shows for other adults. I've got no problem with this for adults.
Oddly enough, of all the many pictures I've seen of these events, the only ones where the person in question was dressed inappropriately seem to come from anti-LGBT propaganda with zero provenance. I always find it odd, given that if something like that did happen in a public library, right wing news agencies would be all over it like a rash. Even if it got that far before librarians shut it down and outraged parents walked out. It would have to be a vanishingly rare occurrence to have escaped the attention of News Corp.
The idea that these performers turn up to read books to children in a supervised setting like a public library, wearing something overtly sexual, or more overtly sexual than the average punter at the library, is unlikely.
In the case of Te Atatu the performer was a woman dressed as a man, all bits covered and unexaggerated. Not a fake phallus in sight. Still not seeing the problem there, but then I grew up on panto and Hinge and Bracket.
I think it would help if you provided some New Zealand examples of DQSH where the dress was inappropriate. We know this has happened overseas, I'm not convinced it's happening in NZ. I do think it's an issue that needs to be debated, and we need evidence to back up concerns in order for that debate to happen.
I think that comes from a wider problem that females tend to be more sexualised in clothing and presentation than men. men are presented more as fully rounded humans, while (hetero)sexuality is made much more central for females.
It can be seen in clothing choices in shops, and in the media and the likes of contemporary music videos.
"The Sexualization of Women and Girls"
I'm not that keen on drag queen performances because they pick up on this stereotyping and exaggerate it. I guess some drag queens like being able to perform such obvious sexualisation.
There is also the idea that DQ are a caricature of women.
Like the male equivalent would be the Village People characters.
That's also stereotypically male. They are meant to be sexually appealing, but that is via a focus on their work roles, which basically all involve a certain amount of physical action:
The native American warrior, the cowboy, the construction worker, the policeman, the soldier, … and the leather clad guy (?)
Drag Queens tend to wear fluffier clothing that is there purely to catch the eye and draw attention to the DQ.
A couple of points.
1. you seem to think the objection from Shanreagh is over gender non-conformity. I doubt this is true, but she can answer that. For myself, as a gender critical feminist, gender non-conformity is what should be the social norm. Which means that you are missing what the actual objections are.
2. internationally, there are plenty of examples of DQs performing to or on front of children in dress as well as action that is inappropriate. I've asked Shanreagh to provide examples of that happening in NZ, because I haven't seen evidence of that. But drag is adult, sexualised performance, and so it's also on DQs to demonstrate that they know where the boundaries are. The big issue in all of this is child safeguarding and the way contemporary culture is eroding boundaries.
As an example, I would suggest reading this, and thinking about why it was allowed in the first place,
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/07/13/the-rainbow-dildo-butt-monkey-is-no-laughing-matter/
Some NZ examples:
Erika and Coco Flash, in a publicity photo I think.
A video showing some of their DQST.
ta. Not seeing anything sexualised there that's a problem. Like you I'm not a fan of the stereotyping of women, but that's hardly unique to drag.
I don't take Spiked particularly seriously as a source for anything. They're right wing, funded by conservative groups like the Koch brothers, their reliability is dubious at best, and they are heavily into culture war nonsense.
this is why liberals are losing. Jo Bartosch is an experienced journalist and feminist. Instead of engaging with the concerns about safeguarding, the trans ally liberals deflect and practice No Debate. You can't have it both ways, if you insist that gender critical feminists have no voice in progressive media they will write where they can have a voice. This is a well known dynamic and it was feminists like Bartosch who eventually pushed the situation to where liberal media has to start paying attention. But it's meant that too many on the left are still ignorant of the debate that has been raging without them.
Meanwhile, the right is co-opting the issues that the mainstream think are important and the liberals are rendering the left impotent. This is why the left is losing.
Rainbow dildo butt monkey was an important story. That you would write it off instead of saying, yes, child safeguarding matters, liberal culture got it wrong and we need to talk about boundaries, is why the mainstream is turning away and the right laughing their arses off. They now get to control the narrative.
The largely progressive gender critical feminists are doing what they can to hold a progressive voice but when it comes down to it, many women will choose their own rights and the safeguarding of children over the liberal agenda. And what is on offer is the right. The US is but one obvious example. Don't say you weren't warned.
Ah, so liberals are losing because they don't agree with you. Right. ok. It's all liberal culture. Next they'll be doing it in the streets and frightening the horses. I think this is where I came in. Go Trump etc.
I mean, let's just take this ad absurdum. There is statistically a far higher likelihood, by orders of magnitude, of seeing a representation of genitals in Māori carving than there is in a public library. Should we then ban children from the marae?
What happened in Te Atatu on the weekend shouldn’t have come as a surprise to anyone.
As we know demonstrations, protests and counter demonstrations are completely legal as is (apparently) events being cancelled and owners of venues being forced to deny hosting events due to “safety concerns”.
The organisers of the event at Te Atatu should have cancelled the event beforehand, and/or the venue operators should have declined to host the event due to safety concerns, or accept the possibility of violence.
Alternatively, we could all act like grown adults and learn to accept that there will be performers/speakers who some of us don’t like.
Well said.
As an active protestor back in the day I'm not sure what the point is about accepting performers/speakers who some don't like, what about wars like the Vietnam war that some of us didn't like or the Springbok tour or the people who marched against vaccines/mandates or fluoride in water. Do we/they all button up and write a few more letters to someone?
I'm all for a live and let live approach but I draw the line at events in libraries, and especially events such as these targetting children. I'm sure some adult cabaret-style events with adult costumes would be fun for some at rest homes but do we see this?
There is quite a clear line between protesting and terrorism. I'd familiarise myself with it if I were you.
Where on earth do you get the idea that there is anything cabaret-like about these library performances? They're literally just sitting down and reading from an approved book, not throwing around innuendos and stripping.
I don't think there is, but it's not an unreasonable question because internationally there are sexualised performances in front of children, and in NZ the public conversation has been suppressed, so people really don't know.
In public libraries? Actual verified instances? I'm not saying that there haven't been the occasional unsanctioned dubious choice, but there are also parents out there who smoke meth in front of their kids, and if you used that to generalise about all parents of a certain demographic, you would be rightly accused of cherrypicking. Otherwise you might as well uncritically believe everything Family First and QAnon say.
Dude, you literally just refused to read an example I gave. I'll post it again here,
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/07/13/the-rainbow-dildo-butt-monkey-is-no-laughing-matter/
If you refuse to look at the material where the evidence is, you can't argue that it doesn't exist.
and as I said in the other comment just now, you can't have it both ways. If you support No Debate, then you will be oblivious to what is happening. Why should I go dig up examples when you will just ignore them or deflect?
funny how feminists know about it though eh. Almost like we thought the child safeguarding issues were important and paid attention.
Argumentum ad verecundiam
It's very easy.
Protest to your heart's content, but the moment you threaten, intimidate or physically confront someone, that's against the law.
It's just not that hard.
There are better sources. The library and theatre company publicly apologised and the costume was retired. It was an accident, not a conspiracy to pervert children and comparing the two seems a very long bow to draw
https://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/local-council/21171824.inappropriate-monkey-costume-retired-company-library-controversy/
Agree
The person in the Te Atatu library was reading a book about the science of meteorology, no doubt simplified for the age group in attendance. Nothing offensive about that unless you are a conspiracy nut-bar who think the sciences are evil. Once again some people insist on jumping to conclusions before checking out the facts?
Support for these performances (part of "the Woke Agenda") is a hopeful sign.
Saw some Xmas pantos as a kid. Fun, albeit hazy memories – he's behind you!
You can protest all you like, however you should not have any right to stop someone from doing something that you don’t like or agree with. To me that means you should not be allowed to stop or have an event cancelled, or to drown out speakers. I have a right to listen to speakers or to watch a show without being interrupted. The only people who should be able to stop events would be the authorities who deemed it to be illegal.
We have seen events shut down before, like last weekend, and the Posie Parker event. Each side justifies their own actions and condemns the other. The reality is they are behaving like rival football hooligans.
As for drag queens reading to kids in the library, I find it a bit suspect myself, however I’d expect that the council would do some serious due diligence considering children are involved.
which of the following do you think activists shouldn't try and stop:
A talk about how raping women should be legal.
A talk about sex with children should be legal.
A talk promoting the idea that trans people don't exist.
Weka, not quite what I'm suggesting. Rape and child abuse is illegal as it is, and also morally repugnant. Therefore the authorities should intervene if someone were to suggest that we should legally be able to rape and sexually abuse anyone.
A discussion that trans people don’t exist shouldn’t be illegal, it’s just an opinion, some people think the world is flat, or any other unscientific. Saying trans people shouldn’t exist is pretty close to suggesting extermination of a group of people, so it’s not acceptable.
Protesting is not the problem, shutting down events is a problem. I’m saying protest all you want, but don’t stop people from doing what they’re legally allowed to do.
Well you wouldn't need activists to stop two of them as they are already illegal. As for a talk promoting the idea that trans people don't exist, if we're going to use Posey Parker as an example, physical assault is already illegal and if you lay hands on someone or throw something at them, then of course they should be arrested and a court decide the appropriate outcome.
Afaik, it's not illegal to hold a public meeting on law reform regarding rape. You couldn't advocate for raping women currently, because that's incitement to commit a crime, but you could advocate to change the law so that it became legal.
If I am wrong, please explain how it is illegal. What law is being broken?
You might want to read this first,
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/295533/%27legalise-rape%27-group-plans-nz-meetings
You might also want to start listening to feminists who've been having to deal with this shit a long time.
And then, look at what the argument is here. It's whether it's valid to use force to close down public meetings.
Inciting or advocating for any form of violence, including rape, is illegal under the Crimes Act 1961. It's not impossible such a talk might take place if the language was incredibly circumspect, but how long is a piece of string. The ROK meetings were cancelled worldwide before the laws were tested and last I checked Daryush Valizadeh has an immigration ban.
I could say that I do, but then you'll say they're not real feminists or whatever and then we're into the whole debate blocking, "when did you stop beating your wife", no true Scotsman, dead cat rhetorical bramble patch, and I'm not playing that game. What you really mean is that I should start listening to, and only to, feminists that hold to your particular viewpoint.
Trump can relativise his narcissism. He's using another top real-estate developer as go-to guy:
Capitalizing peace like that is a literary pitch for the new-age vote, although the trend amongst younger generations to speak in capitals seems to have fizzled out in the 21st century. Anyway the expertise of the go-to guy brings real-estate developer ethos to the fore as a postmodern way of making peace. Charm is merely the entrée, pressure is the follow-through required to embed an impression. Bit like pile-driving.
When you look too arab to be a Jew
Released today:
"Review of the policing of public protests in New Zealand"
In the appendices there are detailed assessments of
the Police response to the Let Women Speak event (Albert Park), 2023 – faults found with the systems for risk assessment, plus with some of the police responses, especially with the Operation Commander and Forward Commander .
Thanks for the link Karolyn. It's an extensive report and, unusually, I have sympathy for the police. Little info, short staffed, quickly escalating situation and a few folk getting carried away and violent.
When you get in to the nitty gritty, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference between the counter protestors protesting against LWS and the mob who turned up at the drag story time at the library
weka makes a good point, there is a lot of inconsistency in folks views on protest, depending on where their politics lie.
Agreed.
Police understaffing was also identified as a factor.
Response from Speak Up for Women to the report.
I think the lack of information is picked up by IPCA as not being excusable. The Police Intelligence gathering ability seems very constrained with LWS speak Marshall B providing much of the intel. Though I am not sure that the organisers knew of the info deficit.
I get the 'feeling' had she not done this, alerting Police to events overseas etc the police would not have found it by themselves. 200 women many of whom were elderly and many who had travelled long distances to hear Posie Parker and other women speak, missed out, some were injured. Many more of us missed out as she cancelled her talk in Wgtn. This was done after Albert Park when it was clear the police could not guarantee her or our safety once we were possibly kettled up in Civic Square.
I think many of us will remember the 'odd' policing around the Springbok tour and now this, as events that didn't show the Police, Rugby organisers, and protestors at LWS in a good light.
When you look at the reports of the policing on the two Palestinian protests you can see the value of good intel as Police seemed to be able work out who was who there but strangely not able to see the difference in the crowds at LWS and the protestors.
(My mother cynically used to say that 'men' could not see elderly women, we were invisible to them, to which my father would comment that she had lost her opportunity for a late in life chance of policing-free crime.)
I don't think anyone anticipated the righteous anger that manifested from the crowd that sought to shout and shut down other's korereo.
Adrenalin, coupled with the righteousness in a crowd is a potent mix.
There is a feeling of the cops downplaying the whole affair leading up to the events akin to yr last paragraph.
It shouldn’t really be up to the police to ensure grown adults believe like grown adults. Police intelligence should be reserved for investigating serious crimes. Violence committed by adults participating in demonstrations should be severely punished, no matter what side of the political spectrum they identify with.
Doing to the administration of governance what they have down for Crown Research*
1.cut numbers (reduce numbers of scientists)*
2.amalgamate (fewer specialist scientists and operating in broader sectors)*.
https://archive.li/T5J8c#selection-3991.0-4192.0
This is a cost cutting exercise.
One can reduce layers of administration and bureaucracy by having smaller (accountable) specialist groups. It is much harder in larger aggregate organisations.
What they need is administrative support and experts in government compliance (who transfer across sectors to broaden the range of their knowledge).
The more I hear from Roche the more I believe he’s a hatchet man and the less I trust him.
He claims he’s only asking questions.
Yeah, right! This is Tui territory; his bosses in the Coalition will want only one outcome and he knows it.
He said this in his speech last week at the University of Waikato:
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/news/sir-brian-roche-on-re-orientating-the-public-service
This an Orwellian dog-whistle for major restructuring and cost-cutting. Nicola Willis has already razored and top-sliced 7.5% the pubic service departments and cut about 9,500 jobs in the public sector.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/524904/how-many-public-sector-roles-are-going-and-from-where
It’s time to call it out for what it is: massive cost cutting of the Public Service and culling of public servants to do less with less for many New Zealanders.
Apt.
I am intrigued with how the casual labels we assign to groups change over time, and how people in particular groups see themselves differently from those in others. I'm not sure which political parties most closely align with the 5 groups above, or how that is seen as having changed. The most common political dimension is right / left, with the political compass ( https://www.politicalcompass.org/nz2023 ) adding Authoritarian / Libertarian – with ACT seeming to me to be among the least libertarian, but using a pretence of tolerance for speech to hide the extreme authoritarianism which requires all their people to rigidly follow Atlas Network views and instructions. The Green Party does appear to be genuinely libertarian, but ACT is extreme right / authoritarian – aru9nd the same as Trump!
So what are the visual references?, and what are they and the labels trying to tell us ?
haha, trying to think of the deep green one now. Probably hasn't been made yet.
That's gotta be Avatar.
White saviours join blue peeps in their fight against evil robber barons.
/
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/542013/immigration-nz-to-deport-fijian-teen-over-concerns-he-would-burden-the-country-s-special-education-services
This case concerning a Fijian boy aged 15, who has ASD and controlled epilepsy, has a different history from that of Daman Kumar.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/542071/new-zealand-born-teen-s-deportation-to-india-paused-at-last-minute
However, surely compassion and open-mindedness should be applied to the Fijian teen also.
In 2023, according to the RNZ link "the father was granted a three-year work visa and the teen, mother and sibling made further temporary visa applications, which were granted to the mother and sister".
Clearly the father has work skills valued in NZ.
"However, Immigration New Zealand declined the teen's application, ruling he had an unacceptable standard of health…..After the teen's interim visa expired mid-last year, leaving him living in the country unlawfully, his family launched a humanitarian appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal New Zealand against his liability for deportation".
The family's lawyer Rajendra "Chaudhry submitted it was in the teen's best interests to stay because if he must return to Fiji, he would be separated from his family". (His extended family members are also living in NZ).
"This is because his family wishes to stay in New Zealand. His parents are not likely to follow him to Fiji, and counsel has suggested that the appellant's sister may return with him, or he will return alone," the decision stated.
"The reason for this arrangement is that, in New Zealand, the parents earn a higher income and hope to be able to apply for residence."
Chaudhry told the tribunal that despite the teen's delayed cognitive function, he managed "sufficiently well" with the support of his parents.
However, if deported, he could not care for himself…..
Chaudhry submitted he was settled in New Zealand and would not be a financial burden because his parents have self-funded his care since arriving……
The tribunal recognised his best interests were served by living in a settled and familiar environment, supported by family or someone familiar.
"While the family wishes that to be in New Zealand, the tribunal finds that to remain in New Zealand is not necessarily in the appellant's best interests. His best interests can also be served by returning to Fiji."
Separation would be the parents' decision
In declining the appeal, the tribunal found there were no exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature……
"In essence, any separation of the family unit would come about because of his parents' decision to remain in New Zealand and continue their lives here without him."
The tribunal granted the teen a six-month visitor visa, which expires in May, so he and his family could make the appropriate care arrangements for him in Fiji.
However, speaking with NZME, Chaudhry said the family's options were not yet exhausted, including making a representation to the Minister of Immigration.
"The father qualifies for residency in November so, sometimes the minister does have a sympathetic heart and may say 'look we'll sort of stretch this out'….
Chaudhry said the rules were different for someone who holds residence and the teen's assessment may change in those circumstances".
Re the tribunal's questions about the boy not being attached to a school or social environment, this can be as a consequence of ASD.
The family came to NZ where they can earn a higher income, the boy "would not be a financial burden because his parents have self-funded his care since arriving" and Chaudhry advised "The father qualifies for residency in November….".
The lack of logic is evident in the Immigration and Protection Tribunal granting "the teen a six-month visitor visa, which expires in May, so he and his family could make the appropriate care arrangements for him in Fiji", yet the father qualifies for residency in November. Therefore, surely the teen's visa could be extended until then, as Chaudhry suggests, when the case can be reviewed.
I agree with Choudhry, a right to stay until November and a review.
The original decision for mine is invalid.
He has been no burden on the health system, or the school system.
The idea that he be deported to Fiji in May, when his father is eligible for residency in November is cynical (especially given the earlier flawed reasons given to deny him the right to stay here with his parents).
The real problem in their eyes appears to be that he might not find employment (and thus would be eligible for some form of benefit support). The sort of thinking behind the formation of the social investment agency is behind the decision.
If that be the case, let them be honest about that in November.