All posts tagged Kiwiblog

GCSB and spying on New Zealanders

Media coverage of the GCSB and spying on New Zealanders has been sensationalist but has distorted the basic facts.

It is not a matter of whether Government agencies can spy on New Zealanders or not, they already can, legally. The question is simply whether the GCSB can legally assist the police or SIS in their legal surveilance.

On Kiwiblog in An excellent report David Farrar quotes from the Kitteridge report…

The consequence of these developments is that the lawfulness of some of GCSB’s past assistance to domestic agencies is now called into question. In relation to NZSIS, the relevant period is between 1 April 2003, when the GCSB Act came into force, and 26 September 2012, when such assistance ceased. During that period GCSB provided 55 instances of assistance to NZSIS, which potentially involved 85 New Zealand citizens or permanent residents

…and comments:

Now it is important to note that the SIS were legally entitled to intercept their communications. The Commissioner of Security Warrants (a former High Court Judge) and the PM must both authorise such a warrant, based on genuine security concerns.

The issue is whether the GCSB were legally able able to assist the SIS with their interception, and if not, should they be able to?

I would suggest that there is little common sense in saying the GCSB should not be allowed to assist the SIS. If you do that, you probably require the SIS to duplicate the quite costly infrastructure of the GCSB for what is just half a dozen cases a year.

But such assistance must be beyond legal doubt. Hence why a law change is going to happen. I don’t think there was any intention that the 2003 Act would prevent the GCSB from assisting the SIS.

And Nigel Kearney argues against any need to change the law:

The issue is what the government is entitled to do, not which government agency is doing it. If it’s ok for the police to wiretap a common criminal like DotCom then it’s ok for them to get the GCSB to do it.

That doesn’t change just because the media choose to call the GCSB a ‘spy agency’ and DotCom a ‘New Zealander’ and then fashion a story about the government spying on kiwis.

It’s pretty clear to me that the relevant limitation in the GCSB Act refers to initiating surveillance, not assisting with another agency’s operation.

Many people seem to think you can take one sentence from an Act, devoid of context, and then interpret it absolutely literally. But that’s just not how the law works.

Maybe they should amend the Act for political reasons to put a stop to the whining and bleating, but there’s no legal reason to do so.

My understanding is that Kearney is a lawyer.

I think there is legitimate debate about whether the law is adequate or not, but there’s no doubt the political whining and bleating needs to be addressed.

by Pete George on April 10, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on April 10, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/04/10/gcsb-and-spying-on-new-zealanders/

Rape – “because we’re men”

Who thinks all men are rapists? A comment posted in Rape culture: we’re living in it:

A lot of people accuse feminists of thinking that all men are rapists. That’s not true. But do you know who think all men are rapists?

Rapists do.

They really do. In psychological study, the profiling, the studies, it comes out again and again.

Virtually all rapists genuinely believe that all men rape, and other men just keep it hushed up better. And more, these people who really are rapists are constantly reaffirmed in their belief about the rest of mankind being rapists like them by things like rape jokes, that dismiss and normalize the idea of rape.

If one in twenty guys is a real and true rapist, and you have any amount of social activity with other guys like yourself, really cool guy, then it is almost a statistical certainty that one time hanging out with friends and their friends, playing Halo with a bunch of guys online, in a WoW guild, or elsewhere, you were talking to a rapist. Not your fault. You can’t tell a rapist apart any better than anyone else can. It’s not like they announce themselves.

But, here’s the thing. It’s very likely that in some of these interactions with these guys, at some point or another someone told a rape joke. You, decent guy that you are, understood that they didn’t mean it, and it was just a joke. And so you laughed.

And, decent guy who would never condone rape, who would step in and stop rape if he saw it, who understands that rape is awful and wrong and bad, when you laughed?

That rapist who was in the group with you, that rapist thought that you were on his side. That rapist knew that you were a rapist like him. And he felt validated, and he felt he was among his comrades.

http://www.shakesville.com/2011/02/penny-arcade-open-thread.html#comment-141696567

That’s an example of rape culture. Sad to say I’ve experienced that sort of thing, I’ve lived in it.

I’ve seen it – and am still seeing it on Kiwiblog yesterday and again today where playing down rape and joking about rape continues. It’s only a few commenters involved, and there’s many more interested in the topic going by the number who are linking to here.

I suspect (and hope) there are more silent readers who see the problem but aren’t prepared to comment, having seen the levels of abuse I’ve been subjected to.

And one comment (from Carlos) emphasises the culture problems we have:

Last week I was just having a discussion with my colleague. He said that he would rape a woman if he couldn’t get caught. I said that I couldn’t. I asked him why would anyone want to cause such pain to a woman for our own pleasure? He replied, “Because we’re men.” I have another colleague who has the exact same thinking as him. I seem to be in a minority here. :(

Remarkably he has beein given three thumbs down for that. Some people don’t like seeing the awful realities revealed.

by Pete George on March 8, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 8, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/08/rape-because-were-men/

How right wing am I?

It has been implied that I’m a right wing blogger going by this The Daily Blog headline:

Pete George – an example of right wing blogging falsehoods

That’s a post by Lynn Prentice but he may not have written the headline, as he reveals in a comment at Public Address:

The Daily Blog? So I sent it to them since they were starting the next day.  Looks like they toned down my title, corrected some grammar and typos and put it up.

It would be interesting to see what his choice of title was.

I have often been called right wing  – on left wing blogs.

And I have been called left wing on right wing blogs.

Accusing someone of being of the other wing is a common attempt at abuse, but can also just be through ignorance, as I suspect could be the case here.

It’s common to see people at leftie blogs like The Standard labeling everything they don’t agree with as right wing. David Shearer is accused of being right wing, as is the Labour caucus.

It’s also common to see people at rightie blogs like Kiwiblog labeling everything they don’t agree with as left wing. John Key and National are sometimes described as left wing. Some extreme commenters accuse everyone else at Kiwiblog of being socialists.

How right wing am I?

I don’t do wings.

I have a left arm and a right arm, a left leg and a right leg, a left eye and a right eye, a left hemisphere and a right hemisphere.

I speak from the centre. My heart is slightly to the left.

More seriously, I don’t buy into this political polarity painting, I don’t see things as a left/right divide. Most things are degrees in between.

I look at each issue and judge it on it’s merits. Like most people I see a need for some state assistance and regulation, but see the benefits in private enterprise.

I see the need for both personal responsibility and community responsibilities.

A right wing blogger?

Many participants in the blogosphere find a left orientated or right orientated favourite place. The seem to view other blog places as enemy territory.

But I’ve been a cross-blogger, participating in a wide variety of online forums. The reason why I am more active on right wing blogs is because I’ve been banned or blocked from some of the most prominent left wing blogs – they seem to have less tolerance for alternative views and approaches to blogging.

Here I look to sources from both the left and the right, attempting to get a variety and balance of views.

If I appear to be harder on Labour that’s because I think they deserve it, I have serious concerns about the lack of quality in alternatives to National.

If I appear to be harder on The Standard that’s becasue I think they deserve it – and also because I can challenge people at Kiwiblog and Whale Oil directly and on an even playing field, including Cam and DPF, but I’m banned from The Standard so can’t address general issues and personal attacks there.

I seek and publish views from MPs from across the spectrum.

I’m not left or right, I have cross-party interests.

I’m not a right wing blogger, or a left wing blogger. My niche is as a cross-blogger  – but I don’t very often get cross!

by Pete George on March 3, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 3, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/03/how-right-wing-am-i/

Chauvel’s barb backfired on party office links to blogs

Charles Chauvel made an accusation against bloggers in his valedictory speech in parliament:

In the case of the two better-known right wing blogs, those online sources are proxies for the present government, with much copy supplied directly out of ministers’ offices at taxpayers’ expense.

It has not been disputed that he was referring to Kiwiblog and Whale Oil.

“Much copy supplied directly out of ministers’ offices” is totally unsubstantiated by Chauvel, and at the new The Daily Blog Lynn Prentice implies the same accusation:

The implication that Pete George is evidentially trying to imply is that The Standard is run by Labour in the same manner that those two blogs are.

There is no evidence for and much evidence against the claim that Kiwiblog and Whale Oil are “proxies for the current Government”. In a blog post headed Pete George – an example of right wing blogging falsehoods it’s ironic that Prentice is promoting a falsehood made in parliament.

I haven’t claimed and have no reason to believe that The Standard is “run by Labour”, I was simply showing significant connections with Labour. And Prentice actually agrees with (and clarifies) Labour-Standard connections – doesn’t deny one that is directly linked to Shearer’s office.

Mike Smith – “works in David Shearer’s office”. Wow – what a inordinate level of omission. Mike retired as the long standing party secretary of the Labour party in 2009. We asked him to join me as a trustee of the trust that runs The Standard in 2010. He couldn’t resist starting to write posts later that year.

However I don’t think that anyone who knows politics is surprised that David Shearer’s office also wanted his advice on a part-time basis. He has a rather lot of political experience (unlike Pete apparently).

Smith is only an occasional poster but even Labour Party members at The Standard raised eyebrows via their keyboards about his posts during the leadership/conference stoush in November, and suggested it was copy supplied directly out of David Shearer’s office.

And I had also said:

‘James Henderson’ – believed to work for Greens in Parliament.

Prentice:

James Henderson – 22 posts. I’ll ignore the unsubstantiated whaledreck Pete George asserts. But JH always party votes Green.

And…

However with the exception of Mike Smith for Labour and JH for the Greens…

…Prentice confirms those party links.

And the other pseudonyms could be fed by anyone. This highlights problems with using pseudonyms for political purposes on blogs. David Farrar  has blogged on this:

Again, because readers have no way of knowing if an author is a genuine unique individual, one associates things they say more with the site, than them as an individual – because we do not know them as an individual.

And because we don’t know them as individuals, and they don’t openly identify their connections and motives, pseudonym users (and sites like The Standard that allow them for political purposes) leave themselves open to reasonable speculation.

‘James Henderson’ – is not a known identity, virtually any blogger using their own name reveals details about themselves over time. Not so with James Henderson. There is no indication it’s anything but a pseudonym – which could be seen as misleading and dishonest trying to pass themselves off as a ‘person’ they are not.

I don’t have direct evidence that ‘James Henderson’ is a pseudonym that uses copy supplied directly out of Green offices but there are ample indications that this could be so, and there is no denial from Prentice or anyone else.

The Greens could deny any link between their offices and ‘James Henderson’, that would settle this. Both David Farrar and Cameron Slater make detailed disclosures about themselves, their pasts and their connections.

I am not claiming (or implying) that either Labour or the Greens run The Standard.

But Chauvel’s barb has backfired, as has Prentice’s grand entrance to The Daily Blog. They have made unsubstantiated accusations about right wing blogs with “much copy supplied directly out of ministers’ offices at taxpayers’ expense“, and Prentice has shown that in fact Labour and quite possibly Greens are doing exactly that from opposition party offices (as a part of the overall blogging at The Standard).

It’s a double own goal.

by Pete George on March 2, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 2, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/02/chauvels-barb-backfired-on-party-office-links-to-blogs/

Profile of a denier

A comment by Azeraph at Kiwiblog:

An interesting profile of a denier by Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine:

  1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
  2. Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
  3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
  4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
  5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
  6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when “dissenting” arguments or experts are rejected.

It’s apt having that raised at Kiwiblog, I see oodles of signs of all of those practices there, particularly in trying to discredit climate change but also on evolution, presidential birth certificates, 911 etc etc.

by Pete George on March 1, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on March 1, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/03/01/profile-of-a-denier/

Chauvel accuses Whale and Kiwiblog

In his valedictory statement in Parliament Charles Chauvel took a nasty swipe at “two better known right wing blogs” – obviously Whale Oil and Kiwiblog – with wild accusations. This indicates some paranoia in Labour circles about supposed unfairness in media.

But it’s not only Government institutions that need strengthening. Democracy requires a free, well resourced, unbiased fourth estate.

Journalists working in much of our under capitalised, foreign owned media are under constant pressure.

This comes from many quarters, including the constant need to sell newspapers and airtime, and also the need to compete with instantly available online sources.

In the case of the two better known right wing blogs those online sources are proxies for the present Government, and much copy is supplied to them directly out of ministers offices at taxpayers expense.

A general dumbing down, but more importantly a loss of independence have been the inevitable results.

To those of uas who want to read and listen to unbiased domestic news and analysis, or even for those of us who don’t really care whether John and Jacinda are still New Zealand’s sexiest politicians, there remains a diminishing number of options.

The quality of reporting and analysis now offered by PBS, ABC, the BBC, as well as the effect they have on the standard of other media, are simply not available here.

It’s high time for the re-establishment of a strong, independent, well resourced multi media broadcaster in New Zealand.

It’s more than a little hypocritical talking about unbiased balance while making major unsubstantiated accusations at two “right wing” blogs under parliamentary privilege, and making no mention of left wing blogs with obvious connections to Labour.

Video report here: Chauvel Leaves With A Parting Shot

Update: See also The Chauvel valedictory at Kiwiblog and on Charles’ valedictory at The Standard

by Pete George on February 27, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 27, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/27/chauvel-accuses-whale-and-kiwiblog/

Arguments against changing the marriage law

There are regular discussions on Kiwiblog about marriage equality and homosexuality. Here are some comments from yesterday’s General Debate in support of no change to marriage law.

The discussion was kicked off by this comment by iMP:

Latest poll (Curia/FamFirstNZ) on same-sex marriage (thanks DPF). 47% agree, 43% believe Civil Unions sufficient. Half of NZ think should go to a binding referendum. Strong support for special protections for people who disagree with gay marriage.

http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/curia-and-curious-same-sex-marriage/

Fletch:

“hold on, maybe all this gay rights stuff is going to be imposed on me somehow”

As it eventually will.

Harriet:

Marriage due to it’s very nature – the relationship OF natural procreation- has by it’s very PERFORMANCE or PATTERN been defined for 6000+ years – long, long, long before NZ law was ever ‘recognized’.

Andrei

As clueless as ever Pete George as regurgitates shallow feminist memes and displays his profound ignorance of history, culture and human nature.

Listen you testosterone challenged dolt – in the real world it was fucking hard to ensure childrens survival and thus the requirement of bonding the father of any children to their mother before they were even conceived spontaneously evolved in many places long before there were Governments.

Governments usurped marriage beginning about 200 years ago and like anything the Government gets grubby its hands on have just about fucked it

Harriet

Procreation has ALWAYS been at the center of Marriages’ existance.

Or in other words, if man was asexual and did NOT procreate, we would then NEVER EVER had anything like Marriage! :cool:

Yeah….some gays were ONCE Married SOMEWHERE long FORGOTTEN……and some men BEAT their wifes…….or what anyone who takes the welfare of children seriously would say – a statistical abberation. :cool:

Your arguements are immature. :cool:

Andrei

I will bet you that Pete George cannot give a sound reason as to why we need same sex marriage?

Sure he can fling about bullshit about “discrimination” but that is crap the rules surrounding who can marry who are the same for everybody which means there is no disrimination.

Harriet

Here’s a sound and sane reason why he shouldn’t! :cool:

Children acquired by same-sex couples are subject to problems inherent in their status. In addition, same-sex couples are more likely to be at risk for a number of problems which directly impact their ability to parent. That’s both of them.

Andrei

Why is it necessary, Pete George, for the Government to register the relationships between people?

Why does the Government have to be involved?

Can you give me a profound reason for this?

Andrei

No no no Pete George, I can answer that but I am not going to be distracted by the vapid talking points that you have absorbed from the gay lobby.

That is a typical leftoid trick to try and change the subject when the emptyness of their arguments is exposed – it might fool the unintelligent but not me

You need to tell me why the Government needs to be involved in personal realtionships

Andrei

You know SPC we will get gay “marriage”, it will be rammed down our throats.

And you people will continue to wring your hands over the number of children being bought up on the taxpayer, the numbers killed and injured at the hands of their momma’s latest boyfriend and all the other social pathologies that the lefts destruction of marriage as we received it have wrought.

If you want to fix these problems you need to encourage young men to “cleave” to young women and for them to stick together through thick and thin as they take full responsibility for their own children and the raising of them.

Instead we re going down the track of making marriage unappealing, making out it is a hotbed of violence towards women as P George did earlier on this thread and reducing it to being a piece of Government Issued paper celebrated on issuence with a cake with two dolls on top – a piece of paper with no signicance whatsoever.

This is so dumb as to be unbelievably stupid – it will also be fatal to our culture in the not so long term

Andrei

De-inking marriage from its fundamental purpose which is managing procreation will do nothing to address these things which are all examples of mismanaged procreation.

You want to fix those problems then encourage normal people to get married and stay married – reward that, not the other

Harriet

Gays as individuals and as couples are already being treated as equals as they have a civil union.!

The reason they can’t use the word ‘marriage’ is because the ‘relationship itself’ is not equal to the ‘hetro relationship’. It’s Completely differant – m/f as opposed to m/m and f/f.

You are asigned a sex at birth – by observation – not by an arbitary decision made by a mid wive or doctor.

And you can’t EVER change that truth.

joanna

Apparently they have had legal gay marriage in Canada for some time..It has not resulted in any great flurry of freedom, instead it has meant a big increase in state involvement in relationships impacting both adults and children.

Fletch

I see little change to wider society as a result, it simply becomes more inclusive

Oh ye of such little foresight. Are you really that blind?
It will change everything. Marriage won’t be marriage any more – at least it won’t mean what it always did.

Fletch posted this quote:

For many years homosexuals simply wanted the government out of their bedrooms. They wanted freedom to do as they pleased in the privacy of their own homes. With the exception of a few archaic, unenforced laws, homosexuals can now live without legal interference. As one writer put it, the closet door is wide open. Homosexual characters take the lead in TV sitcoms. They’ve been elected to Congress and sit on the President’s cabinet.

But liberty and influence have not been enough. Homosexuals are after bigger game. This debate is not about hate versus tolerance. It’s not about justice. It’s not even about the liberty to make life-long unions. It’s about something else. Homosexuals want the courts to give them by force what the public would not voluntarily cede: respect and honor.

Andrei

Kea – marriage is the foundation of our civilization. It is worth fighting to preserve it, damaged as it has been by the progressives.

dime

heres the thing. Dime has no issue with gay people (i think trannys are generally messed up though). i dont care who sleeps with who etc etc

BUT i do wonder if this gay marriage thing is just something driven by the gay elites with the sole purpose of pissing off the church.

what rights do gays not have under civil unions that “married” people have?

dime

For a condescending middle of the road ahole, you seem rather insensitive to how a large group of people feel.

Because… The world won’t end.

The world won’t end if I cave your head in with a brick, but you’d probably prefer that didn’t happen.

Anyway, under a civil union people share the same surname if they wish. They live together. They have protection so if one of them dies they inherit that persons shit (bit of an issue with gay people in the past).

What exactly does marriage have that civil unions don’t?

They even have ceremonies for civil unions.

What percentage of the population is gay? 3%?

Percentage of Christians who are against it?

I know have 5 gay friends. 1 insists on the marriage thing, the other 4 don’t give a fuck.

So are we talking the minority of a minority that this effects? Along with piss weak losers like pg?

Fletch

PG, Actually it does affect everyone, because marriage affects everyone in society because society is built on the institution of marriage. Family is the building block of society and anything that aids in the destruction of family helps destroy society.

You may not have the foresight to see it, but it ultimately does affect you and everyone else, married or not. The effects of it will ripple out, just like from a stone thrown into a pond.

Just look at what happened to the ancient Roman civilization. They were so powerful that no one could even touch them militarily, but they destroyed themselves from the inside-out – moral decay always precedes the actual fall of a civilization.

Fletch

Dr. Carle Zimmerman from Harvard wrote a book in 1947 in which he researched the different roles that marriage played in different historical periods.  He wanted to find out if there was a correlation between the health of a nation and the health of the family.  His book is called “Family and Civilization”.

He found that there are three basic patterns to families.  One pattern is always dominant in a developing nation, the second pattern always dominates in a thriving nation, and the third pattern always dominates in a nation in decline.

He found a direct correlation between the health of the family and the health of a nation.  He said that you can predict exactly where a nation is in its life cycle just by studying the family. 

According to this research, eight specific patterns of domestic behaviour have signalled the downward spiral and imminent demise of every culture:

* Marriage lost its sacredness; it was frequently broken by divorce.

* Traditional meaning of the marriage ceremony was lost. Alternate forms and definitions of marriage arose, and traditional marriage vows were replaced by individual marriage contracts.

* Feminist movements appeared, and women lost interest in child bearing and mothering, preferring to pursue power and influence.

* Public disrespect for parents and authority in general increased.

* Juvenile delinquency, promiscuity, and rebellion accelerated

* People with traditional marriages refused to accept family responsibilities.

* Desire for and acceptance of adultery grew.

* Increased tolerance for sexual perversions of all kinds, particularly homosexuality, with a resultant increase in sex-related crimes.

http://www.amazon.com/Family-Civilization-Prof-Carle-Zimmerman/dp/1933859377

Sound like any culture that we know?

Reid

It’s another parameter in the same equation, Sofia. But its a very important parameter, since it deals with the label. And the label is not a word, it’s the brand. And if brand isn’t important, how come Microsoft and IBM and any corporate, spends billions on every single year and puts it on its balance sheet.

Those who don’t understand social engineering think it’s just a word, and they also think because it doesn’t affect them or their marriage, that therefore, ergo, ipso facto, it’s not a big deal.

Which is what they want you to think.

But if you do understand social engineering, and it’s not hard if you care to educate yourself, then you know, this is precisely why there’s a global campaign, not just a local campaign, throughout the Western world, specifically to capture the brand this single word.

Those who think might ask themselves, just why there is such a global campaign, over this single word. If it wasn’t important and it really is just a word.

And in case you’re wondering, the word isn’t marriage, it’s what it connotes in people’s mind: i.e. why a brand like IBM is on the balance sheet at billions of dollars. It’s not because it’s an initialism standing for International Business Machines. It’s because when people see it or hear it they immediately conjure up a mental image. That’s what the value is. And with marriage, guess what people immediately conjure up: that’s right. Family, children, commitment, fidelity, all those good things. That all changes, if all of a sudden, marriage is associated with other “values” just precisely exactly the same way it would change if IBM teamed up with some tinpot Chinese PC maker who built crap products and swore at their customers when they dared to call the help line. IBM wouldn’t do that in a million years. But apparently, lots of extraordinarily useless moron idiots, don’t see anything wrong with treating the marriage brand, in precisely exactly the same way.

Isn’t that dumb of them.

And they’re not going to suffer, it’s their kids and their grandkids who will experience the slow and subtle change over the decades as marriage becomes nothing more than a casual meaningless commitment that is no more significant in the wider context of someone’s overall life than a drunken 21st party.

That’s the plan. And it’s proceeding apace isn’t it. All wrapped up in its “human wights” envelope. Lest the useless moron idiots get wind of it before it’s all too late.

Reid

So your argument is that because since the sixties, when feminism got started on it, the marriage brand as it now is today is damaged, therefore it’s not worth saving?

That’s a pretty dumb argument Sofia.

Perhaps you should look at what happened to Apple, in its “wilderness years” before Jobs took back the helm.

But that’s trivial, by comparison to marriage.

However, good to see you didn’t address any of the substantive points I made. You can’t really, can you. It’s very simple, isn’t it.

Only useless idiots morons don’t get it. Perhaps it’s all that weeping and wailing and rending their clothes, over the humanity of it all.

Too bad the same useless idiot morons don’t think about their own kids isn’t it, when they’re thinking about “the humanity.”

But that would require an IQ above room temperature wouldn’t it. Perhaps that’s why there’s such a high level of useless moron idiocy surrounding this issue.

It’s unlikely any of those views will change no matter what counter argunments are used.

by Pete George on February 27, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 27, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/27/arguments-against-changing-the-marriage-law/

On political polls and the ‘undecided’ vote

Further to the post on the latest Fairfax/IPSOS poll (blogged here Latest poll – the key is ‘undecided’) there has been an interesting comment at Kiwiblog fron Richard29 on the ‘undecided’:

The reporting of this poll on stuff had an interesting detail:

“Pollster Duncan Stuart said a breakdown of undecided voters suggested many were “soft” National supporters, who had started looking around.”

So basically an increasing number of people over time are getting bored of the current government that we’ve had for over 4 years, their lives haven’t really changed that much for the better, but they don’t really see the opposition as a workable government in waiting, so they are just kind of uncertain…

This also seems to gel with the differences between the Fairfax poll and the Morgan poll a few days ago. They are both on reasonably large samples and conducted at the same time, but the Fairfax poll has National at 45% and the Colmar Brunton poll has them at 49%.The big difference here is that the Colmar Brunton Poll has only 10% undecided and the Fairfax poll has 17.2% undecided. That is a massive difference and will be down to interview approach.

I’ve worked in and managed teams calling out on political surveys in NZ and Australia. The reality is that a whole bunch of people you speak to say they don’t know who they would vote for – they don’t feel that they have enough information to make a decision or they don’t want to give a ‘wrong’ answer in case they change their mind later.

Most people will give a preference if prompted with something like “So which party of the ones I listed, if you had to choose, who do you think you might prefer to vote for, even if it’s only a very small preference?” It was many years ago that I last conducted the Colmar Brunton Poll – but I’m fairly sure they employ a technique similar to this. That allows for picking up in changes of mood amongst the 20% or so of floating voters who are undecided.

The undecideds are a difficult group to get to grips with – on the one hand you don’t want to be reporting the preferences of people who are disengaged from the political process and may not show up on the day, on the other hand theirs are the votes which swing elections.

The last comments on what people base their decisions on are particularly interesting.

They are often making their decision not on the basis of a good understanding of the policies of all parties and their implications but based on broad perceptions of the political brand or personalities involved rathern than anything substantive:

  • “John Key seems friendly and down to earth”,
  • “Those Labour people seem to be quite angry and negative”,
  • “That Goff guy has been around for years”,
  • “The Greens seem young and energetic and that Maori girl co-leader has such a warm smile”,
  • “Winston is a bit of a character but he did achieve a lot for people like me with the supergold card and pension increases”.

I have suspected that many people base their preferences on overall perceptions of the personalities rather than on the policy detail that parties seem to obsess over. And over time most people see past the lipstick and make their own judgement pigs despite all the PR.

by Pete George on February 20, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 20, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/20/on-political-polls-and-the-undecided-vote/

Answers to questions on Islam

A number of regulars at Kiwiblog keep warning against Islam taking over in New Zealand, some say it’s just a matter of time, some go as far as wanting all Muslims banned from the country. They somehow think that in a democracy 2% or 6% of voters can dictate to the majority.

One of these commenters is’bereal’ who was typically over the top last night:

Jeez, this is hard work trying to get a point through to many of the self hating, politically correct supporters
of islam and sharia law we have here in New Zealand

I never see any “supporters of islam and sharia law” on Kiwiblog, but some like bereal accuse you of being that if you don’t agree with their extreme views.

bereal also asked some loaded questions, which I’ve responded to:

Would you rather live under a Westminster system of government and justice,
or, would you rather live under an islamic system and sharia law ?

And why ?

I’d rather live under the system of government and justice that we have in New Zealand. It could benefit from some minor changes and would benefit from a change of attitude to how it is implemented (especially government) but it’s as good as nything anywhere.

Secondly. what aspect, if any of islamic and sharia law do you feel are superior to a democracy based on the Wesminster system ?

Don’t know and don’t care, it’s not relevant. There is no chance of very small minority (in New Zealand) religious based law being implemented here, Even those extremists from the (possibly) majority Christian religion can’t impose their views.

New Zealand has a clear separation of state from religion and in practice that works better in practice than pretty much anywhere.

Thirdly, if you have no answer to the preceeding questions why do you go to bat for islam ?

I’ve answered them. And even if I didn’t that doesn’t mean the only other option is to “go to bat for islam”. I am not religious, I don’t have any intention of changing that and I don’t bat for Islam at all.

I do go in to bat for equality, and I oppose discrimination based on people’s beliefs. Anyone who has religious beliefs has a right to not be comdemned and vilified for things they are not doing and there is no indication or evidence they may ever do.

I see pressure to impose religious beliefs and religion based laws from extreme Christians here, and from no people of other religious persuasions. As they are a very small minority I don’t have any fears that they will convert New Zealand into a religious state.

by Pete George on February 20, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 20, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/20/answers-to-questions-on-islam/

Blog of bigotry

At Kiwiblog I’ve been involved in many ‘discussions’ about Muslims and lately about what Richard Prosser wrote and said. David Farrar noted in a post:

I have to say I’ve been appalled by the fact that more than a trivial number of people (including commenters here – but also on media sites) have actually defended or agreed with what Richard Prosser said regarding banning anyone who is or looks like a Muslim from flying.

To be blunt, they are bigots. You can not defend what he said and not be a bigot. It really is as simple as that.

Below is a sample of what some of the ‘bigots’ think about Islam – and about me. This is from just two threads yesterday, General Debate and The nature of bigotry (which illustrates the nature of some of the bigots).

  • Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own
  • Synonyms – narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

It’s not all bigotry, other descriptions could also be used, but bigotry is a big part.

Left Right and Centre:

They aint kiwis mate- they’re muslims. I like to think those two things are mutually exclusive and that’s that.

barry

All you have to do is take a good look at England so as to appreciate the Enemy Within. That country is screwed and thats due to letting too many imigrants in WHO WILL NOT ASSIMILATE. They want to bring with them the awful lifestyle that they ran away from.

Prosser is simply saying what everyone thinks as they get searched at the airport.

Note the contradiction.

Andrei

Pete George will be uttering prissy platitudes right up until the moment they cut his throat

barry

I think Prosser was spot on. Muslims are a danger to any society – including their own.

kowtow

Pete George ; we are not multicultural. Tolerance of differences has never extended to tolerating the intolerant.

“Tolerance of difference” is fine within a pluralist system where the ground rules are shared by the vast majority etc
However once you import large numbers of intolerant ,fundamentalists who have no history or tradition within ones ‘ and claiming multiculturalism and tolerance you are in for a whole heap of trouble.

kowtow

If we’re so bloody tolerant ,why is there such a fuss about what Prosser said?

Looks to me like we’re intolerant of honest forthright men! (That goes for leftists,multiculturalists ,Muslim apologists,feminists,progressives etc)

Free speech for me but not for thee.

How come we tolerate Saudi money building mosques all over the western world when they won’t allow Christians to pray in private ? Tolerance indeed.

The apologists like PG and the Greens are like traitors opening the gates of the city. The difference is we know and see the danger and allow them to do it.

This is not “tolerance” it is cultural suicide.

Manolo

Some around here, too many these days, are a prime example of dhimmitude.
Just remember to present the other cheek when they come for you, or the other side of the neck …..

barry

I am fully entitled to be a bigot if I want to. I dont like the muslim life style and they way they regard non muslims.

Scott

DPF – I so disagree with you on so many levels. For a start Islam remains an existential threat to Western civilisation.

Over in Europe in places like France there are no-go zones where the police will not go, because they are ruled by Moslems. In Britain there have been calls to recognise sharia law as part of the law of the land.

The simple fact of the matter is that Moslems do not integrate into western countries. There is no separation between church and state in Islam. Given the high fertility and consequent population growth in the Moslem community and the incredibly low fertility amongst liberal western women it is only a matter of time if those population trends continue before Islam takes over. And they do want to take over. Islam divides the world into 2 houses – the house of Islam and the house of war.

So many of us see Islam as an enemy. It cannot be appeased or compromised with, it can only be resisted.

I appreciate that what Mr Prosser said was probably over the top. He should refrain from being a columnist while being an MP. However many of us can understand where his frustration comes from. We bend over backwards to appease Moslems. In my view many liberals like yourself have a rose tinted view of human nature that does not correspond with reality.

krazykiwi

The “nature of bigotry” is primarily established by liberals, using the term as a weapon designed to shut down debate.

BeaB

But why do we have to give “Muslims particularly” more equality, freedoms etc than anyone else?
Because that’s what they voted unanimously for in Parliament yesterday. Sends a shiver along my female spine.

I think BeaB has interpreted the motion in Parliament incorrectly, Muslims were mentioned in the statement but it didn’t give them more of anything.

Stuart

I don’t think anyone can disagree that there is a piece of Islam that is pure evil (sharia law, genital mutilation, jihad etc), and most Muslims do not agree with those parts, but they do not fight it, not enough. That is why I am happy to oppose all of Islam, because Muslims are not willing to oppose the core, because Muslims tolerate the core, we must fight it.

Harriet

As I said to Pete George yesterday “Why deny what is happening in Europe Pete………only you would wait to see evidence of militant Islam happening in NZ before you done anything about it.”

Harriet

I’m going to submit a statue of you Pete…with your head in the sand…..living life on your knees under Muslim Rule!

Harriet

Restricting the Muslim population to less than 2% is a matter of public safety!

Urban Redneck

I wouldn’t allow any immigrants into NZ from countries where Wahhabi Islam is routinely practiced. Period. They can keep their Taqiyah and Burqa over there.

Harriet

Still got your head in the sand I see Pete….Muslims rule by stealth….by being appeased by people like you!

dime

Dime is basically a bigot when it comes to muslims.

i think their religion is shit. i think most of them are scumbags. i dont care how “peaceful” we are told the majority of muslims are, ive just seen to much bad shit.

it pisses me off how they get a pass from the left too. how many muslim countries are there? int hose countries, how many are gay friendly? how many muslim countries have equal rights for women?

screw em.

At least dime’s honest about how he feels.

graham

Russel Norman appears to be saying that we as a country should be falling over ourselves to tug the forelock to Muslims over and above anybody else.

[PG edit starts: graham has asked that I delete his quote as per his comment below and this comment on Kiwiblog becasue he thinks I have quoted him out of contect. I don't think I have misrepresnetd what he had been saying across a number of comments but to ensure full context is available I will provide these links:

howdarethey: Wandering slightly from my original point, which was that Russel Norman apparently is asking New Zealand to uphold more rights for Muslims. The question is, what specific rights do Muslims have that need to be upheld and enshrined by Parliament, over and above the rights of any other New Zealander?

If my wife has to become a Muslim to avail herself of these rights, as you seem to be suggesting, then that’s discrimination. If my wife has a passionate belief that she should maintain her modesty by wearing a scarf over the lower portion of her face – nothing to do with being a Muslim, just her own sense of what is proper – should she not be free to avail herself of the same rights that have apparently been accorded to Muslim women?

Russel Norman appears to be saying that we as a country should be falling over ourselves to tug the forelock to Muslims over and above anybody else. Which is actually pretty much what BeaB said at 11:53.

There are a number of other comments by others that may add to context, read the whole thread to see them.

I don't believe that Norman was asking for any special rights for Muslims, as I and others commented on in the thread.
Also, see my comment here that I believe shows that graham's claim in his middle paragraph (and in other comments) appears to be incorrect.

Edit ends]

BeaB

I am all for tolerance but never of the ghastliness of radical Islam.

joana

Islam is not a religion..I agree with Geert Wilders that it is a totalitarian ideology..It is also a deadly cult. There is no freedom in islam. There is only endless persecution for non muslims living under islamic dominance. There are multiple types of jihad including economic jihad. This is why so many non muslims from muslim dominated countries currently live here.

All the faux outrage is pathetic..What about Choudary and the cross he wanted removed? His complaint to Helen Clark re the number of senior females in her government..What of Hone and his wmf comment?

So many hypocrites …and blind fools.

There were challenges to those comments and alternate views but the point of this is to illustrate the thinking of some of the ‘bigots’.There was also a lot of support shown for these comments through the comment voting – while that is easily manipulated it does indicate many share these comments.

These types of comments are regularly expressed at Kiwiblog. I frequently see examples of “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own”.

Kiwiblog is often displays bigotry (and racism and abuse of minorities).
(That is not a reflection on David Farrar, he obviously disagrees with the bigots but provides a free speech forum where bigots often participate).

 

by Pete George on February 15, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in General
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on February 15, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/02/15/blog-of-bigotry/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers