Open mike 28/03/2013

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 28th, 2013 - 337 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 link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

337 comments on “Open mike 28/03/2013 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Skinny 1
    28 March 2013 at 7:40 am

    New Zealanders need to wake up to this lousy Government. http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874090  .Kiwi workers have less public holidays then a lot of other western countries.

    Nationals lame excuses about the sanctity of ANZC day etc being lost is a clear indication that John Key’s Government is pandering to their Masters 
    ‘ the greedy rich business world.’ 

    Labour & Greens should be showing up ( if only to expose them)  Nationals tight attitude. Opening up a debate about the inclusion of a couple of other days of significance in NZ/history to become public holidays. Perhaps   Hillary’s conquest of Mount Everest or Maori & Chinese New Years.           

  2. Chris73 2
    28 March 2013 at 7:47 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1zWNo_-axk&feature=player_embedded

    The next leader of the National party (I hope) with a bravura performance in the house. She really did a great job of skewering and speaking. I noted Shane Jones reaction as well…sometimes when someones on a roll all you can do is smile…not so much Andrew Little who looked like he was going to blow a gasket

    • The Al1en 2.1
      28 March 2013 at 7:54 am

      So much of a knob, Private Headly, you’re now posting at boeing o’clock on a thursday morning.

      You’re a ‘controversial’ one.
      Stand down, and step away from the unexploded wit. 😆

      • Chris73 2.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 8:10 am

        Not quite getting the reference to private headley but I’m sure you think its tremendously clever nor why the time of posting is relevant

        • The Al1en 2.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 8:16 am

          You can work it out, Chris, but just in case pretend wanking over collins on a lefty blog takes up too much time, the answer’s dick head.

          And judith – Face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle.

          • Chris73 2.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 8:20 am

            Ahh now I get it. Yes most amusing and the reason why the time of posting appeared to be relevant?

        • felix 2.1.1.2
          28 March 2013 at 8:18 am

          I think he’s pointing out that it looks a little bit obsessive to be up at 7.47 posting links you’ve already posted the day before and making the same hero-worshipping comments about politicians as you made several times yesterday.

          • Chris73 2.1.1.2.1
            28 March 2013 at 8:25 am

            Fortunately I wasn’t the first to post this morning or that could have been really embarrassing. Just think you lot can try to start a rumor about a leadership struggle in National 😉

            • felix 2.1.1.2.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 8:33 am

              “Power-obsessed authoritarian with fascist tendencies wants to be in charge.”

              Not much of a rumour, Chalupa.

              • Chris73 …
                28 March 2013 at 8:38 am

                Yeah but you could spin it into a coup attempt or maybe a Joyce v Collins type thing…

                • felix …
                  28 March 2013 at 8:42 am

                  “Power obsessed authoritarian with fascist tendencies and Peter-Principle corporate drone rush to fill the void to be left by the only electable person in the National party.”

                  Nah, still sucks as a rumour.

          • The Al1en 2.1.1.2.2
            28 March 2013 at 8:32 am

            “I think he’s pointing out that it looks a little bit obsessive to be up at 7.47 posting links you’ve already posted the day before and making the same hero-worshipping comments about politicians as you made several times yesterday.”

            The dawn bugler 😉

    • BM 2.2
      28 March 2013 at 8:01 am

      That was hilarious.

    • felix 2.3
      28 March 2013 at 8:14 am

      You must’ve been watching a different speech, Chalupa. The one I saw yesterday she just rattled off a bunch of Whaleoil stories.

    • muzza 2.4
      28 March 2013 at 8:27 am

      C73 – Bro, you’re you going have a hard time getting the respect of the children you claim to have.

      If you’re genuinely enthused about the national/act parties, and hope for Collins to be the net flag waving leader of your silly little mind tribe, then I think its about time you stepped aside for some self reflection.

      Perhaps consider the direction NZ is headed, then assess how your views and actions are contibuting to ensure it becomes even worse!

      Thats a good place to start, thats free advice!

      • Chris73 2.4.1
        28 March 2013 at 8:30 am

        Where did I claim to have children?

        If I did (and I really can’t remember, not a politicians can’t remember) then I sincerely apologize because I don’t have children and aren’t likely to.

        • quartz 2.4.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 8:37 am

          Good.

        • felix 2.4.1.2
          28 March 2013 at 8:38 am

          Really Chalupa, you can’t remember whether or not you said you have kids?

          That makes it look like you’re not being entirely honest here. For someone who posts so much anecdata that’s not a good look.

          Do you remember saying you were a Super Army Soldier?

          • Chris73 2.4.1.2.1
            28 March 2013 at 8:45 am

            Why would muzza lie? He has no reason to therefore either hes mistaken or I forgot. I think hes mistaken but I can’t discount the possibility I did post it.

            I’m not going to be a bitch about it and say “link please” because thats a bullshit move used by people who know they’ve been busted but are hoping the link can’t be found.

            So instead, truthfully, if I made the post then I certainly posted a lie so I apologized for it.

            “Do you remember saying you were a Super Army Soldier?”
            – I was a decent soldier but certainly not even close to being anything like a “Super Army Soldier” whatever you think that means

            • felix 2.4.1.2.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 8:52 am

              Yeah it’s the bit where you said you might have posted a lie and what of it that makes me look sideways at everything you post from now on.

              Super Army Soldiers are these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVZkiQP0gYQ

              • Chris73 …
                28 March 2013 at 9:05 am

                I realize you’re probably not used to honesty especially on this site but thats as honest as I can be.

                I don’t recall saying I have children, its not something I’d post about but if I did I apologize because I can’t remember every little thing post. If I had to say one way or another I’d say I didn’t

                As Christopher Hitchens said: “The only thing certain, is uncertainty.”

                I’ve known a few Super Soldiers but no I don’t think I’m quite like that (whoops better make that certain, I know I’m not like that ;))

                Damn funny clip though

                • The Al1en …
                  28 March 2013 at 9:09 am

                  “you’re probably not used to honesty especially on this site”

                  That not only calls a lot of people out, but the integrity of the whole blog.
                  That’s not good.
                  But as always with you, chris, it’s ambiguous and vague. Man up soldier and name names, or get back in the trench.
                  No over the top for you until next amnesty, naughty boy. 😆

                  • The Al1en …
                    28 March 2013 at 9:12 am

                    As Christopher Hitchens said: “I’m a mad as a hatter fuckwad”

                  • Chris73 …
                    28 March 2013 at 9:16 am

                    Not quite sure what you’re on about today but as long as you’re having fun

                    • The Al1en …
                      28 March 2013 at 9:21 am

                      You’ve just cast a slur on the reputations of many good people and the site as a whole, a day after being pulled up a couple of times for making shit up, and you wonder what I’m on about 😀

                      “Having fun”

                      Always do on Thursday and Friday days off.

                • felix …
                  28 March 2013 at 10:55 am

                  I thought you’d like that clip, have you seen the series? If not I highly recommend it, knowing something of your tastes.

                  • Chris73 …
                    28 March 2013 at 11:42 am

                    Yeah I’ve seen most of them, I was especially impressed with Daniel Radcliffes turn.

                    Not quite as impressed by Lifes To Short though, except for Liam Neeson that was fuuny:

                    • felix …
                      29 March 2013 at 3:53 pm

                      Yeah ditto, Life’s Too Short didn’t seem to have the same degree of effort put into it somehow, but it had its moments.

        • rosy 2.4.1.3
          28 March 2013 at 9:11 am

          Yeah, gotta go with you there, Chris. I don’t remember you ever saying you had kids… and I’ve had a few conversations with you – even some about kids.

          • Chris73 2.4.1.3.1
            28 March 2013 at 9:25 am

            Well my wife is unlikely to be able to bear children even if we went IVF so from a personal viewpoint its not something I’d tell lies about.

            On the other hand I do post a lot so maybe I did because as I said before muzza has reason to lie about it so either hes mistaken or I forgot that I did.

            Which is why I’m apologizing now rather than ask for proof, apologizing after proof has been shown means you were just hoping the proof wouldn’t come out.

            As I said before if I stated in a post I have children I apologize because I don’t have any kids now nor am I likely to in the future (believe me if the wife does get pregnant everyone will know)

            • The Al1en 2.4.1.3.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 9:32 am

              “On the other hand I do post a lot so maybe I did”
              “Which is why I’m apologizing now rather than ask for proof, apologizing after proof has been shown means you were just hoping the proof wouldn’t come out.”

              Either you remember you posted you had kids or you didn’t.
              Make a decision and stand by it.

            • rosy 2.4.1.3.1.2
              28 March 2013 at 11:04 am

              I’ll cheer if you do announce it, otherwise I’m sure you’ll both deal admirably with the cards you’ve been dealt

    • Mary 2.5
      28 March 2013 at 10:20 am

      I hope she’s the next national party leader, too, because she’ll destroy it.

  3. Penny Bright 3
    28 March 2013 at 8:37 am

    Hi folks!

    Seen this?

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=534131566638716&set=a.420613744657166.132885.415130425205498&type=1&theater

    “Last year Minister for SOEs, Tony Ryall, stated that the Government would not sell Mighty River Power (Mercury Energy) if they did not get a ‘good price’.

    Guess who gets to decide what a good price is for MRP?

    No not the Treasury, nor any independent evaluator.

    No, it’s just the usual four old white guys, John Key, Bill English, Steven Joyce and Tony Ryall.

    Can you see the problem in that?”

    Here’s the Official Information Act reply from Minister of State-Owned Enterprises Tony Ryall about what quantifies a ‘good price’ for the sale of Mighty River Power:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ung4048v4cgtul7/Slevel6.3-c13031716040.pdf

    Why is it so TOP SECRET about HOW the price of Mighty River Power is to be calculated?

    Where is the TRANSPARENCY given that New Zealand, is ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Denmark and Finland according to the 2012 Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception Index’).

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
    A Spokesperson for the Switch Off Mercury Energy community group.

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate.

    • granted 3.1
      28 March 2013 at 6:02 pm

      Penny,

      Are you challenging the rankings of the TICP? If so can you provide evidence of why the rankings are incorrect? Your use of the word “perceived” would suggest you have an issue with the rankings???

  4. karol 4
    28 March 2013 at 8:52 am

    A made a comment on Blue Rose (the NZ TV drama series) on open mike a while back. Seems like Socialist Aotearoa has been watching it too.

    In just the first seven episodes we’ve seen bloody workplace accidents at fracking sites, failed finance firms with thousands out of pocket, harrasment in the workplace, workplace surveillance, Parnell-based Ponzi schemes, the theft of artist’s rights, corrupt cops and shady car salespeople. …

    The Blue Rose is well shot with good acting and a nice pace to it. Although it lacks a strong musical score it makes up for it with it’s interesting without being overdone characters. Arts students graduates temp at law firms, clued up working-class women run courier companies and middle-aged accountants who refuse to cover up financial fraud find themselves facing bankruptcy and unemployment.

    The show rolls closer towards it’s climax as Jane’s band of corporates by day, Robin Hoods by night continue to take on the system. With a gripping plot and an anti-capitalist political message, The Blue Rose is must see television for all Auckland lefties.

    • Chris73 4.1
      28 March 2013 at 9:27 am

      Sounds like Campbell Live 🙂

      • freedom 4.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 9:45 am

        IF Campbell Live is an example of what you call the “left-wing bias” in NZ media, I understand why it is so difficult for you to understand the current troubles facing New Zealand

        • Chris73 4.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 10:03 am

          Thats the thing, the left thinks theres a bias towards the right and only sees what it wants to see and vice versa

          • freedom 4.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 10:26 am

            have you ever seen a little heard of publication called The New Zealand Herald? or perhaps you have seen The Dominion Post ? or The Press.

            The closest thing, outside of community papers, that resembles a left-bias newspaper in NZ is the Otago Daily Times and that is only due to the endless efforts of perhaps the last Editor with a spine in New Zealand journalism. One who genuinely tries to publish a neutral paper. It is only due to the optical distortion when compared to the others that it appears left leaning. IMHO.

          • felix 4.1.1.1.2
            28 March 2013 at 11:07 am

            It’s not as simple as being consciously biased in a political sense, and at the media level it’s not really a left/right thing. It’s more a matter of being sympathetic to power and supportive of the status quo.

            In our society the power is in corporate capital and the right-wing political interests around it.

            • idlegus 4.1.1.1.2.1
              28 March 2013 at 11:37 am

              the ODT is not left leaning, it reprints national pr on a nearly daily basis, page 2 pretty much always has a pic of john key smiling or playing golf or some soft thing, they even had the anne tolley dominatrix pic of her standing on a crushed car printed nearly half page! its anti worker, pro national.

              one thing ive noticed, is the political cartoons in the papers, they are really good, totally admonish the govt quite bitterly, tom scott, emmerson, chris slane, etc. we are well served there.

              • freedom …
                28 March 2013 at 1:51 pm

                ” It is only due to the optical distortion when compared to the others that it appears left leaning. “

            • Murray Olsen 4.1.1.1.2.2
              28 March 2013 at 6:26 pm

              Although many journalists are cringing arselickers, they do seem to be far more slavish of their support of the far right when we have a NAct government. When we have a centre-right government, as with Helen Clark, they are far more critical. I don’t remember any mainstream (yuck) media that have actually asked questions outside the growth at all costs and fiscal surplus paradigm.

  5. muzza 5
    28 March 2013 at 8:56 am

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

    An old one, but a relevant example of the experimentation, which is forced onto us, and our planet, in the name of science!

    So go ahead and argue/deny until your hearts content, that these same people, have not been a major player in the environmental destruction of this planet, and subsequent creation of the*climate change agenda*, as a way to cover up the collective experiment’s consequences, and allowing for further experimentation to continue/expand, while flying under/off the rader!

    • Murray Olsen 5.1
      28 March 2013 at 6:34 pm

      That was one of a series of military tests which many scientists opposed. Partly because of this opposition, high altitude tests were stopped. While I don’t have any figures, I’d make an educated guess that most of the scientists who opposed these tests are now worried about climate change, while the engineers and weapons companies who promoted the tests would be far more likely to join you in complaining of a “climate change agenda”.

      • muzza 5.1.1
        29 March 2013 at 9:24 am

        Hi Murray, hope youre well.

        I am not *complaining of a CC agenda* – I am flat out naming it, as a CC agenda!

        As an FYI, in case you make an *educated guess*, into the intent of my statement above, the *flat out naming as a CC agenda*, pause and think about it, and then imagine this:

        What if these so called *scientists*, partook in experimentation, which has so decisively contributed to the irreversible destruction of the planets surface, atmosphere, ionosphere etc, that now, they’re rolling out, *whatever scientific experimentation they can think of* , in an attempt to hide/prevent further, the damage they were involved in creating!

  6. Jenny Kirk 6
    28 March 2013 at 9:26 am

    It’s almost too late, and certainly too close to Easter, but if people with a concern for our environment haven’t already done so – perhaps a quick comment could be sent thru before the deadline of Tues 2 April about the Govt’s proposed changes to the RMA. Some of the worrying items in the RMA discussion document include the following :

    · Rewriting the Resource Management Act’s matters of national importance as a set of ‘principles’ – including removing key environmental matters, and adding economic ones.

    · Altering sections 6 and 7 of the Act extensively – placing economic reasons on an equal footing with environmental principles, removing iwi guardianship, Deleting environmental principles such as maintaining the quality of the environment and enhancing amenity values

    · Weakening other sections – e.g. only significant indigenous vegetation, habitat and outstanding landscapes that are “specified” would qualify for protection (meaning areas that are identified only when a developer seeks consent would not qualify, yet this is when detailed surveys are usually carried out)

    · Allowing Ministers to directly intervene in local decision-making, including powers to direct Councils, and amend operative local plans. This risks exposing planning decisions, currently independently done, and subject to Environment Court oversight, to lobbying influence

    · Creating a Crown-established decision-making entity as an alternative consenting body – this body would not be elected or representative and would be under the control of Ministers

    · Reducing the Environment Court’s role in resource management, by limits on appeal rights in some cases and the scope of appeals. The Environment Court provides important independent expert oversight of consent and planning processes, and ensures high quality outcomes are achieved

    · Reducing the involvement of the public, by limits on submissions and appeals – public participation is a key aspect of our resource management system. It increases the diversity and quality of information available to decision makers, and leads to better outcomes

    To view the Discussion Document go to: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/improving-our-resource-management-system.html

    Submissions can be emailed to – rmreform@mfe.govt.nz or posted to RM Reform, P O Box 10362, Wellington 6143. Include the titale of the document “Improving Our Resource Management System” in your submission. Deadline 5pm, Tues 2 April 2013.

  7. Dv 7
    28 March 2013 at 9:34 am

    NBR are reporting Tiwai Point contract is not being renewed!!!

    • freedom 7.1
      28 March 2013 at 9:56 am

      great news, so the 14% increase in available capacity this will open will no doubt allow the National Government to suggest that the NZ Power generators can supply plenty of lower cost electricity to the Nation. This is especially good news considering how tough the winter is going to be for many and also when you account for the dire levels in many hydro lakes across the country. The tax and the jobs lost when Tiwai closes will be sad to see but we are getting used to that under National and the savings to the environment will be incalculable.

      do i need a sarc tag for the RWNJs? (of course all of this is years away and will never happen)

      • freedom 7.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 10:15 am

        had a thought ( scarey i know)

        seeing as the plant gets such a cheap rate, surely releasing that 14% of available power at even the midway price between the industrial cheap rate and the residential extortion rate. the company would make a bundle and thus massively increase the Government dividend, thus further proving what a fucked up arse backward dickwad dumb idea it is to sell it.

        (again i mention that it is a hypothetical designed to highlight the absurdity of our nation’s predicament as the plant is what, 12- 13 years from being released from its contract? )

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 11:17 am

          the company would make a bundle and thus massively increase the Government dividend, thus further proving what a fucked up arse backward dickwad dumb idea it is to sell it.

          Of course it’s a stupid idea to sell off the power generators as far as NZ is concerned but National aren’t doing it for NZ but their rich mates who are running out of safe places to put their money and get a guaranteed return from it.

    • David H 7.2
      28 March 2013 at 10:15 am

      OOPPS now that’ll do wonders for the price of Power Stations, tho it’ll do fuck all for our bills.

    • SpaceMonkey 7.3
      28 March 2013 at 10:58 am

      It’s a play… just watch and see what kind of deal they extort out of this Government. Considering how this Government rolls over at the slightest whistle to have its tummy tickled, I doubt much effort will be required.

    • CC 7.4
      28 March 2013 at 12:30 pm

      And…. F**wit does it again “However, the Government must get hands on and ensure the survival of the smelter, Shearer said.” This is clearly an invitation from the ‘left(???)’ for the Government to use taxpayer funding to subsidize and international rip-off outfit, while depriving NZers the chance of cheaper electricity. Of course, Shearer’s attitude also undermines the ‘market’ forces that would sink the MRP rort.

      • SpaceMonkey 7.4.1
        28 March 2013 at 1:31 pm

        I’ll say it again… Shearer is one of the National Party’s best assets.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.4.2
        28 March 2013 at 1:36 pm

        “However, the Government must get hands on and ensure the survival of the smelter, Shearer said.

        Of, FFS, the smelter is a losing proposition and always has been. Propping it up won’t do NZ any favours.

        • RedBaronCV 7.4.2.1
          28 March 2013 at 8:20 pm

          And Shearer could have said something like:

          “Clearly Rio Tinto’s top heavy corporate model is making the Bluff smelter an uneconomic proposition and it follows that they must be willing to sell it at a knock down price, basically scrap value or even nothing, as it would cost considerable money to disestablish the plant. However, any sensible government can see that it would be useful to use such a plant to at least supply NZ’s domestic demand and therefore we would suggest that any competent government would facilitate the forming of a co-operative? – NZ owned company ? to retain some level of output. We would also see it as being in the interests of the NZ taxpayer to supply electricity at a competative price for output that meets domestic demand etc etc ”

          Now this is not a fully thought out idea but hey, call Rio Tinto’s bluff, and get Julia Gilliard onside as Aus are being asked to involve themselves in the Rio bidding war and underline the attitude, NZ resources for NZ.

          • Colonial Viper 7.4.2.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 8:34 pm

            You guys are all clearly Cunliffe disciples. It’s so self evident don’t even try to deny it.

            What are you expecting from Shearer, the second/third/fourth coming? I mean seriously, give the man some time, at least 6 months or so. He is improving after all, and the fact that he has the nice guy image is worth something OK.

            As for giving tax payers money to corporates, is there a problem with that? At least they are wealth creators, quite unlike giving tax dollars to say, roof painting bludgers.

            • RedBaronCV 7.4.2.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 9:11 pm

              And your tongue is where CV – the cheek?

              C’mon the essence of corporate negotiation is kicking the other guy in the b**ls and then while they are spluttering and gasping go “shall we talk about this?”.

              They are just playing JK who will oblige.

              P.S I read Jeanette Fitzsimmon’s article in the Herald – said far better than I ever would.

      • Murray Olsen 7.4.3
        28 March 2013 at 6:38 pm

        Shearer is further to the right economically than Muldoon ever was. Socially, who knows? He may have used private contractors rather than Police against 1981 protestors.

    • fender 8.1
      28 March 2013 at 12:47 pm

      “Excessive inequality is corrosive to growth; it is corrosive to society…the economic profession and the policy community have downplayed inequality for too long.”
      Christine Lagarde – Managing Director of IMF, January 2013

      “Inequality is the defining issue of our time.”
      President Obama, 2011

  9. Draco T Bastard 9
    28 March 2013 at 11:27 am

    Individual responsibility and situations

    With that out of the way, the question then reduces to what consumption situation is the best one. They both respect individual will equally to the extent that saying that even makes sense. So the only difference is what we can empirically determine about how those consumption situations channel individual will into actual behavior. It seems totally reasonable therefore to establish consumption situations — again without actually banning or capping consumption — that best serve social goals, like good health and low mortality. If two consumption situations are equal in all respects, then why wouldn’t you opt for the one that primes people to behave in the good way rather than the bad way?

    An interesting take on plain packaging and hiding of cigarettes.

  10. Rogue Trooper 10
    28 March 2013 at 11:28 am

    Auckland Transport
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874102
    All Day Digestion
    Nats say private savings are up…
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10874065
    clearly, not enough.

  12. ghostrider888 12
    28 March 2013 at 12:24 pm

    “Dark the stars and dark the moon
    Hush the night and the morning loon
    Tell the horses and beat on your drum
    Gone their master, gone their son.
    Dark the oceans dark the sky
    Hush the whales and the ocean tide
    Tell the salt marsh and beat on your drum
    Gone their master, gone their son.

    Dark to light and light to dark
    Three black carriages three white cats
    What brings us together is what pulls us apart
    Gone our brother gone our heart
    Hush the whales and the ocean tide
    Tell the salt marsh and beat on your drum
    Gone their master, gone their son.”

    Gone- Ioanna Giko
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhyC0k6j3Rg

    -“you see Child, love always betrays us”- Ravenna

    REDEFINITION: No Ordinary Scotsman, Indeed.many have tried and many have failed.
    Tomorrow remember Christ impaled.

    John 20:1. Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

    Social Archaeologist, master of tomb.master servant.sage to art.
    Abandon Romanticism.
    Keep It Warm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDwWtU13ok
    Beware the Digital Bitch so you don’t end up Zero The Hero
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVGjcfKTvYU

    “…It doesn’t matter if there is an edge, or if we occasionally cross it, as long as the innocents are protected, our cause is just…”
    -The Ghost Rider

  13. Draco T Bastard 13
    28 March 2013 at 1:58 pm

    Telecom acts decisively on costs

    Telecom’s adjusted EBITDA guidance for FY13 remains $1,040 million to $1,060 million. This guidance excludes the one-off restructuring costs described above associated with implementing the new strategy.

    So, why are we paying them another billion or so of taxpayer money for UFB? They obviously have enough income to do it and it’s actually what we’re paying our telecommunication bills for.

    More proof of the dead weight loss of profit.

    EBITDA

  14. Pete 14
    28 March 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Treasury’s solution for our economic malaise?
    Hint: rhymes with “max huts”
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10874056

    They really are a one-trick pony, aren’t they?

    • Draco T Bastard 14.1
      28 March 2013 at 4:22 pm

      Yep, pure ideology. We haven’t got the massive boost from the last round of tax cuts and yet they think another round will do something different.

      Well, I suppose that proves that Treasury is insane.

  15. karol 15
    28 March 2013 at 3:29 pm

    Spot the mistake in this press release (at least, I’m assuming it’s a mistake).

    It begins:

    Time for State Rent Control
    Thursday, 28 March 2013, 8:39 am
    Press Release: The Maori Party

    Time for State Rent Control

    “Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures” says MANA Leader and MP for Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira.

    “This Government must introduce rent control measures for Christchurch. Greedy landlords are making big bucks off those who need a roof over their heads …

    • fender 15.1
      28 March 2013 at 4:40 pm

      It says Christchurch when it could have said: Christchurch, Auckland and the rest of NZ?

      • karol 15.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 4:52 pm

        Clue: the release is totally a statement by Hone.

        • fender 15.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 4:56 pm

          Oh now I see, wow that’s a MAJOR error!

          • Jenny 15.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 7:19 pm

            An easily made mistake. In people’s minds Hone Harawira, was the leader of the Maori Party. Harawira was the main driver of most of their parliamentary initiatives and was the main organiser and driver of the huge Maori Protest movement against the rip off of the seabed and foreshore to be mined and prospected by overseas multinationals. Sure Tariana Turia was the figure head. But it was the huge Maori backlash and the protest movement organised by Harawira which concretised and gave voice to that backlash, which propelled the Maori Party into parliament in the first place.

            • felix 15.1.1.1.1.1
              31 March 2013 at 4:20 pm

              Easily made by who? I presume this press release wasn’t drafted by the man on the Clapham omnibus.

  16. Ugly Truth 16
    28 March 2013 at 3:39 pm

    lprent: Most of your principles are incorrect within the courts of NZ. And so far I haven’t seen a damn thing that you have specifically said that actually conforms in local laws. Perhaps you should point out one that you think is. But do it in OpenMike because it is off-topic for this post.

    You are now in moderation for ignoring a moderator.

    I expect that the reason that you haven’t seen it is because you don’t recognise that local law (aka common law) is the law of the land. Which is more local, the land which you live upon or law which depends upon a foreign head of state?

    Lex terre Ileks tehriy I . The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath.

    Blacks dictionary of law, 5th edition.

    • lprent 16.1
      28 March 2013 at 3:53 pm

      Problem is that for you is that isn’t the most common law that the NZ courts currently recognise. Legislation overrides it.

      For that matter you’d have to specify which common law you were referring to if we removed the crown. As it currently stands, the removal of the “foreign head of state” would result in the local common law going into effect. Black, Blackstone, and all of that English law is local to England and the territories that the english crown and commonwealth conquered – but not here.

      In NZ this would result in the local customs of the local iwi being pre-eminent. English common law here is a legal graft from a treaty between the local inhabitants and the crown. Which is why I don’t expect to see NZ to become a republic any time soon. The issues will get complex.

      Good to see you read the warnings. auto-moderation released.

      • Ugly Truth 16.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 4:52 pm

        Legislation overrides it.

        The assertion that legislation overrides common law crops up quite a bit, but it is only an argument of necessity – its scope is not universal as is ordinarily assumed.

        The reason that common law overrides legislation was given by Coke: “The agreement of the parties cannot make that good which the law maketh void.”

        For example, what if a group of people got together and agreed to enact a plan which was to the detriment of the public good? If they did it intentionally it would be a conspiracy, so let’s assume that their intent was honourable even though the outcome would have been detrimental, i.e no lawful purpose arising from mistake.

        Would their plan actually be law? According to the common law the contract makes the law, but since the plan had no lawful purpose it could not form the basis of a contract and could never become law.

        There is no mechanism within the common law for a government to form unless that government has lawful purpose. The fact that a group of people are called government does not mean that they are a government in truth.

        Blackstone, and all of that English law is local to England

        New Zealand common law was of course inherited from English common law at the time of colonisation. Common law is ultimately an aspect of the people, not of the body politic, although the connection between the people and the land is an important one.

        In NZ this would result in the local customs of the local iwi being pre-eminent.

        If that were true than the customs of all aboriginal people would be pre-eminent over the law of the colonists, which clearly isn’t the case.

        • karol 16.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 5:59 pm

          You seem to be living in a parallel universe, is all I can say.

          • Ugly Truth 16.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 6:17 pm

            Karol, there is also a religious aspect to all this. The Westminster system has religios roots, the head of state is the “Supreme Governor” of a religious institution, and the oath of allegiance taken by the judiciary and by members of parliament is an act of religion. Religion is all about belief, while the common law is all about reason.

        • lprent 16.1.1.2
          28 March 2013 at 6:16 pm

          Except that the Maori entered into an agreement with the Crown of England called the Treaty of Waitangi to allow the crown to run the law here. It wasn’t like the heathenistic outright conquests common to other British dominions like what is now the United States. Basically you’re arguing from the basis of a parochial parish peasant rather than on the basis of NZ law, common or otherwise.

          The law of the land is what the people of the land permit. In NZ the 15% of Maori, and in the case of the NZ Army which is at least 60% Maori, will determine what they will tolerate. So will the many of the rest of us who have more affinity with Maori customs than we do with English feudalism… 😈

          • Ugly Truth 16.1.1.2.1
            28 March 2013 at 6:35 pm

            The Crown doesn’t control English common law, it is primarily the practice and consent of the people, although it does also include case law.

            The Crown’s claim to sovereignty over New Zealand is flawed in a number of respects: not all tribes signed, sovereignty was not ceded by Maori in the version of the treaty which was written in their language, and the establishment of civil government did not have a lawful foundation according the law that Victoria swore to uphold at her coronation oath.

            What remains are traditional Maori customs, common law, and a de facto civil goverment. The legal status of the settlers as parish peasants or serfs became unimportant when their children were born lawfully and without any legal obligation to the Crown or to Maori.

            The law of the land is not simply “what the people permit”, it is consistent with the underlying ethical foundation of common law. The people can only grant permission to parties that are under their dominion.

            • lprent 16.1.1.2.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 6:59 pm

              The only legitimacy that english common law has in NZ is through the crown choosing to use it.

              The only other legitimacy as you try to squirm out of it, is in the your last sentence. I have no English ancestry that I’m aware of. I have few ties to a codified system designed by normans to control angles and saxons, who’d previously used it to control brits. I have more ties to Maori because we’ve been building our systems for the past 5 generations, 7 in the case of my great nieces and nephews.

              English common law may make sense in England. But it seems archaic to me because it doesn’t reflect this land and this society.

              Incidentally have you ever bothered to go back and look at the origins of common law in England? Now that is fascinating. Especially when you look at the developments that moved out of the March areas around Wales..

              • Ugly Truth …
                28 March 2013 at 8:00 pm

                The only legitimacy that english common law has in NZ is through the crown choosing to use it.

                No, it’s legitimacy is purely due to it’s historical presence.

                le·git·i·mate (l-jt-mt)
                adj.
                1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful:

                http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legitimate

                Incidentally have you ever bothered to go back and look at the origins of common law in England?

                Yes. If you want to understand the nature of something you should first understand the nature of the forces which brought it into being.

                • lprent …
                  29 March 2013 at 12:21 am

                  What legitimacy in NZ – it didn’t exist here prior to 1840. It has changed a lot since it arrived here. Basically you’re treating it as a fixed religion where it isn’t. Common law has always changed.

                  At present in NZ it is between Iwi custom, common law, legislation, and local mores.

                  • Ugly Truth …
                    29 March 2013 at 3:44 am

                    NZ legitimacy would be derived from historical legitimacy once the practice and consent of the people (the principal aspect of common law) became the law of the land in the full sense. In law legitimacy is based on lawful wedlock, and it is from lawful wedlock that land is inherited as real property at common law.

                    The connection with the land is what sets the common law apart from the civil system, which deals with personal property rather than real property.

                    Common law is based on reason and religion is based on belief, religion within the common law only has meaning when the belief is based on truth.

          • karol 16.1.1.2.2
            28 March 2013 at 6:40 pm

            I was going to say something along the same lines, Lynn. UT’s version of The Law of the Land has little legitimacy in 21st Century NZ. The legal and other systems have developed in NZ through a complex mix of negotiations, struggles, and legally recognised contracts (drawn up in good faith that they are based on a specific understanding of our system. It has a certain amount of fit with the way our society and technologies have evolved.

            UT seems to want to use an ancient legal argument to return to a time of the rule of the great white father – to a system that fits with his patriarchal Christian views. Good luck with that.

            • lprent 16.1.1.2.2.1
              28 March 2013 at 7:01 pm

              Yeah. English common law is useful sometimes. Mostly for arguing an alternative to what we have been building. But it isn’t a frigging religion, it is just another tool of a civil society.

              • Ugly Truth …
                28 March 2013 at 7:07 pm

                Common law isn’t a tool of civil society, it exists in a state of conflict with it. This conflict was most visible during England’s “Nineteen Year Winter”.

                • karol …
                  28 March 2013 at 7:10 pm

                  The kind of society, institutions and laws that he have now, are the outcome of the struggles/conflicts of which you speak. That’s how English common law originally developed as well.

                  And yet, you want to turn the clock back to a specific phase of those struggles.

                  • Ugly Truth …
                    28 March 2013 at 7:36 pm

                    The conflict between common law and civil law goes way back and is nothing like the conflicts which caused the common law to change. The conflict goes back to the time of the gospel schism between Paul and James the Just. Paul’s doctrine was adopted by Rome and Roman law became the basis of civil law, while James’ Judaic law became the basis of English common law.

            • Ugly Truth 16.1.1.2.2.2
              28 March 2013 at 7:04 pm

              Karol, my views are not those of a Christian. The legitimacy of the common law is defined by it’s historical presence as the law of England and as the law of the colonists.

              Your claim of good faith contracts fails at the first hurdle due to the difference in meaning between the English and Maori versions of the treaty.

              • karol …
                28 March 2013 at 7:08 pm

                And you still want to claim some legitimacy for any English common law and the law of land-grabbing colonists in NZ?

                PS; Some of my ancestors were those land-grabbers, and I’m glad NZ society and law have moved on from some of the laws and values they subscribed to.

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 7:41 pm

                  I’m certainly not claiming legitimacy from wrongful acquistion of land by the colonists. Not all of the colonists were law abiding people.

          • Grumpy 16.1.1.2.3
            29 March 2013 at 8:13 am

            Fiji???

    • karol 16.2
      28 March 2013 at 4:35 pm

      On the issue from the other thread relating to responsibility for children, where you tried to claim that common law states father’s role is protector of the family. Try the NZ Care of Children Act 2004. I defy you to find anywhere that it states father’s role is unique in the way you specified, re-common law.

      In the law, the child is defined as being under 18 years old.
      See here, for instance, where is outlines who has responsibility for the child, re-guardianship. It involves, in the first instance the parents, then moves to the involvement of the whanau and wider community.

      • Ugly Truth 16.2.1
        28 March 2013 at 4:55 pm

        Karol, the role of the father is part of the law of the land, not the legislation of the body politic.

        • karol 16.2.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 4:59 pm

          WTF? Are you setting up your own legal system?

          You seem to be arguing at some level of abstraction, that has nothing to do with the current NZ legal system.

          Try prosecuting someone under your “law of the land”.

          • karol 16.2.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 5:40 pm

            OK. I see “Law of the Land” is a legal term that goes back to the Magna Carta. Don’t see how that means older “Law of the Land” overrides new laws that have been made in parliament.

            English jurists, writing of legem terrae in reference to the Magna Carta, stated that this term embraces all laws that are in force for the time being within a jurisdiction. For example, Edward Coke, commenting upon Magna Carta, wrote in 1606: “no man be taken or imprisoned but per legem terrae, that is, by the common law, statute law, or custom of England.”[13] Likewise, Justice Powys of the King’s Bench wrote in 1704: “lex terrae is not confined to the common law, but takes in all the other laws, which are in force in this realm; as the civil and canon law….”[14] …

            In eighteenth-century England, William Blackstone wrote that the law of the land “depends not upon the arbitrary will of any judge; but is permanent, fixed, and unchangeable, unless by authority of parliament….

            • Ugly Truth 16.2.1.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 5:49 pm

              Don’t see how that means older “Law of the Land” overrides new laws that have been made in parliament.

              The fact that Parliament calls its legislation law doesn’t mean that it actually is law. Honesty is not their most notable virtue. I’ve addressed the question of priority in post 16.1.1 of this thread, please feel free to respond there.

              • McFlock …
                28 March 2013 at 5:57 pm

                Well, the judges seem to back parliament up in the opinion that statutes constitute “laws”.

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 6:09 pm

                  Definitely. Both groups are employed by the Crown, so they both have a duty to act in the Crown’s interest. The issue that really gets the judges unstuck is common law statutory interpretation, which favours a lawful interpretation of legislation rather than an interpretation that is against the public interest.

                  • North …
                    28 March 2013 at 7:10 pm

                    Ugly Truth…….you need to have a look at the Interpretation Act 1999 which is a code in relation to statutory interpretation.

                    Nothing there about settling the meaning of legislation according to the Crown’s interests. Nothing there about a presumption in favour of the Crown.

                    “The issue that really gets the judges unstuck is common law statutory interpretation……..”. What ?

                    Statutory interpretation is the very thing judges are charged with embarking on, where there is dispute as to the meaning of a statutory provision.

                    That common law is inferior to statute law is proven by the fact of the instances over time where common law as reflected in judicial decisions has been expressly negatived by statute law. Thereafter “the law” which obtains is as expressed in the negativing statute even if it does run counter to common law.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 7:24 pm

                      “The issue that really gets the judges unstuck is common law statutory interpretation……..”. What ?

                      [it] is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the source itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no futher

                      Baron Parke, Becke v Smith (1836)

                      In law repugnance can mean injustice.

                      That common law is inferior to statute law is proven by the fact of the instances over time where common law as reflected in judicial decisions has been expressly negatived by statute law.

                      That only works when the new legislation is lawful; i.e. consistent with the underlying ethical framework of common law.

                  • McFlock …
                    28 March 2013 at 8:03 pm

                    Ah, the old “I refuse to recognise the law against raping children, therefore the judge is guilty of kidnapping” gambit. Do you think it will work, or are you merely expecting sympathy for all those men illegally punished for raping children?

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 8:45 pm

                      McFlock, rape is a crime at common law. If you were successful in arguing jurisdiction you would find that the common law penalty was way more severe than anything the district court could dish out.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 March 2013 at 12:34 am

                      Really? What is the common law penalty for rape?

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      29 March 2013 at 3:50 am

                      McFlock, the common law penalty for rape is death.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 March 2013 at 1:14 pm

                      Hell of a society you live in: adult men are allowed to stick their dicks in “consenting” children, courts are illegal, and lynching is alive and well. Lucky for everyone it’s just your fantasy.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      29 March 2013 at 1:34 pm

                      Your fantasy, not mine, McFuckwit.

                    • McFlock …
                      29 March 2013 at 7:06 pm

                      Well it looks like NAMBLA are starting to get irritable.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 2:38 pm

                      Now look at who is bringing up homosexuality.
                      Keep digging, McFuckwit.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 March 2013 at 2:49 pm

                      That would be the immediate conclusion your fine legal mind leaps to, is it? My problem with NAMBLA is the gay aspect, not the child rape aspect? Much lols.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 3:05 pm

                      You brought up man-boy love, not me.
                      You also brought up fantasies.

                      I didn’t say that you had a problem with it, McFuckwit, I said that you brought it up.

                      It doesn’t take a fine legal mind to figure you out.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 March 2013 at 3:23 pm

                      Actually, I brought up an organisation that defends child rape. Like you do.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 3:35 pm

                      Keep going, you’re almost there, McFuckwit.

                      Now all you have to do is explain how I defend child rape by promoting a system of law in which the penalty for rape is death.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 March 2013 at 3:43 pm

                      Because you redefine “rape” to exclude Jimmy Saville.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 3:56 pm

                      Excellent. Would you care to quote exactly what I said about Savile, or are you speaking from fantasyland, McFuckwit?

                    • McFlock …
                      31 March 2013 at 4:05 pm

                      So can a child consent to sex? In your opinion?

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 4:23 pm

                      Since you apparently can’t quote me on Savile and you are now fishing for more information it’s pretty clear that your modus operandi here is slander.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 March 2013 at 4:35 pm

                      It’s only slander if it’s false.
                      An easy way for you to nuke my statement right now is to say that kids by definition can’t consent to sex, so savile was a rapist and I cruelly misrepresented your position.
                      Or are you going to make me trawl through and quote your litany of rape apology?

                    • felix …
                      31 March 2013 at 4:36 pm

                      I think McFlock is just gently reminding you what was at the top of this massive hole you’ve dug.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 5:05 pm

                      your litany of rape apology

                      Can’t help yourself can you, McFuckwit? You made the allegation, so the burden of proof is yours. Don’t expect me to assist you.

                      Slander is what this massive hole is all about. Slander was also the issue that was being discussed just before I was moderated into posting on open mike.

                    • McFlock …
                      31 March 2013 at 6:15 pm

                      Ugly, you’re the one talking about “non-harm paedophilia” as if there is such a thing. And I suggest that this comment implies you think 13 year old girls can give valid informed consent to have sex with an elderly tv star.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                28 March 2013 at 7:01 pm

                The fact that Parliament calls its legislation law doesn’t mean that it actually is law.

                No, it’s that everybody in the land except you accepts it as law that makes it law.

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 7:10 pm

                  That is the fallacy of democracy, Draco. A conspiracy is still a conspiracy even when the conspirators are the majority.

                  • karol …
                    28 March 2013 at 7:12 pm

                    🙄

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 7:17 pm

                      How is Draco’s plan any different to mob rule?

                    • Ennui …
                      28 March 2013 at 7:23 pm

                      Ugly, there is law we all agree to, and there is law we have imposed (and dont agree to)……I illegally run red traffic filters when there is no traffic around because the law is an ass. Tell me I am wrong because some prick in parliament said otherwise with legislation.

                    • karol …
                      28 March 2013 at 7:32 pm

                      How is Draco’s plan any different to mob rule?

                      Ultimately the law is enforced by the police and judiciary. There are channels to challenge the legal and political systems, and for minorities to put their case for changes – through argument, protest, reference to the legal rules designated by parliament and the judiciary, and, yes, Ennui, sometimes through civil disobedience.

                      Hence we have the marriage equality Bill going through the House, when it would have failed some years back. And we have Te Reo and sign languages as official languages of NZ, etc, etc.

                      It’s not perfect. But it is more relevant to 21st century NZ, it’s institutions and cultures, than your 16th/19th century version of the patriarchal, British Law of the Land.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 7:50 pm

                      Ultimately the law is enforced by the police and judiciary.

                      Some of the time. When they don’t have jurisdiction they enforce the dictates of the body politic by libel and/or fraud.

                      The relevance of the common law is that it places power in the hands of the people rather than offshore interests. The current system places power in the hands of people with a history of genocide and oppression.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 March 2013 at 8:07 pm

                      This is bizarre. Democracy is bad, but paedophilia is ok.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 8:27 pm

                      McFlock,

                      Non-harm paedophilia is quite different to criminal paedophilia, which is very much associated with the people at the heart of the supposedly democratic instutions.

                      I’m not advocating paedophilia of any kind, I simply think that it’s pointless to worry about men picking up teenage prostitutes when the western democratic system has a history of involvement with serious and vicious child abuse.

                    • McFlock …
                      28 March 2013 at 8:53 pm

                      That’s what they said on pitcairn.
                      “No-harm paedophilia and the courts have no jurisdiction”.
                      Turns out they were wrong on both counts.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      29 March 2013 at 4:09 am

                      I illegally run red traffic filters when there is no traffic around because the law is an ass.

                      You rebel. 😉
                      It isn’t common law that is an ass, all the common law says about road rules is to be careful.

                    • locus …
                      29 March 2013 at 8:33 am

                      Ugly by name ugly by thought:

                      Non-harm paedophilia is quite different to criminal paedophilia

                      I simply think that it’s pointless to worry about men picking up teenage prostitutes

                      The views you’ve expressed in the two statements above provide a clue as to why the world is currently populated by rapists who think their crime is not rape and by paedophiles who think that their sexual abuse is not criminal:

                      If systems – democratic or otherwise have ……..

                      a history of involvement with serious and vicious child abuse

                      it’s partly due to views like yours, e.g. that there are ‘legal precedents’, ‘contexts’, ‘consent’, children who ‘initiated’ it etc., that allow the rapists and abusers to excuse themselves

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      29 March 2013 at 10:11 am

                      So you have to take me out of context to try to make a point, eh locus?

                      And then you attempt to blame me for crimes carried out by the system that I oppose?

                      ITCCS field worker Kevin Annett has today issued new evidence compiled from former Anglican Church researcher Leona Moses that reveals a plan between the Crown and Church of England and collaborating chiefs to use the Mohawk Institute Indian residential school to wipe out the remaining Mohawk people.

                      http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july272012/brantford-dig-jj.php

                      The residential schools of the Anglican, Catholic, and United Churches were involved in neglect, abuse, and murder which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50000+ Canadian children.

                • North …
                  28 March 2013 at 8:09 pm

                  You’re talking the morality of laws as they are found Ugly Truth, which is fair enough and immensely preferable to legalistic pettifogging, but to get quite wrong what IS the legal reality doesn’t assist the necessary expounding of the philosophical, moral angle.

                  We need to remember, and I personally consider it a defect, that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is, by one of its own provisions, declared to be inferior to any other enactment which stands in contradiction of it.

                  Enactment rules baby……….which of course IS alarming depending on the context and the subject matter. But that IS the reality.

                  • Ugly Truth …
                    28 March 2013 at 8:18 pm

                    Enactment rules

                    It only rules over people or things that are under its dominion. The state assumes that this dominion is universal as a matter of faith, the reality is that consent is necessary for people outside of their dominion. Often this consent is obtained by default from people who are not competent to defend their rights.

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      28 March 2013 at 8:38 pm

                      I’d say the rather conspicuous lack of revolt against the government over lo these many decades is a pretty good indicator of the consent of the people to be governed by the system as she is there Ugly one.

                      And if you think I’m bound by Judaic law, you’re daft mate.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 9:02 pm

                      PB, Consent implies informed consent. How can there be informed consent when the state lies to you about what the law is?

                    • Pascal's bookie …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:21 pm

                      Even if we accept your heterodox views about the state lying about what ‘common law’ currently means, it’s beside the point.

                      The state asks that it can govern, we consent by not revolting. As long as we do not revolt, we are consenting to be governed by the state.

                      We do not consent based on the ‘legitimate’ parentage of the state, but on its current conduct. A state derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, if it has that consent, it is legitimate irrespective of whether or not it has changed some legal doctrines in the past. The changes are validated by the consent given through the failure to revolt.

                      As long as the people know what legal doctrines are in play now; that is all the information they need to consent, or not, to how the state administers those doctrines.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      29 March 2013 at 3:57 am

                      The state asks that it can govern, we consent by not revolting

                      That’s hilarious. So when Victoria said that civil government was deemed necessary, what he was really doing was asking permission?

                      Consent. A concurrence of wills. Voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another; acquiescence or compliance therewith.
                      Blacks 5th edition.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 April 2013 at 10:01 pm

                      For someone who likes quoting archaic legal doctrine, you’re not very big on Hobbes, are you.

        • RedBaronCV 16.2.1.2
          28 March 2013 at 8:37 pm

          “father’s role is protector of the family.”

          Rule one – We all know the law – and as someone muttered that will give the lawyers a bit of a problem.
          Rule two – We are all equal in front of the law. So mothers can claim to be protectors of the family too.

          Both of the above are well enshrined – common law perhaps?

          • Ugly Truth 16.2.1.2.1
            28 March 2013 at 9:07 pm

            We all know the law

            How many people know that the state lies about what the law is?

            We are all equal in front of the law

            Not in matters of gender. In a common law marriage the husband is the protector of the family, not the wife.

            • Colonial Weka 16.2.1.2.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 9:14 pm

              [citation needed] 🙄

              • Ugly Truth …
                29 March 2013 at 9:52 am

                CW, Please see post 20 for citations which show that the state lies about what the law is.

                ‘By marriage’, according to Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (Oxford, 1765-69, ‘the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during her marriage, or at least is incorporated or consolidated into that of her husband, under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything.’
                http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~bp10/pvm/en3040/women.shtml

                • just saying …
                  31 March 2013 at 11:01 pm

                  Jesus RL are you really suggesting that it okay for adults to directly involve post-pubescent children in sexual activites?

                  edit: response to RedLogix at 10.55

            • karol 16.2.1.2.1.2
              28 March 2013 at 9:34 pm

              Ugly, all you seem to be trying to do is reinstate the rule of the father. Those were the days, when a father could physically beat and abuse his family, and often thought he knew what was better for his wife and children than they did. he could legally rape his wife. I’m glad we’ve moved away from that. It’s no longer common law or any other law. It’s just what you want it to be.

              Please. Stop hiding behind this faux use of common law, and say what you really believe. The rule of the father – patriarchy.

              Common Law marriage is the UK term. NZ law calls it “de facto relationship” and has done so for a long time.

              • Ugly Truth …
                29 March 2013 at 4:05 am

                Karol, there is much more to it than simple patriarchy. At common law the father is the protector, and protection is incompatible with abuse.

                The state misleads people about the nature of law. Common law marriage is de jure, it is not the same thing as a de facto relationhip. A de jure marriage traditionally involves the witnessed exchange of vows, a de facto relationship does not.

                • karol …
                  29 March 2013 at 8:43 am

                  Ugly you never define what you mean by common law. It is something that evolved over centuries and is still being impacted by the laws of nation states.

                  Fathers as protectors was part of a wider patriarchal role that included the fact that men were considered to be the people to participate in politics, and women’s role was in the home. Men were considered to owe obedience to the sovereign, and later the state, while women were meant to give obedience to the father/husband.

                  It was highly patriarchal and did involve violence against women and children, as stated in this article on p588.

                  My knowledge in this area is not so much on common law, but on the social contract. And Carole Pateman is an excellent source on the nature of the social contract. It was a contract between men that involved dominating women. Feminism has impacted on society through examining the contradictions – where liberty and justice promised to “mankind”, it truly meant “man”. Liberte, egalite, fraternite”.

                  In the Sexual Contract, p119, Pateman says:

                  Under the common law doctrine of coverture, a wife like a slave was civilly dead.

                  She then says that some wealthier women avoided the full impact by using the law of equity, trusts and pre-nuptuals.

                  On p120, Pateman quotes Henry Maine in Ancient Law:

                  I do not know the operation and nature of the ancient Patria Potestas can be brought so vividly before the mind as by reflecting on the preprogatives attached to the husband by pure English Common Law, and by recalling the rigorous consistency with which the legal subjection on the part of the wife is carried by it.

                  Thus our laws have evolved from that in a way that extends the principle of equality before the law to all. This has been the outcome of a long struggle.

                  You want to turn the clock back to a time when men ruled the family? Good luck to you. But I will always resist because it was part of a package that did a lot of damage to women and children.

                • marty mars …
                  29 March 2013 at 8:53 am

                  “Non-harm paedophilia” – that is an oxymoron ugly which has been pointed out to you on the other thread.

                  My contact with people who push this ‘law’ stuff is that they wanted to get out of paying taxes or you know, to not argue with the police and ask them a question so that when it got to court they could stand on their ‘law’ as you are doing but I didn’t realise it was so that someone could argue that they were justified in raping children – just shows you learn something every day no matter how disturbing and sickening.

                  • Ugly Truth …
                    29 March 2013 at 9:58 am

                    The hypocrisy of your position is monumental, marty.

                    NZ taxpayers support an institution with direct links to some of the most vicious and extensive child abuse on the planet.

                    “The church even has letters describing how Mush Hole Principal Zimmerman was raping young girls in 1948 and taking part in burying those who died behind the school building. In one letter he writes, ‘We’re forced to bury the children two to a grave now.”

                    http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july272012/brantford-dig-jj.php

                    • marty mars …
                      29 March 2013 at 10:19 am

                      where is the hypocrisy ugly?

                      I assume you pay some (NZ or Canadian) tax and therefore you are as implicated as everyone else aren’t you?

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      29 March 2013 at 12:48 pm

                      The hypocrisy of your position is in condemning paedophilia and then criticizing an argument which focuses on the unlawful nature of institutions with extensive involvement in child abuse.

                      No, I don’t pay tax. Tax was originally a form of tribute, and it will be a cold day in hell before I pay tribute to that murderous institution called the Crown.

                    • marty mars …
                      29 March 2013 at 9:05 pm

                      rubbish ugly I didn’t do that but whatever, I doubt the truth ever gets in the way of your dogma.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 2:35 pm

                      rubbish ugly I didn’t do that

                      I think you’re lying, marty. You criticised my argument when you said:

                      My contact with people who push this ‘law’ stuff is that they wanted to get out of paying taxes or you know, to not argue with the police and ask them a question so that when it got to court they could stand on their ‘law’ as you are doing

                      … and you condemned paedophilia when you said that non-harm paedophilia was an oxymoron.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 March 2013 at 4:10 pm

                      No, I don’t pay tax. Tax was originally a form of tribute, and it will be a cold day in hell before I pay tribute to that murderous institution called the Crown.

                      Framing selfish interest as a principled position? I’m seeing a trend here.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 4:29 pm

                      Is it principled to pay tribute to a murderous institution like the Crown, Colonial Viper?

                    • marty mars …
                      31 March 2013 at 6:36 pm

                      lol what a sad specimen you are

                      “and you condemned paedophilia” – that’s fucken right, I did, unlike you I don’t think raping children is a-okay. You and your ‘law’ mates are the lowest scum around – twisting so that you can increase your self interest, and as for the not paying taxes you are just as selfish and self interested as the big fat corporate pigs who don’t pay tax by slime-ing out of it. You have no principles except for your own sick perversions of raping children and thinking it is okay – well you are wrong and deserve all the shit that can be heaped on you.

                    • RedLogix …
                      31 March 2013 at 7:38 pm

                      Because everyone else in this now very long discussion has tended to be so very black and white, I’m inclined to be a little mischievous here mm and ask a few questions.

                      1. Why do you think the age of consent is so highly variable around the world?

                      2. What was the ‘age of consent’ in pre-European Maori society?

                      3. If the onset of puberty has been the enduring characteristic around defining this age; what are we to make of the fact that in most developed nations around the world the age has dropped in the last century or so from 15-16 to around 10-12yrs?

                      4. If you quite reasonably suggest that physical puberty is not the sole and necessary condition; then what age are we to set on the basis of ’emotional maturity’?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      31 March 2013 at 7:50 pm

                      RL: and my understanding is that ancient Roman citizens of high public standing (remembering that in ancient Rome, relatively few people had the freedom of citizenship and they were the privileged ones with rights) would arrange marriages of their daughters while they were very young, in order to seal political, economic and family alliances.

                      Note that while these political and social arrangements might occur very early on, the marriages themselves would not take place until their daughters had reached 13 or 14 years of age. And AFAIK these marriages were serious monogamous arrangements, a style of relationship which predated Christian influences.

                      Re emotional maturity, interesting to bear in mind that in the 18th century, boys could serve on Royal naval ships from 13 years of age, sometimes younger, and could advance to commissions leading fighting men by the time they were 15. There’s not much more responsibility than that in life.

                    • RedLogix …
                      31 March 2013 at 9:03 pm

                      And I was also going to raise one other quibble; it’s always irked me that the term ‘paedophile’ which really means someone sexually attracted to pre-pubertal children … is then loosely conflated with ‘statutory rape’.

                      Paedophilia is a very specific disorder that probably arises because of childhood emotional trauma which causes some people to develop an obsessive sexual attraction to pre-pubertal children. Males are particularly vulnerable to this because the map of their sexual preferences develops early and for the most part remains fixed for the rest of their life.

                      All men are like this. Fortunately most of us develop socially acceptable preferences (I’m particularly smitten by tall slim brunettes with short hair), others become fixated on feet, or latex, or any one of thousands of peculiar things. Mostly this is ok; if they can find some way to fulfil their needs in private or with understanding partners. But some develop fixations that are entirely socially unacceptable and this will be tragedy which haunts them in one form or another all their lives.

                      Yet most of these fetish disorders are in fact eminently treatable. The success rate of good programs for these people is remarkably high. The best way to protect children from exploitative and harmful sex is to identify and treat as many men who are wrongly attracted to them as early as possible. Identify and treat the problem at root cause.

                      But instead of making treatment for these people accessible, we do the exact opposite by demonising them … more so than ANY other criminal act. More so than murder. Why would anyone volunteer for treatment if it means a life-time of the most intense humiliation and abuse? And it certainly does nothing for their victims.

                      We make matters even more complex when we conflate into the same unfortunate group the normal sexual attraction heterosexual males quite legitimately have for post-pubertal females. Our instinctive libido’s are not programmed with the ‘legally relevant age of consent that applies in the country we happen to be in’. The fact remains that 15 yr old women are delicious and delightful to us. Telling us that our instinctive attraction to them is wrong, dirty and criminal creates a contradiction. You want us to desire a woman of 25, but not one of 15?

                      Yet the remarkable fact is that most men, most of the time respect the fact that our society puts young women and age inappropriate relationships off-limits. If you want to stop men from behaving badly, from misusing their sexual instincts and power, then you really want to engage with this fact, and encourage the legitimate expressions of who we are as men.

                      Sure we get the fact that we are not supposed to have sex with the 15yr old. But in order to comply with this we have to shut down and deny part of who we are. And when as a society we make that kind of bargain in silence, guilt and shame, then the outcome is always bad for everyone.

                      This is a complex discussion with many dimensions. Reducing it to slogans, derision and abuse helps no-one … ever.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 9:40 pm

                      +1 Redlogix

                      The conflation you mentioned can be used in a context bait and switch. The context bait and switch comes up in law as well as in debate, in law it’s called the straw man.

                    • marty mars …
                      31 March 2013 at 9:56 pm

                      Red in answer to those questions – go and look them up, I am not interested in that discussion.

                      And the interaction with ugly was quite specific but if you think there is such a thing as non-harm paedophilia then you have just posted your potter moment and you can get fucked just like ugly. btw do you?

                      and as for your long-winded dissertation quite frankly you don’t speak for all men (thank the gods) and you can continue to believe what you want but I feel like I need a good shower after reading that apologist bullshit.

                      I do believe in helping those afflicted with this belief system rather than letting them rot in jail because I don’t think it is natural or normal – it is an aberration although I’m sure you and the rest of the like-minded ilk will rattle off all sorts of historical precedents and that damns you ever the more in my eyes.

                      Honestly you have written some rubbish in your time from the race traitors stuff on, but this is just icky and another illustration of how twisted this world has become.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 10:08 pm

                      Like he said RedLogix, he’s not interested in discussion.
                      He’s just spewing.

                    • marty mars …
                      31 March 2013 at 10:13 pm

                      Correct for once ugly – put some links up to the discussion boards where you guys all thrash this out and people will be able to make their own minds up – although I doubt you have the courage because it’s so much easier talking in a pseudo-legal fashion isn’t it.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 10:24 pm

                      Ignorance of the law is no excuse, marty

                    • RedLogix …
                      31 March 2013 at 10:25 pm

                      marty,

                      Interesting you should refuse to discuss anything. In my experience people usually clam up when they know that what they really want to say is not what is acceptable to say.

                      The reality is that for much of the human race’s existence most people would have had their first sexual interaction some time just before or around puberty. Almost always under the age of 16. In modern terms this makes ALL of our ancestors rapists and therefore damned in your eyes. Good luck with trying to ignore that.

                      My point was simple, and you deliberately ignore it. Paedophilia is a recognised developmental disorder in which the sufferer develops a totally useless and harmful sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

                      Demonising paedophiles has had about as much success as the so-called ‘war on drugs’ has. Made matters worse. Instead of driving the problem underground I merely suggested that it was better treated as a mental health and harm minimisation issue. Like we all know drug abuse should be treated.

                      If however you prefer to remain outraged by it all, to treat paedophiles as a receptacle into which you can pour venom; go right ahead. Let me know how many children you think this will save from abuse.

                      But lumping paedophiles in with the same people who are exploiting (almost certainly post-pubescent) 13 yr olds in South Auckland is totally counter productive. The nature of the problem here is quite different and demands a different discussion.

                    • marty mars …
                      31 March 2013 at 10:27 pm

                      yes i know you love bland platitudes but where are those links ugly?

                    • marty mars …
                      31 March 2013 at 10:36 pm

                      red – actually what i said is, “I do believe in helping those afflicted with this belief system rather than letting them rot in jail because I don’t think it is natural or normal – it is an aberration” so pontificating about my ignoring it, is not true.

                      and I have explained what I think but it doesn’t agree with your view so it gets discounted. Plus we are not talking about first sexual encounters that is a red herring because you aren’t comfortable in your own beliefs because they are not socially acceptable to many in society – it’s okay I get it.

                      btw do you think there is such a thing as non-harm paedophilia?

                    • just saying …
                      31 March 2013 at 10:43 pm

                      To Red Logix.

                      For tens of thousands of years human beings who were biologically identical to modern humans, lived in much the same way as the great apes do today – as the animals we biologically are.

                      The evolution of culture, over a very long time, has turned us into a different species. The evolution of culture has also seen some appalling norms and mores at different times. These can in no way be used to excuse inhumane behaviour of responsible adults today.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 10:46 pm

                      where are those links ugly?

                      Why should I give you any links?

                    • RedLogix …
                      31 March 2013 at 10:55 pm

                      btw do you think there is such a thing as non-harm paedophilia?

                      Adults should not directly involve pre-pubescent children in their sexual activities.

                      Now of course any anthropologist will tell you that in many pre-industrial societies there was almost no such thing as personal privacy. While adults refrained from blatant public sex, almost everyone around them, including children, would be aware of what was happening.

                      And even more interestingly the reported incidence of sexual paraphilias and other developmental disorders in these societies was extremely low. Therefore the whole question of paedophilia would hardly ever arise for them. Strikes me as a pretty good outcome. Much better than the one we currently have.

                      Separate from this is the problem that arises when girls are reaching puberty at the age of 10 or 11, but our age of consent remains predicated on the idea that puberty was at 16. Being sexually attracted to a post-pubescent 13 yr old is NOT paedophilia. Therefore the question as you have framed it no longer applies.

                      What is relevant is whether or not girls of this age should be engaging in commercial sex. My answer is an unequivocal no. It takes a good deal of maturity and personal power to engage in this kind of work without emotional and spiritual harm. Clearly a 13 yr old lacks both and should not be doing this work.

                    • marty mars …
                      31 March 2013 at 11:25 pm

                      ugly “Why should I give you any links?” – because I asked nicely for them?

                      red “Being sexually attracted to a post-pubescent 13 yr old is NOT paedophilia.” – I really can’t get my head around that angle red so I’ll leave you to it.

                    • RedLogix …
                      31 March 2013 at 11:34 pm

                      Reply to just saying.

                      Jesus RL are you really suggesting that it okay for adults to directly involve post-pubescent children in sexual activites?

                      edit: response to RedLogix at 10.55

                      In purely sexual developmental terms a post-pubescent human is no longer a child. Therefore the question at this level makes no sense.

                      Nonetheless you won’t be happy with that answer. You must therefore be thinking of post-pubescent human who is still a child in social terms. Puberty no longer having anything to do with it.

                      In earlier societies there really was not the same distinction between child, teenager and adult as we have. Children were pretty much seen as just small adults, and were often treated as such. But that’s not the world we live in … so that doesn’t help much.

                      The term ‘teenager’ doesn’t help much because it applies from 13-19. Adulthood is still technically set at 18 for some things and 21 for others. Clearly we don’t get anything decisive from this angle either.

                      In New Zealand we fudge the issue a little by not prosecuting 12- 16 yr olds who have sex as long as the age gap is not greater than 2 yrs. That helps a bit because it draws attention to the idea that it is not so much the sex act that is the inherently harmful problem here, but the power imbalance which is what worries us.

                      Now the really useful question is to ask, how does this power imbalance arise? What is it’s real nature and how to engage people so that they willingly refrain from misusing it?

                    • rosy …
                      31 March 2013 at 11:48 pm

                      What is relevant is whether or not girls of this age should be engaging in commercial sex

                      So speaks an adult man who has no idea about the thoughts and emotions of a 13 year-old girl, but plenty of experience with the desires of men.

                      Tell me RL, why is it that the girls that paedophiles target are those with not enough emotional security and platonic physical contact with the adults in her life?
                      http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/child-sexual-abuse.aspx

                      Why is it that this is ok because manipulation of these missing aspects in girls’ lives can be used to coerce sex – when trust and platonic friendship would be more nurturing for that child? When did manipulation and coercion of vulnerable children become consent? Maybe instead of making excuses for the way men think (you’re right – there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging human form, but there’s a lot wrong with sexualising it when it belongs to a child). You might want to do some research into how childrens’ minds process love and affection before you suggest that there’s not a lot wrong with non-commercial sex with 13 year-olds.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      1 April 2013 at 12:04 am

                      Now the really useful question is to ask, how does this power imbalance arise?

                      In terms of the triune brain model, it happens when the reptilian brain is dominant in the individual rather than the limbic system or the prefrontal cortex.

                      What is it’s real nature and how to engage people so that they willingly refrain from misusing it?

                      It’s real nature is that it is an essential survival trait, but because of the imbalance in the triune brain it is dominant in ordinary life rather than solely in an extreme environment.

                      A remedy would probably involve recovery of the limbic system and/or the prefrontal cortex, I think you would have to know their psychological history before attempting a fix.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 April 2013 at 12:21 am

                      Rosy,

                      So speaks an adult man who has no idea about the thoughts and emotions of a 13 year-old girl, but plenty of experience with the desires of men.

                      What else can I say? I am being honest with you …

                      why is it that the girls that paedophiles target are those with not enough emotional security and platonic physical contact with the adults in her life?

                      How does any predator pick on it’s prey? By choosing the weakest. I think we are saying exactly the same thing here. It is not the sex act that is the problem here, and by focussing all of our outrage and moral panic on that we miss the real harm … the misuse of a power imbalance.

                      You might want to do some research into how childrens’ minds process love and affection before you suggest that there’s not a lot wrong with non-commercial sex with 13 year-olds.

                      A child in an adult’s body. That was exactly the point I made; that as 13 yr olds there is everything wrong with engaging in commercial sex with men much older. Worse still is the fact they are are most likely only doing this because of hidden coercion and manipulation by other adults in their family.

                      But ask me if there is too much wrong with the same 13 yr old having a bit of experimental sex play with a cousin the same age, or a boyfriend 6 months older … and suddenly the answer gets a lot fuzzier doesn’t it?

                      Most of the women I’ve ever asked had their first sexual experience of some sort well before 16 yrs old. And in a wider historical context this seems pretty normal. What is not normal is that in our society it is deemed to be so very harmful.

                      Now how do you think that came about?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 April 2013 at 12:47 am

                      RL – thanks for expressing your thoughts in detail.

                      I have a good friend who started sleeping with with his first girl friend when he was 16. She was 14 or 15 IIRC. She often stayed nights over at his parents home, with their full knowledge. His parents preferred that they were safe and under their roof and their watch rather than somewhere else out of their control and oversight. And the fact that she was underage? They were realistic enough to know that what they thought was not going to stop those kids doing what they were going to do.

                      Now of course any anthropologist will tell you that in many pre-industrial societies there was almost no such thing as personal privacy. While adults refrained from blatant public sex, almost everyone around them, including children, would be aware of what was happening.

                      Not even pre-industrial. In many recent Asian societies, or in the former USSR, where there are commonly 3, sometimes 4 generations living in the same tiny accomodation.

                    • rosy …
                      1 April 2013 at 12:51 am

                      No problem at all with your first point… I was pointing out that maybe those adults should be aware of how carrying out their thoughts affects a child.

                      What is not normal is that in our society it is deemed to be so very harmful.

                      Now how do you think that came about?

                      It is normal for a society to understand that harm is being done and that the vulnerable are unprotected to then create rules to prevent that harm.

                      How does any predator pick on it’s prey? By choosing the weakest.

                      Oh, so that’s ok then… we can just forget about it. Emotionally abused children obviously are using this emotional state and dysfunctional life for the predator to believe there is consent.

                      And you use the 13 y.o boy/girl scenario to say it’s not the sexual encounter, but the power relationship that is the problem? Yes, the sexual encounter is the problem. The power relationship is also the problem. These are not mutually exclusive.

                      While I agree the boundary between young love/lust and predation has shades of grey, that is what the law to protect children is for. Having said that I don’t believe there is any no fuzziness between the experimentation of two children of near enough age and the machinations of a fully grown adult for sex with a child.

                    • rosy …
                      1 April 2013 at 1:21 am

                      I have a good friend who started sleeping with with his first girl friend when he was 16. She was 14 or 15 IIRC. She often stayed nights over at his parents home, with their full knowledge.

                      Good on your friend’s parents, cv. But this is a Trojan horse argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with sex between an adult and child.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 April 2013 at 10:38 pm

                      Indeed, it’s about parents supporting young people to take charge of their sexuality, and the young people having confidence from that to do what is right for them.

                    • The Al1en …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:15 pm

                      “I have a good friend who started sleeping with with his first girl friend when he was 16. She was 14 or 15 IIRC. She often stayed nights over at his parents home, with their full knowledge.”

                      “Good on your friend’s parents, cv. But this is a Trojan horse argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with sex between an adult and child.”

                      I guess, as a dad to an eleven year old daughter, I should try to enjoy the next few years whilst I can, because I reckon if that happens here, I’m going to be flat out kicking the shit out of sixteen year old boys and then their enabling parents.

                • AsleepWhileWalking …
                  29 March 2013 at 9:11 am

                  I’d love to know where Ugly received their law degree…

          • just saying 16.2.1.2.2
            31 March 2013 at 10:19 pm

            God knows if this will end up in the right place. It’s a reply to Redlogix.

            I take your point that adolescent girls can be sexually attractive. And all credit to you for having the courage to raise this.

            Like most girls, I was only too aware of this as an adolescent. But the point is, loads of people are sexually attractive to others (from a purely physical point of view) but noone has a right to embarrass, intimidate, disgust, harrass, molest or rape another, and adults are particularly obliged to exercise strict self-control where children or any other vulnerable persons are concerned, right down to not indulging them when sexual thoughts arise in the company of children – or doctors around patients etc. The rights of these individuals should always trump the desires of those who may find their bodies attractive.

            Rape culture means that teenagers have been seen as fair game for far too many men for their relative powerlessness as much as for their sexual attractiveness (maybe more). My experience as a teenager, was that my feelings, developmental needs etc. were sublimated to the desires of not just sexual harrassers, but to the feelings of other adults who did not offend but turned a blind eye, or even egged others on for vicarious jollies. The feelings of men in this situation were seen by far too many as paramount, and children were blamed and expected to cede their right to freedom of movement in order to protect the “freedom” of offending adults. In some instances this provided the ideal conditions for adults to molest and rape with impunity and cause immeasurable harm. All to protect the feelings of those who were seen as important relative to their victims.

            This is not to shame anyone for feelings that they have no control over. It’s all about how they behave in response. Sexual feelings, like all feelings, never bestow any rights to act against the will, or in the case of the vulnerable, the best interests of the person who is unwittingly being desired.

            • Ugly Truth 16.2.1.2.2.1
              31 March 2013 at 10:45 pm

              Just saying,

              Fair comment. FYI sexuality and domination are survival traits. Everyone has them, but in some people these traits dominate and these people behave like predators. Usually the survival traits are controlled by social traits (emotional response) and by cognitive traits. These three groups comprise the triune brain model.

              Here’s a cut & paster with more on the triune brain.

              One early precept of Evolutionary Psychology is the notion of Paul McLean’s Triune Brain Theory – that in the course of evolution, the brains of species evolved from a more primitive, survivalist, “Reptilian Brain,” to sprout on top of it, the emotional circuitry of social animals called mammals, with “Mammalian Brains.” Then later, with the rise of the human species, the “most advanced animals,” who have a well-developed neocortex capable of rational thought, abstract reasoning, and a sense of sentience, rights, responsibility, boundaries, ethics or morality. “The Moral Animal.”

              If these were to be seen as a kind of triple software package of the mind rather than just placed in anatomical position in the cranium, one could envision them like the Russian Dolls, the sum total of our behavior as more than the sum of its parts, with a rational mind capable of diplomacy on the surface, emotion underneath, and at the core, still there after eons, the “animal.”

            • RedLogix 16.2.1.2.2.2
              1 April 2013 at 12:05 am

              js,

              Sorry this thread is getting all over the place. I sort of responded at 11:34 above. But I had missed your response at 10:19 … which I think is excellent.

              If we step back and look at how humans have always been prone to ‘taking what they wanted, without asking or considering the feelings of others’ … in environmental, resource, employment, social and sexual terms… then I have no problem whatsoever in naming this a “rape culture”.

              But it can also be a very broad brush when slapped blindly across the extreme nuances of our sexual natures. As a metaphor it seems to falter right where you would expect it to stand.

              As I said above; the real problem is not the sex act. It is the power imbalance. In very simple terms there are only two ways to restore such an imbalance. The first is to demand that the powerful refrain from using their power or to remove it from them. This is the approach we have taken so far.

              The other is to enhance or restore the power that has been taken from the weak. In the case of young people we recognise that they really have not the personal ability to project much power … but we could do a lot more to restore their social power.

              In particular our society is still very wedded to the idea that children are the property of their parents. Which is an inherently powerless position to be in. And then at the age of 16 we expect them to leap fully formed into the world as fully empowered adults? Of course it does not work very well.

              What would happen then if we deliberately set about empowering young people from an earlier age. As CV put it earlier, once upon a time at the age of 15 a man might find himself in command of a Royal Navy vessel. For much of the last 200 years we have headed in the opposite direction, disempowering our youth, prolonging their years of dependency and inventing a whole stage of life called ‘teenagers’ … something wholly unknown to our great-great-grandparents.

              • Ugly Truth …
                1 April 2013 at 12:24 am

                The first is to demand that the powerful refrain from using their power or to remove it from them. This is the approach we have taken so far.

                To remove it from them you must be more powerful than they are – can you do this when they move among the political elite?

                • RedLogix …
                  1 April 2013 at 12:29 am

                  No you cannot. It is however too late at night to go leaping down that particular rabbit hole.

              • just saying …
                1 April 2013 at 12:28 am

                RL, you are assuming that young girls want to have sex with adults, and that they find it fulfilling, or at least be unharmed when they do. The evidence is that most do not that it is usually only disturbed abused chidren who seek sex with adults. Further, there is ample evidence that young, teenaged children are harmed by sexual contact with adults.

                Children have age-appropriate sex, by themselves, and with other children, throughout their childhoods. It is wrong to assume that, because adults sometimes find children sexually desirable, that this is reciprocated.

                Bert Potter established a community in which your theories were tested. Teenaged girls went to huge lengths to avoid being molested by adults in that community, despite all taboos about sex being eliminated. Many stopped washing and isolated themselves to avoid the attentions of adults. It took decades before their feelings were listened to, and enormous harm resulted.

                As for what happened in previous times “proving” the normality and acceptability of such behaviours today:

                Genocide, slavery, people being torm apart by lions for public entertainment, the bodies of small children destroyed by dangerous forced labour, sex slavery………the list is pretty much endless.

                • RedLogix …
                  1 April 2013 at 12:31 am

                  you are assuming that young girls want to have sex with adults,

                  errm … No. That’s an assumption you have read into what I’ve written. I never even faintly asserted such a thing.

                  Now you’ve brought it up; it’s also quite true that even in the modern world different societies have quite different perceptions around appropriate age differences.

                  Or I could point to my own grandfather who was 28 yrs older than my grandmother. He was 58 when my mother was born. Want I should snigger at him as a ‘dirty old man’?

                  Now please don’t go misreading me and telling me that I’m now advocating for 13 yr old girls to be having sex with 60 yr olds …. I’m not. But neither is there any reason to think that the social model we currently have around age-appropriate relationships is either correct, nor fixed in concrete forever.

                  • just saying …
                    1 April 2013 at 8:01 am

                    Red Logix , the situation with your grandfather is irrelevant to a discussion about sex between adults and children. You are describing relationship between consenting adults. When your mother was born, your grandmother was 30 – not even close to being a child. I’m not sure whether you are confused or deliberately muddying the waters.

                    You seem to be looking at this situation exclusively from the point of view of the feelings of the adult. Attraction towards children might make a man or woman feel ashamed and unhappy. Well there is an option. Not acting on those feelings. At all. Ever.

                    We know about some of the adults who harrass, molest, or rape children. There are probably many more who recognise that feelings bestow no rights to the bodies of others. Those who recognise that acting on such feelings would be wrong, and would harm the child, who therfore leave children they are attracted to alone, in peace and safety. They need feel no shame.

                    Looking at this situation exclusively from the point of view of a man attracted to a child is rape culture. All those rationalisations about how things were in times gone by when women and children had no rights – also rape culture. Implying that because children have sexual feelings and experiment with other children, they are fair game for adults – also rape culture.

                    There is no way of removing the power imbalance between and adult and a child. Children, by definition are immature, dependent, and in need of care and protection. The onset of puberty does not change this reality.

                    Women have told you how they felt when they were girls. You have been referred to information about the harm that ensues from acts which you continue to assert to be harmless. Yet not once have you mentioned the feelings and rights of girls. That’s rape culture.

                    • rosy …
                      1 April 2013 at 10:30 am

                      That about covers it for me, js. Thanks, Brilliantly said.

                    • marty mars …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:01 am

                      Yes thank you js for your excellent comment – sums it up well and I value your honesty and insight in helping us recognise rape culture in all its insidious and varied forms. Kia kaha.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 April 2013 at 12:35 pm

                      You are describing relationship between consenting adults. When your mother was born, your grandmother was 30 – not even close to being a child.

                      I would have thought that blindingly obvious. I was simply reinforcing my point that an age gap by itself is not the concern here.

                      Looking at this situation exclusively from the point of view of a man attracted to a child is rape culture.

                      Again you create a bogeyman where none exists. As far as the instinctive male sex drive is concerned there is no difference between a 15 yr old girl and a 25 yr old woman. I know you don’t like me saying that, but I challenge anyone to show me how it could be any different.

                      The only reason why most adult men refrain from having sex with young women, most of the time, is because there is a social construct against it.

                      My question is; why does that construct alone not work better?

                      There is no way of removing the power imbalance between and adult and a child. Children, by definition are immature, dependent, and in need of care and protection. The onset of puberty does not change this reality.

                      So what is so magical about the age of 16 then? If you want to use emotional maturity as the criteria, then I’d suggest most people should probably not be having sex until sometime in their mid-40’s. Welll that’s obviously a silly strawman I’ve erected to fill the blank space in your argument.

                      Yet once upon a time there would have been people who would have said exactly your same sentence; but with the words “woman” substituted for “child”. The modern world in which such a sentence is plainly wrong would have been comparably inconceivable to them.

                      Yet not once have you mentioned the feelings and rights of girls.

                      As a male in his 50’s I have no right nor place to attempt such a thing. Like me telling marty how Maori ought to feel. He’d be rightly indignant.

                      As a culture we already strongly proscribe age-inappropriate sexual connection in the most extreme fashion possible. We treat offenders with a venom we don’t even heap onto murderers. Many, many people would happily demand the death penalty for “kiddy-fiddling”. Yet with one in three women still being abused at some point in their childhood we have to therefore logically deduce that some one in three males should be mass executed.

                      Too extreme? OK… maybe we could go down the Middle Eastern path of purdah culture , ensuring that the two genders are kept as separate as possible at all times?

                      Or maybe, just maybe before we paint ourselves into that particular ethical cul-de-sac it’s worth asking a few questions about WHY so many young people are still being harmed in this way. And if we want a world which is safe for women and girls, how much will be achieved just by yelling “rape culture” at the patriarchy? The best analogy I can think of is this.

                      For centuries the interest of employers and employees have been in conflict with each other; with the pendulum of power swinging variously one way or another. Mostly it’s been the employers in the ascendancy, sometime unions, but never in a happy equilibrium. When we examine at the concept of employee owned and managed collectives; all of a sudden the model aligns the interests of both business and workers in a way that was quite inconceivable under the old paradigm.

                      If we persist in modelling the power balance between the genders in the same way the patriarchy does; we’ll get the same result. Why should a matriarchy look the same as the patriarchy with just the gender power roles reversed? What would a truly equal society look like? Have humans ever attempted such a thing?

                      PS: I’ve deliberately constructed my repsonses here in a way that leaves some spaces for a discussion to develop. Yet so much of the time people rush to fill the gaps with bogeymen of their own imagination. And then I have to waste time telling you to take them outside and toilet train them.

                    • locus …
                      1 April 2013 at 5:37 pm

                      just saying – thank you for the most intelligent and simply presented argument I’ve yet heard on this and other similar threads.

                      The point eloquently made is that it is wrong – whatever the justification – for adults to have any kind of sexual relationship with children.

                      trying to argue about whether the line is drawn at 15 or 16 or 18 is an insidious attempt to blur the issue, as is trying to talk about social mores of other ages or societies.

                    • rosy …
                      1 April 2013 at 6:39 pm

                      RL,
                      I would have thought that blindingly obvious. I was simply reinforcing my point out that an age gap by itself is not the concern here.

                      I don’t think anyone has said an age gap is an issue, having sex with a person who cannot give informed consent is the issue – and that includes children, including post-pubescent children.

                      Again you create a bogeyman where none exists. As far as the instinctive male sex drive is concerned there is no difference between a 15 yr old girl and a 25 yr old woman. I know you don’t like me saying that, but I challenge anyone to show me how it could be any different. The only reason why most adult men refrain from having sex with young women, most of the time, is because there is a social construct against it.

                      13, 14, 15 year-old girls are not women. No-one has said males don’t have a sex drive and don’t appreciate a beautiful human form. It’s acting on that impulse that is a problem. I don’t agree that most adult men refrain from having sex with children is because there is a social construct against it. The men I know don’t have sex with kids because they a: understand their relationship with those children precludes it and b: they understand a child is not fully aware of what having sex means, and this lack of awareness can cause harm.

                      Even if avoiding sex with a child was entirely due to a social construct you have no evidence to prove this social construct is wrong.

                      An analogy – men get angry with people, it’s natural with all that testosterone, yet what stops men going out and bashing someone whenever someone makes them angry?

                      So what is so magical about the age of 16 then? If you want to use emotional maturity as the criteria, then I’d suggest most people should probably not be having sex until sometime in their mid-40′s. Well that’s obviously a silly strawman I’ve erected to fill the blank space in your argument.

                      Nothing is magical about the age of 16. It’s a risk reduction option, and at some level is to do with the power dynamic as you’ve suggested earlier on, and adults’ duty to protect children from harm.

                      I guess it also meets a biological imperative where children younger than that have more complications, including death, when giving birth. For boys, obviously that is not a consideration, so when do you think boys are old enough for advances from adults?

                      As a male in his 50′s I have no right nor place to attempt such a thing. Like me telling marty how Maori ought to feel. He’d be rightly indignant.

                      You may not have a right to tell other people how to think, but you do have an obligation to care about what life events might impinge on the healthy development of your daughter, granddaughter, niece, cousin etc. so it might be worth thinking about how they might see the advances of an older male, don’t you think? Maybe you should check out 13 year-old girls’ love of boy bands to see how ‘eeww yuck’ even a 25 year-old man is to them while they are just learning about sexual feelings and emotions.

                      As a culture we already strongly proscribe age-inappropriate sexual connection in the most extreme fashion possible. We treat offenders with a venom we don’t even heap onto murderers. Many, many people would happily demand the death penalty for “kiddy-fiddling”. Yet with one in three women still being abused at some point in their childhood we have to therefore logically deduce that some one in three males should be mass executed.

                      Kiddy-fiddling is a disgraceful term for child sex abuse. It’s not a game. It’s certainly not logical to deduce that one in three males are paedophiles because one in three girls are abused. In the world I come from two men abused nine girls. None of the other men in these girls’ lives felt the need to give them the benefit of their lust.

                      The argument for capital punishment is another of your deflections.

                      Too extreme? OK… maybe we could go down the Middle Eastern path of purdah culture , ensuring that the two genders are kept as separate as possible at all times?

                      No, men just need to keep it in their pants. They are grown-ups and are otherwise aware of the need to manage their feelings. Shall we remove the law on raping wives, just to make men with a need feel better?

                      If we persist in modelling the power balance between the genders in the same way the patriarchy does; we’ll get the same result. Why should a matriarchy look the same as the patriarchy with just the gender power roles reversed? What would a truly equal society look like? Have humans ever attempted such a thing?

                      This is only an analogy if you think the power, not the sex, is harmful. They are both harmful.

                      On these point s I urge you to go and look at some of the statistics around child abuse – who does it, who the victims are and what the negative outcomes are – that I linked to earlier
                      http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/child-sexual-abuse.aspx

                      Yet so much of the time people rush to fill the gaps with bogeymen of their own imagination. And then I have to waste time telling you to take them outside and toilet train them.

                      Or rush to present deflecting arguments to avoid the crux of the matter – adults damage children by having sex with them and children cannot provide informed consent to sex with an adult.

                      As for bogeymen – mine are not in my imagination so don’t bother wasting your time telling me to take them outside and toilet train them. I and eight others I know would have loved it if some responsible adult had told the local sexual predators to go train themselves.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 April 2013 at 6:50 pm

                      The point eloquently made is that it is wrong – whatever the justification – for adults to have any kind of sexual relationship with children.

                      A point I have repeatedly made. How often does I need to say it before anyone comprehends?

                      trying to argue about whether the line is drawn at 15 or 16 or 18 is an insidious attempt to blur the issue, as is trying to talk about social mores of other ages or societies.

                      Why? Because examples from other societies (like Japan where the AoC is 13 or California where it is 18) do seem like significant and relevant to the point that the age of 16 which we are familiar with in this country, is by no means universal nor fixed in human history. Nor has anyone shown that it is relevant to puberty or any significant developmental milestone. It is therefore a social construct and one that we rely on to protect young people from harmful sexual engagements.

                      With up to 1/3rd of young girls being abused in some form or another the evidence is that this social construct is not working very well .. is it?

                      But apparently openly asking why this should be so is “insidious”.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      1 April 2013 at 7:15 pm

                      The point eloquently made is that it is wrong – whatever the justification – for adults to have any kind of sexual relationship with children.

                      locus, If something is wrong then it can’t be justified.
                      Who gets to define what a child is?

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 April 2013 at 7:17 pm

                      Rosy,

                      The men I know don’t have sex with kids because they a: understand their relationship with those children precludes it and b: they understand a child is not fully aware of what having sex means, and this lack of awareness can cause harm.

                      Well yes. That is at least part of what a social construct is. Nor did I suggest for one instant that it was wrong … just that it was not working very well.

                      but you do have an obligation to care about what life events might impinge on the healthy development of your daughter, granddaughter, niece, cousin etc.

                      Umm …yes. Why otherwise are we here discussing this?

                      Kiddy-fiddling is a disgraceful term for child sex abuse. It’s not a game.

                      Didn’t suggest for one instant that it was a game. It’s just a pretty common term in the wider community. And almost always used in the most deeply prerogative manner.

                      I do concede your point that it probably is not as much as 1/3 of men, but it could well be as high as 1/10.(Not to overlook that around 10-15% of offenders are female). That’s still a lot of people. And observing that the in the wider community a lot of people would happily support the death penalty for this kind of offence is not a deflection. People pour more venom and hatred onto these offenders than they do murderers. It is literally the worst crime you can be accused of by a considerable margin.

                      Yet despite the enormous risk of completely devastating their lives, very large numbers of men are still drawn into the forbidden. It’s not unreasonable to ask why this is so.

                      We’ve been telling them to ‘keep it in their pants’ for a very long time now. How well do you think it’s working out?

                    • rosy …
                      1 April 2013 at 8:08 pm

                      That is a social construct. Nor did I suggest for one instant that it was wrong … just that it was not working very well.

                      I’d suggest just as likely to be ability to empathise or reason rather than necessarily a societal prohibition on sex with children.

                      Why otherwise are we here discussing this

                      So why not express a view about what you think being the victim of some old dude who likes sex with children means to people you may care about? You can empathise with a paedophiles situations but not, say, your granddaughter’s? Your argument that it’s not up to you to write about how young girls feel doesn’t hold up. It’s also not like saying you can’t impose your thoughts on how Māori might feel, as you suggested… you’ve never been Māori but you’ve been young, maybe the target of some unwanted attention or know someone who has been, surely?

                      You may not have noticed, but I’ve not suggested at all that paedophiles should be strung up. I should have been more eloquent but impatience got the better of me so I used shorthand… people who would like to have sex with children require treatment so they learn to not act on their impulses because it causes serious harm.

                      However, this approach doesn’t have a 100% success rate. What do you propose to do to protect young people from harm… or do we just accept some level of collateral damage while retraining sexual urges? I’m afraid the answer is not having young girls become more adult-like earlier so it’s more acceptable to have sex with kids. There are enough problems in traditional societies to indicate that that is not the solution., although it does legitimise men’s behaviour.

                      I reckon child murders get as much venom, if not more than paedophiles. Protection of children (adults can often take care of themselves), whether faux or real, is the reason for the outrage. Sexual abusers of children, violent offenders against children and child murderers, (and rapists and murderers of vulnerable old ladies) get pretty much the same venom as far as I can see, it’s not helpful, sure, but it’s really not a competition either.

                    • marty mars …
                      1 April 2013 at 8:19 pm

                      Red says “The only reason why most adult men refrain from having sex with young women, most of the time, is because there is a social construct against it.” You are talking about 13 year olds, they are young girls and still children imo and legally, even if some old men are sexually attracted to them. Most men don’t see them as sexual objects but rather as young people who are learning about themselves and their world, most men see that there is a trust involved in relating to these young girls and that the trust is around providing a safe, environment for them to grow up, most men are not sexually attracted to them, let alone willing to rape them because they construct that because those young girls have begun menstruating that means they are able to give consent to sex with old men, and if they are not legally able to give consent then it is rape pure and simple no matter what convolutions ugly may create legally. This is not a discussion about when a person first becomes sexually active it is directly about the abuse of power inherent in an adult/child sexual relationship. You wonder why the crime is despised? It is because it can completely affect the relationships the victim has for the rest of their lives, it can directly affect all of their loving relationships because of that breach of trust and completely selfish and illegal act by the old male.

                      Red says, “very large numbers of men are still drawn into the forbidden.” the illegal and immoral is more like it. The direction of your posts is just a version of victim blaming where it is the young girls own fault because they have begun menstruating and looking sexually attractive to some old men and after all history and human nature blah blah blah blah. Men who respect themselves, respect women and children and don’t view them as sexual objects, they see the holistic nature of their being and the fact that they are people with feelings, with opinions that deserve respect. You need to read what women have said on this thread and realise that they have valid and important voices instead of playing semantic word games and flippant responses. That is all just my opinion, as a man, and as someone who rejects, and tries to combat rape culture in our society.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 April 2013 at 8:40 pm

                      Most men don’t see them as sexual objects but rather as young people who are learning about themselves and their world, most men see that there is a trust involved in relating to these young girls and that the trust is around providing a safe, environment for them to grow up, most men are not sexually attracted to them,

                      Firstly, when you say “most men” do you mean 90% of men? Or 95% of men? Or do you just mean over 50%? And how would you know?

                      Because at any of those percentages, even at 98%, this society has a massive problem of risk against young people going on (from tens of thousands of men), and simply saying that those men need to be more empathetic or more respectful or generally just more enlightened and trustworthy is probably going to be an utterly ineffective approach.

                      rosy said:

                      13, 14, 15 year-old girls are not women.

                      But 16 year old girls are? In Canada, until recently, the age of consent was 14.

                      Which brings us back to the question – what is the pivotal difference between all those ages up to and including 18 years of age (which is still the age of consent in many parts of the world).

                      The obvious answer of course is that it is in at least some part, or large part, the social and legal constructs that a specific society has chosen, and chosen to enforce as the most appropriate for itself.

                    • rosy …
                      1 April 2013 at 9:14 pm

                      “But 16 year old girls are”

                      16 year olds probably are women, biologically speaking and probably are in terms of ability reason and assess outcomes, imo. You’re welcome to prove me wrong. 95 % probability that 13 and 14 year-olds are not biologically fully developed, even if they’re menstruating – hence the greater risk of maternal and infant mortality in under 16-year-olds.

                      It’s not the fuzzy boundary that RL suggests, but there is a level of probability, I reckon and that is why there is a bit of leeway in the law about sexual relationships between teens of similar ages.

                      Pretty much 100% certain that 13, 14 and 15 year-olds are not emotionally and socially ready to be fully sexualised women at the behest of an older man. And the law, and most of the country agrees with that. Also pretty damn certain that men are the ones who should be dealing with their problem with fantasising about young girls rather than arguing when their damaging fantasies might be ok. Rather selfish, imo.

                    • marty mars …
                      1 April 2013 at 9:17 pm

                      cv I said it was my opinion and it is what i am teaching my son – you can do whatever you like.

                    • locus …
                      1 April 2013 at 9:26 pm

                      RedLogix: to me it seems that you continue to conflate the argument that ‘it is wrong for adults to have sex with children’ with the argument that ‘society should make judgement on the issue of what age determines adulthood’.

                      You state that you have “repeatedly made” the same argument that ‘it is wrong for adults to have sex with children’. On the contrary, I can’t read this in your comments and overall argument.

                      My reading of your argument is that you question NZ’s definition of what constitutes adulthood/age of consent, because the age of consent differs from society to society with some as low as 13. And further, that you appear to be saying that it might be acceptable for an adult to have sex with someone if the adult thinks a. they want it and b. they are physically mature (does this mean post pubescent??).

                      Another argument you appear to have presented is that if a large percentage of girls (say 15 years old) have had a sexual experience then we should be asking why (or if) this is a societal norm.

                      imo you pick and choose what supports your view and pay scant attention to the reasoning and evidence presented by many on this thread who have experienced what you clearly haven’t.

                      I don’t see anywhere in your arguments a full acceptance of the harm and damage that sexual conduct between an adult and a child does to the child. Nor do I see any kind of judgement from you that it is an adult’s responsibility to protect children from adult sexual behaviour. Nor can I see any meaningful suggestions from you as to how it may be appropriate to deal with adults who think it’s okay to seek sexual gratification with children.

                      All I can see in your arguments is an attempt to question societal judgement about what age constitutes adulthood – and by inference that maybe we’ve got it wrong in NZ to set an age of sexual consent at 16.

                      Incidentally I didn’t think that I was an adult when I was 16, and I’d be surprised if any women looking back at when they were 16 would regard that they were adults then. The point here – eloquently made by others – is that a 16 year old is not a fully emotionally developed and rational adult, and is not fully aware of the emotional consequences of their sexual activities. Even less so with children who are under 16.

                      It’s the emotional vulnerability of children that needs to brought home in every possible way to adults who think that it is okay (choose) to pursue their purely selfish desire for sex.

                      There is no way you can reasonably argue that other societies’ mores regarding the age of adulthood, or age of consent justifies or ameliorates the fact that adults having sex with children is harmful to the child. Have you read the research into the long term damage suffered by children who have been used by adults for their sexual gratification?

                      If you are going to quote ages of consent to support insidious arguments, then at least give the whole picture. In Japan you argue that the age of consent is 13, but you omit to mention that prefectures can prohibit sexual activities with any minor under 18. Now – using the same kind of ‘straw argument’ rationale you have given regarding what constitutes an acceptable age for sexual activities, maybe we should determine adulthood based on the age of consent that can be applied by Japanese prefectures?

                      This report from Egypt highlights the kind of horrors that can arise if a society does not wholeheartedly endorse the age of consent, seek to educate men, and work towards protection of young girls.

                      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/31/egypt-cairo-women-rights-revolution

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 April 2013 at 9:26 pm

                      Also pretty damn certain that men are the ones who should be dealing with their problem with fantasising about young girls rather than arguing when their damaging fantasies might be ok. Rather selfish, imo.

                      No one I see has been arguing that it’s OK (apart from Ugly Truth of course). But you’ve perhaps confirmed that in your view that men having fantasies about young girls is a major problem, and not just the criminal acting out on it.

                    • rosy …
                      1 April 2013 at 9:34 pm

                      “But you’ve perhaps confirmed that in your view that men having fantasies about young girls is a major problem, and not just the criminal acting out on it.”

                      Sorry that I wrote it that way. The fantasies are a problem when there a plans to carry them out. That’s all.

                      I’m just getting sick to death of excuses about why it might be a reasonable proposition to argue about when it’s might be ok to use young girls this way without considering at all what the young girls might think about that.

                    • vto …
                      1 April 2013 at 9:37 pm

                      Sometimes this place gets like a public meeting with everybody talking at once.

                      taboo subjects though… sheesh…. she’s a brave man

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 April 2013 at 9:43 pm

                      Well a discussion needs to be had about how to identify and help de-risk certain adult men – especially while they are younger – before things turn into an irretrievable real harm criminal issue.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 April 2013 at 10:03 pm

                      OK so now the conversation is getting interesting.

                      Much earlier on the example of Bert Potter and CentrePoint was brought up. My first reaction was along the lines that in any meeting you can count on some poison dwarf piping up ” we tried that 30 years ago and it didn’t work!”.

                      Of course it wasn’t just Bert; there were lots of people involved in the counter-culture. They could see that all the shame, guilt and taboos they had grown up with around sexuality caused a great deal of harm. With Bert providing focus and leadership they envisioned that simply by turning the taboos off that the harm would go away. Of course it didn’t.

                      What Bert Potter did not, could not, understand was that he had left the patriarchal power structures underpinning the shame and taboos, untouched.While at the same time he was busy dismantling the mechanisms our society had evolved to moderate and mitigate unrestrained male power. Of course it ended badly.

                      But it’s interesting to imagine how things might have turned out if CentrePoint had been founded by a Betty Potter instead. (I know that takes a big spot of re-writing history … but bear with.)

                      Because the reality is that we can identify some contexts in which teenagers olds are able to engage in sexual activity with no harm, and others where clearly there is. In almost every case the context where there is harm, it is when a power or trust relationship is being misused. (Actually that’s true at all ages.) Yet where a teenager engages in sex entirely on his or her terms, in an environment which is fundamentally safe, even supportive, the outcome is almost always much less problematic.

                      A Betty Potter might well have focussed the energy of that community onto identifying and dismantling the prevailing power structure first. Essentially what we are calling nowadays naming “rape culture”. A Betty Potter might well have found that empowering the women in her community to own their own sexual agency, both individually and collectively, reclaiming their bodies and energies from the patriarchy, that she would have first and foremost created a safe environment for everyone, and most especially the vulnerable in her care.

                      And then subsequently if she could have found a way to align the sexual and social interests of men and women (analogous to the worker owned cooperatives I mentioned much earlier), CentrePoint may well have evolved in a different direction with a wholly different outcome.

                      Because in reality the patriarchy does not serve most men very well either. Ultimately if we can offer men a credible, more attractive alternative to the rape culture, they will cheerfully embrace it. And if we permit ourselves to glance over the parapet of history we can find, if we look in the right places, many examples of societies where child abuse and molestation were simply NOT problems. At least nothing on the scale that we are experiencing.

                      To put it simply, the grown-ups in these societies were not in the least interested in engaging with young people because there was no shortage of good adult affection and sex, no power structures to abuse and no motivation whatsoever to make a total arse of yourself in front of everyone by manipulating your attentions onto someone clearly not interested and who has the experience and confidence to say so.

                      Eliminating problems at source is always more effective than suppressing symptoms.

                    • rosy …
                      1 April 2013 at 10:04 pm

                      “Well a discussion needs to be had about how to identify and help de-risk certain adult men “

                      I’m guessing there is not a single person here who knows anything about how to de-risk these guys – unless someone wants to own up to experience – so the discussion hasn’t been about that.

                      It’s been about what constitutes a suitable age of exploitation. I rather think there might need to be a discussion about how difficult it is for girls to report unwanted sexual attention, non-informed consent and actual rape when men think they’re old enough to be up for it. I know that some of the comments upthread have reinforced my gut-feeling not to do so.

                      I think I need a bit of fresh air….

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 April 2013 at 10:30 pm

                      You state that you have “repeatedly made” the same argument that ‘it is wrong for adults to have sex with children’. On the contrary, I can’t read this in your comments and overall argument.

                      That is because you are reading for what you are expecting to see. You are expecting me to limit myself to the standard safe pronouncements about how very wrong and harmful teenage/adult sex is. The problem arises for everyone because I then go on to ask why is it wrong? What is the context that is making it harmful? Because it cannot just be the sex act.

                      Plenty of teenagers have sex with other teenagers with nothing more than the usual consequences. Yet to put it crudely what is fundamentally more dangerous about a 36 yr old penis than a 16 yr old one? There is none.

                      It is the wider social context, the abuse of trust, the misuse of power and the sense of manipulation and shame that must the be the locus of the harm. That is where it is worth putting our attention if we really want to change anything.

                      Rather than just spewing about it.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      1 April 2013 at 10:38 pm

                      I’m guessing there is not a single person here who knows anything about how to de-risk these guys – unless someone wants to own up to experience – so the discussion hasn’t been about that.

                      Finding a remedy involves knowing what the scope of the problem is. Jimmy Savile is just one example, there are plenty more.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 April 2013 at 10:52 pm

                      The developmental differences aren’t just about power, though. At the very least, a 36 y.o. who trawls for young teens knows the likely lifespan of the relationship. The teen likely thinks it’s permanent. The 36 y.o. knows the difference between love and infatuation, the teen doesn’t.

                      This is stuff people learn. It’s what age and fuckups teach you.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:01 pm

                      McFlock,

                      Agreed that is perfectly so. But it still boils down to an asymmetry of power; the 36 yr old having more knowledge and experience… and having done all this before.

                      And there is something to be said for respecting the fuckup process. We all make them, and none of us would be the same if we had not.

                    • just saying …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:02 pm

                      Rosy,

                      I pulled out when I realised that Red Logix was being disingenous and playing word games.

                      This subject matter and other sincere commenters deserve better.

                      Enjoy that fresh air

                    • marty mars …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:08 pm

                      well red you at last got to where you wanted to get to in the comments, you must be pleased.

                      red says, “Because the reality is that we can identify some contexts in which teenagers olds are able to engage in sexual activity with no harm”

                      red says, “what is fundamentally more dangerous about a 36 yr old penis than a 16 yr old one? There is none.”

                      reality? you are just spouting on from a very selfish, harmful attitude that has, and continues to cause unlimited suffering for the victims of old men with those same attitudes – fuck you and all old men with those attitudes.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:09 pm

                      No, different experience isn’t necessarily different power. Just more experience.
                      And we can already address that power. It’s called “gaining experience”. Also known as “age of consent”.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:09 pm

                      js,

                      Given that I’m the only person who has come anywhere close to proposing a way forward out of this mess … that is a pretty unfair call.

                      Of course this is an iccky, difficult and taboo topic. I’m not playing word games.

                      marty,

                      First prize for the most dishonest misquote of the night so far.

                      16 yr old girl has sex with 16 yr old boy. Fine, everybody happy. Same girl, 36 yr old guy …everybody unhappy. Now we know it is not because the 36 yr old has a much more dangerous penis. True?

                      Something else must be wrong here. What is it?

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:20 pm

                      you are just spouting on from a very selfish, harmful attitude that has, and continues to cause unlimited suffering for the victims of old men with those same attitudes

                      The church was always big on pushing sexual guilt.
                      Strangely enough they were big on child abuse, too.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:29 pm

                      Red,
                      What is “the way forward out of this mess”?
                      A way for adult men to shag young teens or well developed 11y.o. without causing them harm?

                      Why have that as a social objective?
                      Basically, the one lesson I really need to remember from my sex life is that if both people aren’t on the same page, it’s a problem.

                      Both people on the same page?
                      That is never going to happen when adults screw kids.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:41 pm

                      A way for adult men to shag young teens or well developed 11y.o. without causing them harm?

                      This is entirely something you have misread into my argument. Completely and utterly. You may want to think how you have made such a total reading comprehension error.

                      Why have that as a social objective?

                      I don’t. Absolutely do not.

                      My entire argument has been aimed at examining why this is such a common problem in our society, especially when we can point to other human societies where it is demonstrably not the case.

                      The crux of my argument was probably made in my comment at 10:03.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:50 pm

                      maybe the Tories have it right. Discussion is too complex and delving into root causes and darker aspects of psychology fraught with strife, discomfiture and misrepresentation. There’s no political gain in it and plenty of landmines. Just push a hard hitting 3 strikes style law through and make it easier for judges to put on sentences of preventative detention and throw away the key.

                      Also, ensure that anyone incarcerated on charges of sexually interfering with children receive no special protection or consideration in prison. They don’t deserve any, but they do deserve everything they do get coming to them. It would be such a shame to see such child abusing criminals hurt. Snigger. Nothing prevents crime like a good tough deterrence, after all.

                      This will even win votes from the wider electorate, who definitely don’t want to look at things too closely. Major bonus.

                      Next issue.

                    • McFlock …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:52 pm

                      When you say why “This” is a problem, what is “this”?

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 April 2013 at 11:57 pm

                      Mc Flock

                      By “this” is meant the subject of the thread; the pervasive harm being caused in our society due to 1 in 3 girls being abused.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      2 April 2013 at 12:00 am

                      maybe the Tories have it right.

                      That’s a bit like consulting the foxes about chicken security.

                      It’s not particularly complex, it just goes places people don’t want to admit.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 April 2013 at 12:08 am

                      Maybe I was distracted by the dangerous penis line.

                      It seems simple to me, though. Any adult who wants to have sex with a young teen is at fault, and ought to know this. Even if the teen looks well developed, or is made up for the nightclubs, as soon as the adult knows the child’s age they should know to say no. Easy fix: police, not public forums.

                      Someone made the comment about kids in history going to and even taking command in war. This doesn’t mean 15yo were once adults. It means kids have been treated like shit in history.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      2 April 2013 at 12:12 am

                      This doesn’t mean 15yo were once adults. It means kids have been treated like shit in history.

                      For most of human civilisation, life expectancy was around 40 years or less. How long you would you have liked them to wait McFlock?

                      FFS Lord Nelson was 12 when he joined the Royal Navy, and he came from a family of reasonable professional standing.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 April 2013 at 12:18 am

                      Cv
                      2 points:
                      That’s the life expectancy including neonate/postneonatal mortality.

                      Secondly, that doesn’t make it right.

                    • RedLogix …
                      2 April 2013 at 12:21 am

                      McFlock

                      We’ve been doing ‘police’ now for a very long time and the problem does not go away. Your ‘simple’ solution is not working. For anyone.

                      So how long do you think we should wait, how many more broken lives, before anyone considers that maybe a public discussion, however difficult, might be in order?

                      Really I would like you to answer that question.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      2 April 2013 at 12:24 am

                      as soon as the adult knows the child’s age they should know to say no. Easy fix: police, not public forums.

                      Good for business if nothing else.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 April 2013 at 12:29 am

                      When an mp calls for a public forum about men buying sex from 13y.o. rather than police action, no, we haven’t tried the police option. We still haven’t gotten our knees above the rape culture tide line.

                      Discussion? What outcome do you envisage from more discussion? All the jimmy savilles of the world suddenly stop and apologise?

                    • RedLogix …
                      2 April 2013 at 12:38 am

                      It appears that the Police are not entirely asleep at the switch here..

                      What do I expect from discussion? We aren’t talking just about the Jimmy Saville’s of this world. (Although as Ugly has hinted more than once, there is a special dimension to predators of his kind.)

                      It is the thousands of ordinary people, very mundane, otherwise mostly harmless people who find themselves sucked into this dark place. And telling them not to, prosecuting and reviling them has been about as successful as the War on Drugs. And for much the same reasons.

                      As long as we keep trying to suppress the symptom of the disease, the illness will continue to ravage unchecked.

                      Night all.

                    • locus …
                      2 April 2013 at 2:36 am

                      So here it is RedLogix – just a minor difference of emphasis – but with a fundamentally different outcome:

                      You believe that it is not really the sex act that we should focus on but the context that makes it harmful, and that it’s the abuse of trust, the misuse of power and the sense of manipulation and shame that must be the locus of the harm

                      Whereas I believe that it is the sex – with a much older (often trusted), person which is the source of the shame and harm, and that preventing the older person carrying out the sex act is exactly what we should focus on.

                      It is absolutely clear to me that were it not for the selfish desire and choice of the adult to gratify themselves sexually with a child, then there would be no need to discuss the adult’s misuse of power and manipulation.

                      If we’re to attempt to prevent the much older person from sexually exploiting a child or young teen or adolescent, then we need to bring about a change in values of that person.

                      The solution is not going to be a quick fix because to change a person’s values you have to make them fully understand, admit and accept that:
                      a) first and foremost: the sexual act is the source of the damage
                      b) the sexual behaviour of the adult is always a choice – and can always be avoided
                      c) the consequences are almost always damaging for the child
                      e) there is no conceivable context which makes it okay for a much older person to have sex with someone who is not an adult, i.e. a young person who is still developing both physically and emotionally
                      f) there is no justification that can excuse or balance what the person has done, e.g. I was kind and gentle; She/he wanted it /came on to me; It was in a safe and caring environment; I wanted to show my love; etc. etc)

                      So how do you achieve this change in values?

                      I’ve never argued that retribution would work – in fact few on this blog have advocated that. Where I think we might start is by raising awareness of the scale and severity of the problem, and by encouraging all responsible adults to question and challenge an opinion or humour that attempts to justify or normalise certain contexts for adults having sex with young teens.

                      More importantly, we need to give sufficient resources and support to research which can identify and publicise causes, consequences and preventive measures.

                    • rosy …
                      2 April 2013 at 3:19 am

                      We aren’t talking just about the Jimmy Saville’s of this world. (Although as Ugly has hinted more than once, there is a special dimension to predators of his kind.)

                      And why aren’t we talking about Jimmy Savile? He is the archetypical paeodophile, not something special. The only difference with Ol’ Jimmy is the number of opportunities he had and the number of children he abused. He’s exactly the kind of person to examine to understand the needs of men who want to have sex with children. He acted as paedophiles do – hiding in plain sight by making outrageously intimate gestures in front of people to see what he could get away with. In this manner the child learned two things – that it is normal, indeed it is important, to be nice to Uncle Jimmy and that there are boundaries that Uncle Jimmy has crossed in public that no-one else has crossed, but nobody pulled him up on it. It’s not much more of a step for Uncle Jimmy to cross a few more boundaries in private.

                      And here’s the rub… that nice smiling acceptance of Uncle Jimmy’s behaviour means that a child has no idea about whether what is happening is right or not until she (or he) is more mature. And every adult that smiled and accepted Jimmy’s intimate behaviour in public encouraged further sexual behaviour in private while at the same time taking away the child’s path for expressing distaste.

                      Interestingly in terms of a power relationship, the child is actually the person with power in this case. She just has to tell someone that Uncle Jimmy has gone too far, but who is she going to tell, everyone has said Uncle Jimmy is sooo nice. And therein is your problem with your Mary Potter fantasy. You’re not creating a safe environment for girls to not be shamed, you’ve made an enabling environment for paedophiles and encouraged children to be compliant.

                      Or are we talking about the mum’s boyfriend who thinks the kid is just a little bit hotter than the mum? Where does that fit into your scenario? What about Saliel Aplin, 12, and Olympia Jetson, 11? Just another everyday story of a very nasty kind of person who doesn’t control his urges? The only thing exceptional about Bruce Howse was his exceptional capacity to harm, not that he thought the girls were hotter than their mum – that’s another bog standard variety of men who want sex with kids.

                      If you want to understand how these people managed their deception maybe asking girls about such people will give you a bit more insight than only talking about what paedophiles need.

                      By concentrating on needs of men who want sex with kids you’ve lost sight of the kids. You’re only seeing girls in terms of mens’ needs, not their own need to be loved (not lusted after) and secure.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      2 April 2013 at 8:32 am

                      It is absolutely clear to me that were it not for the selfish desire and choice of the adult to gratify themselves sexually with a child, then there would be no need to discuss the adult’s misuse of power and manipulation.

                      Sexuality and domination are primal survival traits, and those traits are not governed by the same parts of the brain as for other desires. Selfishness is not the issue any more than people are selfish for breathing.

                      The heart of the issue is the reason why these primal traits do not result in criminal behaviour in the vast majority of people. The brain’s physiology (the triune brain model) hints at why this might be so. The usual kiddy-fiddler stereotype suggests that the elephant in the room is bigger than people are comfortable with.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      2 April 2013 at 9:00 am

                      The only difference with Ol’ Jimmy is the number of opportunities he had and the number of children he abused.

                      His social profile isn’t irrelevant. People with similar values and behaviours tend to associate with each other. Savile had a friendship with Charles Windsor and socialised with Margaret Thatcher. The English institutions are staffed with more than their share of child abusers, and history of institutional abuse of children is very dark.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 April 2013 at 2:50 pm

                      It is the thousands of ordinary people, very mundane, otherwise mostly harmless people who find themselves sucked into this dark place. And telling them not to, prosecuting and reviling them has been about as successful as the War on Drugs. And for much the same reasons.

                      Sucked into this dark place? Wow, the helplessness. Please tell me you’re talking about the kids, and not the adults who choose to abuse children.

                      Reviling is optional. I’d rather “revile” than “accept or minimise”, though.

                      The only real similarity between the war on child abuse and the war on drugs is that both are long term and likely permanent problems. It seems that even MPs are more likely to call the police about drug dealers than they are about adults paying for sex with children.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      2 April 2013 at 5:46 pm

                      Sucked into this dark place? Wow, the helplessness. Please tell me you’re talking about the kids, and not the adults who choose to abuse children.

                      Since I am guessing that you are familiar with modern concepts of addiction and obsessive behaviour and how they develop, I’m not sure why you’re putting on this faux outrage.

                      Frankly though, my “Sensible Sentencing Trust” style solution is politically superior.

                      locus said

                      If we’re to attempt to prevent the much older person from sexually exploiting a child or young teen or adolescent, then we need to bring about a change in values of that person.

                      Changing or preventing behaviour is the ultimate aim. Changing values may be a part of that, but I doubt that it will be the easiest or even the most realistic part.

                      Anyway, wouldn’t it be socially and professionally suicidal for a man who felt that he might one day pose a behavioural risk to children, to signal that in advance and pre-emptively come forward for support and values re-education?

                      Surely throwing the book at them once they’ve committed the crime is the only politically sensible thing to do.

                    • marty mars …
                      2 April 2013 at 6:17 pm

                      Come on cv who’s playing mr innocent now – I certainly thought the same as McFlock. I am sure we all know red was talking about the old men who are sexually attracted to children and teenagers.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      2 April 2013 at 6:39 pm

                      Yeah maybe he was talking about old men with an unhealthy behaviour towards younger girls.

                      But the key point (I believe) he has made is this: those “old men” likely developed from young men also with an unhealthy behaviour towards younger girls. And understanding what is behind that is the key to breaking the cycle early on, at root cause, before harmful behavioural problems manifest.

                    • RedLogix …
                      2 April 2013 at 8:36 pm

                      Seeing as how this thread is still alive I’ll finish my contribution with a few observations.

                      The first is that I’ve never been so pathologically misrepresented ever. Period. At every turn most commenters leapt the to wholly unwarranted assumption that I was variously minimising, apologising for, or attempting to justify harmful adult/child sexual relations.

                      Why? Simply because I was not sticking to the standard narrative. The same standard narrative that the data proves has massively failed. For this reason I simply asked some questions; why is it failing, what is it about adult/child sex that is so harmful, and why is this so prevalent in our society and not in others? A few simple questions intended to provoke some constructive discussion and I’m all but accused of being a paedophile myself.

                      Locus, despite predicating his argument on a physiological nonsense and the most inane hair-split I’ve seen in a long time, nonetheless correctly concludes that if we want to make any difference at all, we have to focus on the adult. And then makes a list of things about offenders that need to change.

                      I agree. Understanding the root causes, the motivations, the addictive aspects of this behaviour and the wider context in which it is perpetuated would be essential to such an endeavour.

                      Rosy on the other hand castigates me for …concentrating on needs of men who want sex with kids you’ve lost sight of the kids. You’re only seeing girls in terms of mens’ needs, not their own need to be loved (not lusted after) and secure. Fair enough on it’s own terms, but sheesh make up your minds.

                      Finally I have to thank CV for putting it all into a nutshell for me. All these older men came from younger men. The map of male sexual preferences and behaviour is pretty much fixed early in life, and there is something about our society that is setting far too many young man off onto this aberrant path. None of this is occurring in isolation from our wider social and sexual mores. But from the reaction I’ve been getting however, it’s plain most people don’t want to look.

                      I’m going to wrap it here.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      2 April 2013 at 8:53 pm

                      Redlogix, I’ve found it refreshing to read someone who has got a handle on the issues and doesn’t follow the crowd. All the best.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      2 April 2013 at 9:20 pm

                      “All these older men came from younger men. The map of male sexual preferences and behaviour is pretty much fixed early in life, and there is something about our society that is setting far too many young man off onto this aberrant path. None of this is occurring in isolation from our wider social and sexual mores. But from the reaction I’ve been getting however, it’s plain most people don’t want to look.”

                      Red, I haven’t read much of the past few days of this thread, but I’m certainly up for discussing the above at another time. IMO it’s core to the various issues that arose in this discussion.

                    • marty mars …
                      2 April 2013 at 9:26 pm

                      Well seeing as though you started your contribution with a reply to one of my comments I might say a last word too.

                      Red you have not listened to the other contributors and continue to be disingenuous in your comments. You complain about being misrepresented but you wrote the words and they were fairly interpreted by multiple people. You have focused on old men and their sexual desires toward young girls and haven’t considered any of the evidence that others have put detailing the harm that comes from such encounters. You have shown a callous disregard in your comments for those young girls, women in general and men who don’t see the world as you have been presenting it. You have been less than honest in this discussion and are the poorer and weaker for it.

                    • rosy …
                      2 April 2013 at 9:57 pm

                      “Fair enough on it’s own terms, but sheesh make up your minds.”

                      Because opposition to what you have presented has to be group think? The two views are not exclusive though – you can have as a priority working to ensure men don’t impinge on children’s rights without losing sight of the kids. Not a single comment of yours has addressed how kids can be safe, at best you assume it will be so. Hence the ‘losing sight of them’ remark.

                      I do see that you’re not advocating sex with kids is ok, but I feel you’re fudging and I believe that leaving the kids out of the solution means no solution. Obviously I have bias given my gender and experience – I get that.

                      So, to make it clear… imo:
                      1. As adults we need to ensure children are safe.

                      2. Men having loving relationships with women won’t preclude some men from having sex with kids.

                      3. The Betty Potter method, imo, removes the voice of children.

                      4. Identifying young men who will offend is the key, yes. How to do this without stigmatising all men and or young teens that have sex together has not been addressed at all in this thread, because none of us are qualified to know. I would suggest ensuring children have a safe environment and willing ears of adults is the best way of identifying paedophiles that Mr & Ms Average have got at the moment. Psychologists and other specialists may, of course have much better options. Why aren’t we using them, if they’re available? This is where a power dynamic may come into play – e.g. it’s just kids, just domestic a domestic matter, protecting men, protectin institutions and so on.

                      5. Another problem with your scenarios is that you seem to swap between a. sex with kids is some kind of natural preference that if we take away the power dynamic will be acceptable, or b. we need to change these men through changing society.

                      6. There are treatment options available already, so we do have some solutions. They are however, not 100% effective. Nor will your scenario because – see 2 above and because it normalises adult behaviour without thinking about what this might mean to kids when they are old enough to process what has happened… especially because although kids might be curious about sex they are unlikely prefer to explore this curiosity with adults and probably have no idea that this might lead to actual sex acts. Non-sexual affection and sense of security with older adults is crucial for kids to express themselves and establish healthy relationships later on.

                      7. How do we ensure children’s safety while identification (a method that doesn’t stigmatise and victimise young men is another question) and de-risking is taking place and what do we do when men cannot be de-risked?

                      These are my concerns and incarceration of the offender in a safe environment, whether through prosecution or the health system (depending on how you feel about retribution) seems to me to be the option that keeps kids safe. Believe it or not, I feel sorry for some of these guys, not all… like most behaviours, there are a variety of reasons for carrying them out. Not everyone is an evil bastard, some people have emotional problems and cannot relate to adult women (and this is where Betty Potter might just work), or unlucky enough not to be attractive to them, and some just plain unlucky that this is their preference. I’m sure there are other plenty of other reasons.

                    • rosy …
                      2 April 2013 at 11:12 pm

                      Ooops. I don’t mean to carry this on, but I forgot arguably one of the most important characteristics that links child abusers and child victims and the most important reason not ignore children in all this talk about the whys and wherefores and what to dos:

                      Researchers have found that parents with a history of childhood sexual victimization are at an estimated risk 10 times greater for having a sexually abused child

                      http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/child-sexual-abuse.aspx

                      Worth a read.

  17. freedom 17
    28 March 2013 at 3:58 pm

    i’m puzzled

    How is it the government can openly proclaim a total value of 5-7 billion for what they expect to receive from the sale of [four things that do not belong to them] yet are unable to state expected returns of any individual sale, due to reasons of “commercial sensitivity” ?

    • Pete 17.1
      28 March 2013 at 4:01 pm

      Well, of course it’s all quite clear. The returns are all guaranteed because … hey look over there!

      • ghostrider888 17.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 4:21 pm

        yes. “hacks chux” indeed; hmmm, wonder who gets to scrape the bottom of the jar…

    • mickysavage 17.2
      28 March 2013 at 5:16 pm

      Good question and my understanding was that Solid Energy was thought to be worth $1 – 1.5 billion.
      Book value for MRP is $3 billion, for Meridian $4.8 billion and for Genesis $1.8 billion. This totals $10 billion or so and 49% puts you at $5 billion.

      I am sure the current valuations are way less. Meridian’s announcement on Rio Tinto today would have put a whole bunch of cats amongst a big flock of pidgins.

  18. Morrissey 18
    28 March 2013 at 5:22 pm

    “After a comedy show, one is often mobbed by the ladies”
    Angry boyfriends target Tall Poppy Andrew Clay
    The Panel, Radio NZ National, Thursday 28 April 2013
    Jim Mora, Andrew Clay, Lisa Scott

    Andrew Clay is a comedian, who a couple of years ago was paid to go to Afghanistan, ostensibly to entertain New Zealand’s occupation troops, but in fact to ensure he never again uttered a critical word about government policy. His comedic comrade MIKE KING was similarly co-opted, and even made a ridiculous television program about his trip. Clay likes to say he is a liberal, but every time he appears on The Panel he manages to froth and rave against such irritating trivialities as prisoners’ rights, or even human rights in general. Maybe he’s been out drinking with soldiers too often….

    JIM MORA: We start with the very sad story of Jesse Ryder, who is in an induced coma after a very bad assault in Christchurch early this morning.

    ANDREW CLAY: This is where I STOP being a liberal. I don’t CARE about the human rights of people who do this. Part of me just wants to HURT the people who did this to Jesse Ryder. Now I know I shouldn’t say that, but that’s the way I feel.

    MORA: Mmmm, mmmm.

    LISA SCOTT: Mmmmm.

    ANDREW CLAY: We shouldn’t talk like that about people but….

    LISA SCOTT: It’s okay for scum.

    JIM MORA: Hmmmmmm…. We have this ugly thing in the New Zealand male psyche that makes us pick fights with sports stars, don’t we.

    LISA SCOTT: It’s the Tall Poppy syndrome isn’t it.

    ANDREW CLAY: It sure is. I’ve experienced it myself. After a comedy show, one is often mobbed by the ladies, and I have more than once felt the angry looks of male punters. Although I’ve never actually been assaulted, I’ve felt in imminent danger on several occasions and had to walk away. It’s the Tall Poppy syndrome.

    JIM MORA: [politely dubious] Hmmmmmm….

    LISA SCOTT: [skeptical] Mmmmmmm…

    ….4:30 News and Weather….

    Soapbox……

    MORA: Okay, here’s where we find out what our Panelists have been thinking about. Andrew Clay, what’s been on your mind lately?

    ANDREW CLAY: I want to talk about Cambodia…. [He speaks for several minutes about how horrified he was to recently learn that the Khmer Rouge had been supported by the United States, Great Britain, and their vassals like Australia and New Zealand.] …. and to think that the Khmer Rouge was SUPPORTED by the United States for political reasons! It just does my head in!

    MORA: [thoughtfully] It was ever thus, though, wasn’t it. Lisa, what’s been on YOUR mind?

    LISA SCOTT: I’ve been reading about Hugh Hefner. He’s just so horrible. I learned two interesting things about him: he eats chicken noodles every day and he has the world’s largest scrapbook collection.

    MORA: He’s a scrap-booker is he?

    LISA SCOTT: Yes.

    ANDREW CLAY: Look whatever you think of him, Hugh Hefner did an awful lot of GOOD. He was fighting against a hypocritical society. He was a liberal hero.

    LISA SCOTT: [politely skeptical] Hmmmmmmmm….

    • Murray Olsen 18.1
      28 March 2013 at 6:47 pm

      If one incident can stop someone being a liberal, they never were one, not that liberal is a worthwhile status to aspire to anyway.

      • Morrissey 18.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 9:16 pm

        Absolutely correct, Murray. To adapt a well-known Maori proverb: The kumara doesn’t say how liberal it is.

  19. Colonial Viper 19
    28 March 2013 at 9:28 pm

    I’ve been banned from commenting on QoTs posting on underage prostitution in South Auckland, which is her perogative and one I respect as she is the author.

    I will make one last comment on the subject here in the Freedonia that OM represents – that it is my belief is that the immediate way ahead (over the next month or two) is to lobby and pressure the decision makers within CYFS, WINZ, the police, parliament, and the city council on co-ordinating and strictly enforcing existing laws and bringing the perps to justice while supporting the young victims of the crimes. Face to face meetings, letter writing, phone calls, letters to the editor, petitions, interviews with journalists etc.

    If people want to change what they see as ‘rape culture’ within society, they can of course go ahead and do that over the next 20 years. But this specific problem and these specific children at risk will not wait for a bunch of complex abstractions and intellectualisations to be defined and refined on some internet blog.

    • QoT 19.1
      28 March 2013 at 9:35 pm

      All of those things *are* challenging rape culture, CV. Unless you’re so fucking narrow-minded that you think you can magically get those agencies to care and act on this issue in a consistent, sustained way without challenging the attitudes and narratives they have – i.e. rape culture.

      But go ahead, bag the people like me who are actually pointing this shit out if that makes you feel totally ~real~.

      • Colonial Viper 19.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 9:45 pm

        You attribute to “rape culture” what might also be attributable to decision makers having to deal with a simultaneous flood of competing priorities in an environment of extremely scarce resources.

        But I wouldn’t want to accuse you of ignoring blatantly simple and alternative (or potentially complementary) explanations to the problems we see happening in South Auckland.

        • QoT 19.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 9:50 pm

          Because people prioritise things on a completely random lottery. Bias doesn’t exist. Political pressure has no effect. Media hype does nothing. God, if life were but that simple.

          • V de Plume 19.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 10:05 pm

            I’m sure it’s a complete coincidence that so many decision makers put such a low priority on dealing with rape (and associated issues), and that so many members of the public accept that.

            I mean, after all, if there were some kind of pervasive societal attitudes at play, surely someone would have noticed that and come up with a term to describe it?

            • Colonial Viper 19.1.1.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 10:34 pm

              “Pervasive societal attitudes”? Do you really believe that? Well good luck getting the votes you need to make a change in a functioning democracy then.

              • marty mars …
                29 March 2013 at 9:40 am

                hey I know why don’t you call it rape culture – cv you can coin it and then you’ll believe it, probably

              • Ennui …
                2 April 2013 at 9:58 am

                CV, I left the conversation on QOTs “story” before being banned which was highly likely because I did not immediately accept “rape culture” as a theory, and because I questioned the whole premise of NZ First males going to “meetings of moral outrage” then cruising off to do a rape. That seemed rather scurrilous.

                I was surprised by the number of regular bloggers who were vehemently accepting of “rape culture”, so I gave the concept some credence, not having heard the term before. I went away and read, and read and read. To cut a long story short I think there is substantial credence BUT you also have to be accepting of other feminist theory such as patriarchy. Like any sectarian view there was some substantial internal disagreement.

                Myself, I think we have a rape and violence problem, how “cultural” that is I am going to leave open to doubt (probably because I don’t put any faith in the rationalsit theories of economists and philosophers of both left and right, and any subsequent theories built upon that quicksand). It is in the eye of the beholder, if people want to call it rape culture I now know where they are driving toward.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  2 April 2013 at 10:46 am

                  Hey Ennui. You’re smarter and more patient than me. I boiled that “conversation” down to: if you’re not part of what we have defined as rape culture and our solutions to it, you’re clearly part of the problem of rape culture (whether consciously or unconsciously).

                  And if we point out your shortfalls and misconceptions, but you still insist on holding a different point of view or idea model to ours, you’re then clearly not simply an ignorant passive component of rape culture, but an active supporter of rape culture (and naturally of rape). Everyone else around can then happily take the moral high ground.

                  I use the term “conversation” loosely because on that basis there’s really not that much discussion left that can be had. At that point being banned is an entirely natural consequence. And so it played out.

                  • Ennui …
                    2 April 2013 at 11:18 am

                    CV, not sure if I am smarter or more patient: I have actually developed a degree of impatience with absolutist viewpoints. They tend towards coercion rather than persuasion. We on the “Left” have a habit of calling Right wing absolutists “f****sts. Reading columns here the “Left” have an equal propensity (and a lack of circumspect) to the position of absolutist Commissars. It is a dreary prospect which the column in question played out to the full..

                    • marty mars …
                      2 April 2013 at 12:36 pm

                      I know you probably don’t want my view but…

                      I think you are both holding grudges because your voice/opinions weren’t given the weight and respect you think they were due. It is actually okay to be called out when lines are crossed, we all have been and it is okay to express viewpoints as we all do but sometimes those viewpoints don’t add anything they are just rehashed points based on privilege and with very little knowledge of the (usually) oppression being discussed and they derail the discussion. An analogy is what I say to people on the spit that when we are saving the stranded whales at some point we leave it to the experts because if a whale smashes a (trying to help and do their best for all the right reasons) person then we have to rescue the person not the whale and the whole point is actually to rescue the whale. Part of the reason pgeorge derailed everything was that he had an opinion (that must be heard and in his opinion deserved the same weight as people who knew about the subject) on everything even things he didn’t know anything about. Both of you two have very good viewpoints on many things – but not everything and at some point listening is the way to go not talking. Move on guys.

                    • Ennui …
                      2 April 2013 at 1:14 pm

                      Mars, sure I hold a grudge. Mostly it is because I am “told” as opposed to “persuaded”. You might note I gave credence to what I was being “told”, did the reading and was still not “persuaded”. Which is fine, as you say move on.

                    • marty mars …
                      2 April 2013 at 1:27 pm

                      oh bored you were so much more interesting before you got the pricker and changed your name.

                      btw that is me getting the pricker because you called me mars

    • McFlock 19.2
      28 March 2013 at 9:37 pm

      Seriously?
      You got barred from a thread because you didn’t realise that opposing rape culture involves doing everything/anything in that list, and anything else that springs to mind? Not least of which is calling out victim-blaming: it’s used to portray rapists as uninvolved or passive parties to the rape.

      Edit: sorry for sticking my oar in, qot. Nice article, too.

      • QoT 19.2.1
        28 March 2013 at 9:45 pm

        No worries, McFlock. It is the Open Mike, after all.

      • Colonial Viper 19.2.2
        28 March 2013 at 9:50 pm

        Sure, because anything for, is for rape culture, and any actions against, is against rape culture. I should have learnt the formula earlier.

        Bad on me for being slow and thinking that it was just standard political lobbying to get standard shit done in a democracy, like forcing authorities to pay attention to stuff they have been dropping the ball on.

        Not least of which is calling out victim-blaming:

        Other peeps have victim blamed McF. Me, I want criminal action taken against the perps.

        • McFlock 19.2.2.1
          28 March 2013 at 10:07 pm

          “Criminal action” with a judge like uglytruth is not much use.

          Political lobbying is part of it. Not all of it.

          • muzza 19.2.2.1.1
            29 March 2013 at 9:48 am

            McFlock you have it backwards (or not been paying attention, or perhaps could not understand what UT was educating on, or a combo), in your slander of UT, son!

            A recall of a post by UT, somewhere in one of the threads, this OM, it was aimed at you , McFlock!

            Common law penalty for rape – Death!

            A correction is in order, as a minimum!

            • rosy 19.2.2.1.1.1
              29 March 2013 at 9:57 am

              Not really Muzza.

              You missed the bit where Ugly thinks young girls are consenting, therefore it isn’t rape

              • muzza …
                29 March 2013 at 10:29 am

                Are you McFlock !

              • marty mars …
                29 March 2013 at 10:35 am

                exactly rosy – what about that gem muzza? I suppose if daddy does it it can’t be rape under any circumstances under this ‘common law’ shit.

                • muzza …
                  29 March 2013 at 10:58 am

                  Yeah it was rather telling, my comment wasn’t it Marty…take a stab at how!

                  UT’s comments have gone way over your head, and plenty of others on here too,

                  Go read what I said about reactions, then perhaps evaluate your own!

                  • marty mars …
                    29 March 2013 at 11:03 am

                    for someone who is so against academia it’s amazing how you want the discussion to be all dispassionate and dry. Ugly’s comments haven’t gone ‘over my head’ muzza I just think they are are symptom of rape culture which I oppose.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      31 March 2013 at 2:21 pm

                      How is promotion of the death penalty for rape a symptom of rape culture, marty?

                    • McFlock …
                      31 March 2013 at 2:35 pm

                      I think marty might have been thinking more of your comments as to how screwing children might not necessarily count as rape. In fact, demanding extreme punishments for rape while redefining “rape” almost out of existence is pretty typical rape culture.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      2 April 2013 at 11:35 am

                      My argument regarding rape is that consent is about intent and understanding, not age. I don’t see how that defines anything out of existence.

                    • marty mars …
                      2 April 2013 at 5:08 pm

                      lol you really are floundering aren’t you ugly. McFlock has defined the argument very well and you can’t even get your head around it because you are so caught up in your little world – go back to arguing about the horse mate that at least fits your capacity for understanding.

              • Ugly Truth …
                29 March 2013 at 10:44 am

                Why don’t you quote what I said, rosy? Your link doesn’t go to any post of mine.

        • AsleepWhileWalking 19.2.2.2
          29 March 2013 at 9:27 am

          Criminal action would be much more likely to succeed if we didn’t have Judith Collins as a minister, ignoring the recommendation of the law commission to alter processes for rape victims:

          http://thehandmirror.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/terrible-news-for-rape-survivors.html

          Attitude change starts with the law and it’s application. Those working in this area know full well that it is close to impossible to get a conviction given the inherent bias of the system. Collins at present embodies rape culture, somewhat of an issue given her portfolio’s which would make her the perfect focal point for a campaign.

          • Ugly Truth 19.2.2.2.1
            31 March 2013 at 2:18 pm

            Prejudice is unavoidable within NZ’s civil system. The rational solution is to revert to the judicial system that existed before civil practice became the norm. The common law court was originally a fairly straightforward matter of the contesting parties and their supporters making oaths in the presence of the hundred.

  20. Ugly Truth 20
    29 March 2013 at 9:42 am

    Common law as the law of the land. (From post 16)

    law of the land:
    Due process of law (q. v.). By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. Dupuy v. Tedora, 204 La. 560, 15 So.2d 886, 89I: The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of general rules which govern society..- ‘See Due process of law. (Blacks 5th)

    lex terre
    The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

    common law
    As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. (Blacks 5th)

    LAW, COMMON. The common law is that which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. It has never received the sanction of the legislature, by an express act, which is the criterion by which it is distinguished from the statute law. It has never been reduced to writing; by this expression, however, it is not meant that all those laws are at present merely oral, or communicated from former ages to the present solely by word of mouth, but that the evidence of our common law is contained in our books of Reports, and depends on the general practice and judicial adjudications of our courts. (Bouvier’s 1856)

    The NZ Parliament misrepresents common law as simply being case law:

    The elements of the constitution are often defined by important Court judgments under the common law (which is the law declared or “created” by judges) and under statutes.
    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/AC9829DF-32D8-4569-A672-FFEFA2BC6278/6641/2005Constitutionupdate1.pdf

    The common law, which is a body of law built up from decisions made in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand. Developments made by New Zealand courts mean that New Zealand now differs from the United Kingdom on some aspects of the common law.
    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-new-zealand-legal-system

    • karol 20.1
      29 March 2013 at 10:08 am

      Yep, wanting to turn back the clock to a time when fathers dominated the household and women and children were their property.

      I’m glad NZ has developed it’s own version of common law.

      Blacks 5th. Is that it? Looks like a US interpretation of “common law”. to complete Ugly’s quote:

      which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. [it goes on] The “Common law” is allmmon law” is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American Revolution.

      Bouvier’s 1856: also written by an (originally French then) American. A 19th century intepretation of the law, and written when patriarchy was in full swing, and at a particular point in the evolution of common law and its application to the governance of rising nation states..

      I get it, you’ve picked up on some US libertarians stuff that is anti-state control, pro- individual liberty plus very property ownership.

      Can’t get the links to embed:
      http://www.christiancommonlaw-gov.org/usa/clerk/CLCUSA/Definitions/Black's5th.htm

      http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-601/Bouvier-John-1787-1851.aspx

  21. Ugly Truth 21
    29 March 2013 at 10:31 am

    Yep, wanting to turn back the clock to a time when fathers dominated the household and women and children were their property.

    Under the common law a husband inflicting violence against his wife was prohitibited. There was no such restriction in the civil law at the time, according to Blackstone.

    I get it, you’ve picked up on some US libertarians stuff that is anti-state control, pro- individual liberty plus very property ownership.

    I’m using US dictionaries simply because it’s convenient. The libertarian ideal depends on the nature of law, so the state’s dishonesty is an important factor in obtaining a rational view of the statist/libertarian ideologies.

  22. karol 22
    29 March 2013 at 10:47 am

    Under the common law a husband inflicting violence against his wife was prohitibited.

    So that would be common law as it had evolved by the 19th century. and yet, plenty will attest to its widespread occurrence, based in the ideal that the father was the law in the household. In my googling today, for instance, I came across some references that said by about the 1850s, common law had outlawed rape. But it wasn’t til later in the 20th century that it was made illegal in a way that began to have some teeth.

    From the article I linked to above “Patriarchy and Violence” in the Journal of the Evangelical and Theological Society (not one I’d expect to be critiquing patriarchy, but there you go). [ the numbers int he quotes related to the well-referenced footnotes, indicating an in depth examination of relevant literature and historical material.]

    For centuries, Anglo-American common law granted the husband the right as head of the household to beat his wife as long as he did not cause permanent damage.73 In a detailed analysis of the legal history of wife beating in the west, Yale law professor Reva Siegal notes, “As master of the household, a husband could command his wife’s obedience, and subject her to corporeal punishment or ‘chastisement’ if she defied his authority.”74 Thus our English phrase “the rule of thumb” came from English common law which declared that a man could beat his wife as long as the rod he used was no larger than his thumb. By the late nineteenth century the American legal system had rescinded a husband’s right of corporeal punishment of his wife. But until the rise of feminism in the latter part of the twentieth century, domestic violence was not consistently prosecuted because of patriarchal presuppositions.

    You seem to have no end of optimism about the fair way common law worked before the state got involved. It was patriarchal; it evolved out of a patriarchal and highly stratified society. Some of it was a good basis for contemporary laws of nation states; some if it needed to be replaced or revised to support the less powerful against the powerful.

    • Ugly Truth 22.1
      29 March 2013 at 11:26 am

      plenty will attest to its widespread occurrence [violence against wives], based in the ideal that the father was the law in the household

      That ideal wasn’t part of the common law, which emphasised the value of the well-being of the people. It most probably originated with Roman law, which made some inroads into English common law over time. This is consistent with Anglo-American common law having a more harsh attitude towards wives, as the influence of Roman law on the US institutions is extensive, to the extent that they share the same symbols for power.

      some if it needed to be replaced or revised to support the less powerful against the powerful.

      Yes, this was primarily the development of the courts of equity, which provided relief in matters of conscience.

      • karol 22.1.1
        29 March 2013 at 11:39 am

        So, there is no one common law that can be referred to as THE one, because much of the pre-Roman common law was not written down but was part of oral culture? As can be seen, it developed over time as the outcome of various struggles, and this has continued into the present day following the rise of nation states.

        I can’t see how you can point to any definitive set of common laws that would over-ride the rule of law in present day NZ. And the original common law was still that arising from a patriarchal society – especially if it was proclaiming the father as protector of the family – in practice, a pretty mythical concept probably then as in post-Roman times.

        • Ugly Truth 22.1.1.1
          29 March 2013 at 12:01 pm

          I can’t see how you can point to any definitive set of common laws that would over-ride the rule of law in present day NZ.

          The common law doesn’t have to be definitive in order to be effective. The common law focuses on intangibles like justice, intent, reason, and good and evil, and changes as circumstances change, It’s possible to obtain an understanding of what it is by looking at the original legal code of King Alfred the Great, who established English common law, and by looking at the maxims of common law and equity.

          The term “rule of law” is sometimes misused to imply that those with apparent power have authority. The question of whether on not the common law is consistent with the rule of law comes down to the issue of who actually has the authority to sanction the rules.

          Rule of law. A legal principle, of general application, sanctioned by the recognition of authorities, and usually expressed in the form of a maxim or logical proposition. Called a “rule,” because in doubtful or unforeseen cases it is a guide or norm for their decision. The rule of law, sometimes called “the supremacy of law”, provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application.
          Blacks 5th edition.

          According to the common law the authority, while ultimately belonging to deity, is in the hands of the people.

      • ianmac 22.1.2
        29 March 2013 at 11:58 am

        My reading of the influence of Roman Law was superseded over the 5-7 Centuries by the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in countries like Ireland. Up till then Ireland elected their “Kings” (4 kingdoms) and all people got to vote including women. Women could be doctors, lawyers or anything. Religious institutions were for men and women. Law was about restitution and reconciliation rather than punishment. But slowly common law became about punishment and retribution and women’s place diminished. Monasteries were separated into male and female institutions. Women became second class.
        That’s my take on the evolution of gender class anyway.

        • Ugly Truth 22.1.2.1
          29 March 2013 at 12:28 pm

          ianmac,

          My interpretation of events is that the Roman empire never died, it simply became a religio-political institution which extended its influence via the Anglican church to encompass the Angl-American empire.
          Sexual equality was a feature of Etruscan culture which was subsumed by Rome. It’s from the Etruscans we get the word ‘person’. The Etruscans had a different word for a free man. Possibly Etruscan culture had made its way to Ireland before the Chruch arrived there.

    • Murray Olsen 22.2
      1 April 2013 at 12:52 am

      Ugly doesn’t seem to have much idea about real life at all. He might as well be one of the “faux academics” he caricatures.

  23. big brother and the screw u co 23
    30 March 2013 at 12:32 am

    The new fascist credit sharing of your info with the biggest parasites in the finance industry you know the ones 40 years ago who use to repo your car at ten at night or before you went to work in the morning usually with a large persuader in the form of a wrestler or someone for hire with no name got the picture
    These thugs now are respectable legal and powerful and who knows who they will be able to swap your credit history to
    So now what do we do about another money rope being put round the neck of the ordinary person who will never know who or what is tweeking their credit rating and for why because we just wont have the time to be run around and around by further strangling of the freedom of information by the corporates who can afford to pay their legal watch dogs so they dont get caught delaying any obligation to stop bullshiting the poor and the everyday customer at any corporate outlet about any decision they make as to whether you are creditworthy
    So where do we go for protection ………?

    • Ugly Truth 23.1
      31 March 2013 at 2:08 pm

      Protection isn’t a one-way street. Knowledge of how the law works is essential.
      The law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

  24. The Al1en 24
    1 April 2013 at 11:44 pm

    Fed up with topic derailing common law arguments and 13 year old girls being forced into prostitution under our noses being used as point scorer?

    Then join me in finding a laugh in the most depressing of places.

    No offence to the contributor, just funny words I saw in the black and white that set off an unrelated mental picture.

    The lament of the hardcore internet wanker.

    “the one lesson I really need to remember from my sex life is that if both people aren’t on the same page, it’s a problem.”

  25. The Al1en 25
    2 April 2013 at 5:20 pm

    It was a ‘you don’t have anything I want to hear, don’t engage with me’ sort of fuck off. 😉

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.