Open mike 26/03/2025

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 26th, 2025 - 23 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

23 comments on “Open mike 26/03/2025 ”

  1. Bill Drees 1
    26 March 2025 at 7:21 am

    With the Poms inviting USA into the Commonwealth thingy, the Yanks making a mockery of Five Eyes and NZ's Monarch soon welcoming Trump to his Palace do we really really want to be have the Union Jack on our flag?

    Reply
    • mikesh 1.1
      26 March 2025 at 7:54 am

      I thought at the time of John Key's efforts to change the flag that the best alternative would have been a white southern cross, in the centre of the flag, against a dark blue background.

      Reply
      • Gareth Wilson 1.1.1
        26 March 2025 at 7:20 pm

        The simplest new design for the flag is just to change all the blue to black. Now it's in the Maori black-white-red colours, technically doesn't include the Union Jack, and is easily distinguished from the Australian flag.

        Reply
    • gsays 1.2
      26 March 2025 at 8:42 am

      Not answering yr question but it always raises a smile when I see a Lazer Kiwi flag in foreign crowds.

      Reply
    • weka 1.3
      26 March 2025 at 10:28 am

      I would have thought being part of the Commonwealth was more important now than before, given what is happening globally.

      Reply
      • Bill Drees 1.3.1
        26 March 2025 at 12:08 pm

        Commonwealth is a shimmering used as a fig leaf for England's decline.
        It has a budget smaller than Invercargill Council.

        Its members make a mockery of its principles. Our continuing membership is silly.

        Reply
        • weka 1.3.1.1
          26 March 2025 at 12:27 pm

          would you rather were severed our ties with other Commonwealth countries?

          Reply
          • Bill Drees 1.3.1.1.1
            26 March 2025 at 12:57 pm

            We have diplomatic relationships with most countries in the world. Being in the Commonwealth has little effect on our diplomatic foot print.

            The Commonwealth costs us $5m a year, a figure that indicates how relatively insignificant the organisation is.

            Reply
            • weka 1.3.1.1.1.1
              26 March 2025 at 4:24 pm

              I repeat, would you rather were severed our ties with other Commonwealth countries? I'm not talking the kind of diplomatic relationships we have with countries generally.

              Reply
    • Nic the NZer 1.4
      26 March 2025 at 5:59 pm

      This would be entirely counter-productive. The flag would quickly turn into a culture war issue distracting from the numerous failings of the present government.

      Reply
    • tWig 2.1
      26 March 2025 at 12:21 pm

      Further in, Garson, makes a great philosophical point about the difference between universals and and absolutes (19 min). Universalism includes everyone, imagining a co-existence; whereas absolutism says I am right, you are wrong, and denies co-existence.

      Worth the listen.

      Reply
  3. Visubversa 3
    26 March 2025 at 1:41 pm

    Suppressing accurate speech about biological reality can be expensive.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9vr4vjzgqo

    "The University of Sussex has been fined £585,000 by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), for failing to uphold freedom of speech.

    It follows the case of Prof Kathleen Stock, who left the university in 2021 after being accused of transphobia for her views on sex and gender issues."

    Reply
  4. Dennis Frank 4
    26 March 2025 at 3:50 pm

    Quite a test of the right of free speech here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/25/the-north-dakota-ruling-against-greenpeace-is-a-threat-to-free-speech

    The legal tactic being used against the Greenpeace movement is a classic example of what’s known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (Slapp). Slapps are frequently used by wealthy people and corporations – in this case, the oil and gas industry – to silence constitutionally protected free speech.

    Rather than a good faith attempt to seek remedies for harm, the goal of these lawsuits is often to bury the defendant in legal fees and waste their time on frivolous litigation. When used to silence criticism – including from whistleblowers, journalists and environmental advocacy organizations like Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International – they essentially function as a tax on free speech by making it too expensive to speak truth to power. These abusive legal tactics can be used to sue critics into bankruptcy, and they serve as a threat to anyone who may want to speak up in the future.

    Although 34 states and the District of Columbia have passed anti-Slapp laws, North Dakota is not one of them. And, while support for federal anti-Slapp legislation is growing in the US, there is currently no federal law on the books. That means that corporations can continue threatening abusive lawsuits in federal court or in states without protections.

    • Sushma Raman is the interim executive director of Greenpeace USA
    • Anthony Romero is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union

    Good to see these two reporting the situation in the British news media. Likely to become a credibility test for the US Supreme Court, I suspect. Younger generations world-wide will then judge the judges on the outcome!

    Reply
  5. weka 5
    26 March 2025 at 4:40 pm

    Another facepalm moment for the Greens. Not because Tamatha Paul doesn't have important things to say about policing, but because she seems to not be getting the support to know how her work is coming across in public.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/549783/green-mp-tamatha-paul-doubles-down-on-criticism-of-police

    What I'd like to have heard her say is that different parts of NZ society experience policing very differently, and while some people find police reassuring, there are those for whom police presence on the streets makes them feel unsafe. She can then lead into the experiences of her constituents as a way of explaining what that means.

    Speaking at a student panel on alternatives to policing needs to be done as if she is representing GP policy, not speaking as a radical student. If we want to change policing in NZ, then we need leaders who can explain alternatives in ways that the wider population can make sense of.

    Reply
    • Incognito 5.1
      26 March 2025 at 5:18 pm

      I think context is key. In this interview, Tamatha Paul explained herself quite well without being defensive about her previous comments. I see a person with strong convictions about justice and fairness who’s not afraid to challenge the powers that be and status quo. The interviewer [??] tried hard to land a blow but couldn’t.

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360629236/green-mp-discusses-her-beat-policing-comments

      Reply
      • aj 5.1.1
        26 March 2025 at 6:56 pm

        Headline. Damage done, too late.

        Reply
      • weka 5.1.2
        26 March 2025 at 7:17 pm

        she's very good there. I don't think Stuff tried particularly hard to land a blow, but did ask pertinent questions around what Paul has been doing.

        Here's the problem though. The Greens are coming across in the media generally as being loose units. There are some limits on what they can do about that because of how the MSM reports, but there are things within their control. Their comms has long been their weak point and I think how Paul has been managing that hasn't helped. I don't know what the solution is, but the party really needs to sort this stuff out.

        Reply
        • Incognito 5.1.2.1
          26 March 2025 at 9:09 pm

          Nah, the Stuff interviewer stuffed up towards the end.

          I don’t have the context of Paul’s initial comments. It appears that the first outrage appeared in the NZH and after that a whole bunch of pale stale males blew a ball.

          Generally speaking, the comms & PR of all opposition parties is far from election-ready – I was about to write a Post in the weekend about Barbara Edmonds and Labour and to criticise them hard for piss-poor framing and communication around PPPs.

          Reply

Leave a Comment