Daily review 10/06/2021

21 comments on “Daily review 10/06/2021 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Pete 1

   10 June 2021 at 5:36 pm

   I didn't treat myself to Nick Smith's valedictory. It seems that like a lot of people, empathy was a quality he was capable of only when he had a personal stake.

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/125396043/retiring-mp-nick-smith-apologises-for-voting-against-samesex-marriage
   • millsy 1.1

     10 June 2021 at 6:03 pm

     Too bad he didnt apologise for throwing thousands of long term ACC claimaints off the rolls and onto the benefit system, throwing them into hardship and poverty, in some cases onto the streets.
   • Ad 1.2

     10 June 2021 at 6:20 pm

     Sad to have a career 30+ years in one workplace, and your stated highlight was 3 years in Cabinet or 10% of that time, and of that 10% just the formation of one marine reserve as something to remember as good.

     He's an object lesson in getting out after 2 or 3 terms tops.

     Up or out, as they say at Russell McVeigh
     • David 1.2.1

       10 June 2021 at 7:08 pm

       Here here. Same can be said of local body politics. Councils up and down the country seem to have their fair share of local body politicians who’s career defining highlights were last millennium.
     • Sabine 1.2.2

       10 June 2021 at 7:35 pm

       That is pretty much the career of most of these guys. so as long as they get elected, or get in via list is a guaranteed job for life. It is not as if they had KPI's to fulfill or have an anual feedback with those that elected them. And then you look at who runs in certain electorates and it is no wonder the same person gets elected until they either resign or die.
       He is a lesson for all of these suits, two terms and then you go to private industry and that should count for everyone in parliament. Also, if you lose the same electorate twice, join private industry. It could certainly not make the lack of choice in available people to vote any worse then it is.
       • Westykev 1.2.2.1

         10 June 2021 at 8:02 pm

         I would go as far to say you must have six years of work experience outside of politics as a requirement to run for parliament. Get some real world experience, can't stand the Beltway lifers,
         • Sabine 1.2.2.1.1

           10 June 2021 at 8:17 pm

           Yes, that too, or say a quota on people in parliament that need to be of the trades and the arts.
           • Cricklewood 1.2.2.1.1.1

             10 June 2021 at 8:38 pm

             Ok here's my proposal, we keep mmp and its proportionality but discard list only candidates.

             The 'list' spaces are decided by ranked unsuccessful candidates. Ie best performers that didnt win their electorate.

             Granted a formula would need to be established to calculate this measure but not insurmountable by any means.

             This makes all candidates to some extent at least beholden to the communities in which they stand for election.
             • Sabine …

               10 June 2021 at 9:01 pm

               Do we need that many ministers in the first place?
             • Sacha …

               10 June 2021 at 11:54 pm

               The idea was that List MPs would represent communities of interest, not of place. It's why our parliament now looks more like our population.
         • greywarshark 1.2.2.1.2

           10 June 2021 at 9:41 pm

           Also a test about the main features of a democracy and then of fascism to make sure they know the difference. And what powers they have to get what they want done in the right manner – so they know the strength of the civil service.

           They might find themselves unsuited to the job and instead become coal miners. But those are declining with climate change, so perhaps they could use their natural confidence and projection and become buskers or stand-up comedians.
           But Peter Cook knew all about getting through the aptitude tests.
           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Grg5tULy0tY
2. greywarshark 2

   10 June 2021 at 10:00 pm

   RIP Richard Nunns, sensitive ear and companion of Maori instruments.

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/concert/programmes/upbeat/audio/2018798809/remembering-richard-nunns

   https://www.musichall.co.nz/portfolio/hirini-melbourne/

   Hirini Melbourne died in 2003. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirini_Melbourne

   Brian Flintoff continues to bring forth his magnificent carving creations.
   https://www.jadeandbone.co.nz/
3. weka 3

   10 June 2021 at 10:38 pm

   Maya Forstater who lost her job because of tweeting gender critical views on her personal account, and who lost her tribunal case against her employer, has just had that ruling overturned on appeal. Important decision that says gender critical belief is protected as a legal right (you cannot be fired for what you believe).

   https://www.youtube.com/embed/jOIKlg71LJc
   • weka 3.1

     10 June 2021 at 11:37 pm

     https://twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1402928300587163651
     • McFlock 3.1.1

       11 June 2021 at 1:55 pm

       To clarify, that was never the legal question.

       The main problem with the original prelim hearing was that it set the bar at which expression of a belief is not protected too low. It should be at "Nazi" level. Hence the concentration on "Grainger V" in the appeal.

       The additional problem was the original prelim got distracted by how inconsistent, absolute, and factually flawed her beliefs were, which was beside the point for that hearing.

       Actual rulings from the prelim and the appeal at the bottom of the wikipedia article.
       • weka 3.1.1.1

         11 June 2021 at 2:30 pm

         Tweet image doesn't display for me, so in case that's across the board, here's what the image says,

         111. Most fundamentally, the Claimant’s belief does not get anywhere near to approaching the kind of belief akin to Nazism or totalitarianism that would warrant the application of Article 17. That is reason enough on its own to find that Grainger V is satisfied. The Claimant’s belief might well be considered offensive and abhorrent to some, but the accepted evidence before the Tribunal was that she believed that it is not “incompatible to recognise that human beings cannot change sex whilst also protecting the human rights of people who identify as transgender”: see para 39.2 of the Judgment. That is not, on any view, a statement of a belief that seeks to destroy the rights of trans persons. It is a belief that might in some circumstances cause offence to trans persons, but the potential for offence cannot be a reason to exclude a belief from protection altogether.
         • McFlock 3.1.1.1.1

           11 June 2021 at 3:33 pm

           s119

           […] Given that Grainger V has now been clarified as being apt only to exclude the most extreme beliefs akin to Nazism or totalitarianism or which incite hatred or violence, very few beliefs will fall at that hurdle, and, once again, it should not take long to determine whether a belief falls into that category.[…]

           prelim used the wrong threshold for the test, appeal applied the new "not actually a Nazi" test, claimant's beliefs passed that test.
       • weka 3.1.1.2

         11 June 2021 at 2:33 pm

         The additional problem was the original prelim got distracted by how inconsistent, absolute, and factually flawed her beliefs were, which was beside the point for that hearing.

         To clarify, that's your opinion 😉

         Thanks to MF, we now have very clear legal clarification that GCF beliefs aren't even close to being those of Nazis. This is important legally (eg you can't be fired), but also culturally. Now the legions of TAs running round social media and elsewhere calling feminists akin to Nazis (or anti-Semites) will increasingly have to account for their beliefs. It's also a massive push back from the No Debate position, which was based on framing GCFs as Nazis or similar.
         • McFlock 3.1.1.2.1

           11 June 2021 at 3:21 pm

           Not merely my opinion. The appeal said the prelim analysed unrequired elements to make its finding (hence "distracted"), and the other words have their bases from the prelim hearing.

           distracted:
           from the appeal:

           80.The Tribunal was tasked with considering whether the Claimant’s belief fell within s.10, EqA. In terms of Article 9 and Article 10 rights, the issue was simply whether the Claimant fell within the scope of the protection afforded by those Articles.

           81.It was not the Tribunal’s task to engage in any evaluation of the Claimant’s beliefs by any objective standard. Instead, it was to assess that belief on its own terms.

           And yet it did evaluate the claimant's belief.

           inconsistent:
           from the prelim:

           Her belief is that a man is a person who,if everything is working, can produce sperm and a woman a person who, if everything is working,can produce eggs. This does not sit easily with her view that even if everything is not, in her words, “working”,and may never have done so, the person can still only be male or female.

           Absolute:
           prelim:

           90. I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

           factually flawed:
           prelim clause 83:

           […]On balance, I do not consider that the Claimant’s belief fails the test of being “attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance”; even though there is significant scientific evidence that it is wrong. […]

           Since the appeal explicitly avoided assessing the claimant's beliefs on their merit, those bits of the prelim hearing haven't been overruled.

           So the legions of "GCFs" looking to exclude trans women from various spaces and events are also folk who "will increasingly have to account for their beliefs" that have legally been found to have significant scientific evidence that they are wrong.
   • Rosemary McDonald 3.2

     11 June 2021 at 9:19 am

     An interesting opinion piece from 2019 which purports to tell "what really happened" to put Maya Forstater in front of the Employment Tribunal.

     …she began using her personal Twitter account to tweet about her opposition to potential changes to the U.K.'s Gender Recognition Act, writing, “I share the concerns of @fairplaywomen that radically expanding the legal definition of 'women' so that it can include both males and females makes it a meaningless concept, and will undermine women’s rights & protections for vulnerable women & girls." …

     She then added: "Some transgender people have cosmetic surgery. But most retain their birth genitals. Everyone's equality and safety should be protected, but women and girls lose out on privacy, safety and fairness if males are allowed into changing rooms, dormitories, prisons, sports teams.”

     Note that, in both cases, Forstater explicitly and unmistakably referred to trans women as "males"; the law to which she was referring — the Gender Recognition Act — explicitly recognizes trans women as female, not male, and the changes being contemplated were about increasing transgender women's inclusion.

     The entire piece is worth a read…even though it is blindly supportive of the "law" that clearly confuses sex with gender.

     I'm hoping to live long enough to read how history will view this bizarre phase of human evolution where males exerted enough power and influence to convince lawmakers and judges that being female is simply a matter of an individual's state of mind.

     Well done Maya, and hopefully the dark tide has turned.
     • weka 3.2.1

       11 June 2021 at 11:14 am

       Amazing work from her. I’m cautiously hopeful although I think there are still significant challenges.

       lots of legal commentary since yesterday. This one absolutely burns (bookmarking here as I’m only half way through).

       This is a landmark decision. Gender Critical beliefs are protected characteristic. Those who hold and express those beliefs are protected from discrimination. It is a comprehensive reminder of the liberal principles of freedom of speech and thought that underpin our democracy.

       Maya Forstater has also achieved protections for those with whom she disagrees. Belief in Gender Theory is also recognised as a protected characteristic. This is not a judgment “against” those who believe in Gender Theory; it is a judgment that protects them, just as it protects people who are Gender Critical.

       …

       The judgment acknowledges the national discussion about sex and gender that has taken place over recent years as the “transgender debate”. The era of “No Debate” around sex and gender, if it ever existed, is over. In the course of this national discussion, many Gender Critical people – overwhelmingly women – have been the subject of personal abuse, threats, the loss of jobs and livelihoods and even physical assault. This has been referred to as occurring on “both sides” of the discussion. But it is difficult to find evidence that equal apportionment has in fact occurred: overwhelmingly it appears that Gender Critical women have borne the brunt of it. Those women now have their legal protections affirmed at law.

       https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS