Daily review 11/08/2023

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, August 11th, 2023 - 74 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

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

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

74 comments on “Daily review 11/08/2023 ”

  1. adam 1

    France West Africa = Neo-imperalism with all of the bells and whistles of jingoism.

    We can count our selves lucky they only bombed one rainbow boat here. Not like them flying over your cities just to intimidate the population.

    Leaving behind nuclear waste from mining

    And just generally being froggy.

  2. Joe90 2

    Ya gotta love how Peskov insists he was misquoted and nek minit, confirms that Russia's presidential elections are little more than a formality.

    .

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told The New York Times that Russian President Vladimir Putin will be re-elected with 90 percent of the vote in the 2024 Russian presidential election.

    Peskov was quoted by The New York Times as saying “our presidential election is not really democracy, it is costly bureaucracy. Mr. Putin will be re-elected next year with more than 90 percent of the vote.”

    […]

    Later, Dmitry Peskov told RBK that American journalists “misquoted” him “as usual.” He clarified that he, personally, is confident that Putin will be elected, “based on the level of consolidation around Putin.” He added that “the question was about the elections and the answer was that elections are what a democracy demands and Putin himself decided to hold them, but theoretically, they don’t even have to be held. Because it’s clear that Putin will be elected.

    https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/08/07/kremlin-spokesman-says-putin-will-be-re-elected-with-over-90-percent-of-the-vote-later-clarifies-this-his-personal-opinion

    • adam 2.1

      With the major chunk of those under thirty not in the country, or locked up.

      Putin is a shoe in.

      Drunk Russians vote for the strong man.

      He does not even have to rig it.

      The propaganda ministry has already done all the ground work.

  3. pat 3

    "This is not a cheerful conclusion. I was struck that when Meates left his job at the CDHB he was not immediately recruited by the Ministry of Health for his expertise; neither has he been involved in Health New Zealand. We have a system which rewards conformity rather than achievement.

    Given the number of low talent generic managers that tells you a lot about how the centre works. Generic management is too entrenched to admit its failures and seek a better way focused on culture, professionalism and trust."

    https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/there-are-wider-lessons-to-be-learned-from-the-failures-in-the-management-of-the-health-system

  4. joe90 4

    Tl;dr – the post civil war 14th Amendment says that because tRump “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct……..he is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution.

    .
    Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, two eminent conservative legal scholars, have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming University of Pennsylvania Law Review). Here is the abstract:

    Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

    https://electionlawblog.org/?p=138047

  5. Belladonna 5

    Not debating the rights or wrongs of the current court case involving the man who has admitted assaulting the elderly woman at the Posy Parker event.

    But looking at the media coverage which is constantly associating this with the incident where a protester threw tomato juice over Parker.

    I feel this is a dangerous conflation of two completely different actions.

    It is entirely possible to argue that the juice-thrower was engaging in a protest activity (albeit a rather juvenile one) – in that juice has no inherent power to injure, and indeed PP was not injured (although she may have been frightened and upset).

    There is no possible way that you can argue that the charming gentleman with name suppression has done anything other than carried out an assault (indeed, he has admitted doing so).

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300948135/man-admits-hitting-elderly-woman-at-posie-parker-protest

    It rather looks like a journalistic attempt to draw the mantle of legitimate protest over a plain physical assault.

    • Molly 5.1

      "It rather looks like a journalistic attempt to draw the mantle of legitimate protest over a plain physical assault."

      Both are physical assaults. The choice of liquids for physical assault, and saying it is a political protest for justification – does not negate the fact it is physical assault.

      Given context – it is well known that Kellie Jay Keen Minshull receives what police have called 'credible death threats'. A written threat was posted under her hotel room door in Auckland before the event.

      Corrosive liquid attacks are more frequent in certain countries but have occurred in western ones. Most often the victims are girls and women.

      https://www.asti.org.uk/a-worldwide-problem.html

      The psychological impact of unknown liquids being thrown is very real, and is known by those who choose to use this method of "protest".

      As you say, there is a difference in both incidents, but they do both indicate a propensity for justification for violence in order to silence women.

      • Shanreagh 5.1.1

        As you say, there is a difference in both incidents, but they do both indicate a propensity for justification for violence in order to silence women.

        Of course what is not being explicitly condemned is that throwing anything whether it be a fist or liquid is the coward's way of settling differences or making a point, I'd also put the heckler's veto in with that.

        We, as people in NZ where we have an unacceptably high rate of violence and particularly in the context of domestic violence (male/female), are the last people in the world that should be trying to excuse the violence on the grounds of difference in weapon. Notably both attacks come into the arena of male against female, though perhaps with the liquid it is male identfying as female.

        • Molly 5.1.1.1

          "Of course what is not being explicitly condemned is that throwing anything whether it be a fist or liquid is the coward's way of settling differences or making a point, I'd also put the heckler's veto in with that."

          I agree. It is assault whether by liquid or body contact.

        • Belladonna 5.1.1.2

          Of course what is not being explicitly condemned is that throwing anything whether it be a fist or liquid is the coward's way of settling differences or making a point,

          This point has notably not been made when it is male politicians being the targets of things being thrown.
          Indeed it's been seen as rather amusing (especially where it is right politicians being targeted). A look back at the comments on TS re the Steven Joyce incident is illuminating.

          And, the Springbok tour protests were notable for a level of violence which hadn't previously been experienced in NZ (the flour bombs could well have resulted in injury or death, and the broken glass on the field was inexcusable)

          https://nzhistory.govt.nz/flour-bomb-test-ends-springbok-tour

          Unless you want to make the anti-feminist argument that women are rare and precious creatures, needing to be protected from the harsh winds of political life; you have to either condemn all political protest which uses any form of violence (either explicit or implied) – or accept that both men and women engaging in political activity are equally subject to political protest actions.

          • Molly 5.1.1.2.1

            "Unless you want to make the anti-feminist argument that women are rare and precious creatures, needing to be protected from the harsh winds of political life; you have to either condemn all political protest which uses any form of violence (either explicit or implied) – or accept that both men and women engaging in political activity are equally subject to political protest actions."

            I'm going to ignore your assumption of an argument I have not made, and repeat the question:

            What were the protestors protesting, Belladonna?

      • Belladonna 5.1.2

        Both are physical assaults. The choice of liquids for physical assault, and saying it is a political protest for justification – does not negate the fact it is physical assault.

        I think there have been many incidents of non-damaging objects (eggs, tomatoes, etc.) thrown at politicians over the years – during a range of political protests. While a very juvenile method of self-expression – it doesn't seem to be, either in intention or result, an activity resulting in long-term harm. I see the PP juice-flinging incident as one more of the same.

        Regarding the object-flinging as 'assault' was not the case, in the journalistic narrative, or, I think, the popular one, over the flinging of a dildo at Steven Joyce.

        Indeed the protestor wasn't even charged (much to her reported glee)

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/76604655/steven-joyce-hit-by-sex-toy-thrown-by-protester-at-waitangi

        Given the popular opinion that flinging liquids or objects as a form of political protest, is a minor transgression (cf the Steven Joyce incident); coupling it with an actual physical assault, with the implication that this, too, is a legitimate protest – is both dangerous and wrong.

        I think that a physical assault (punches to the head) is a very different thing. The venue for the offence should be irrelevant: whether it occurred at a bar, in the street, or at a public park during a protest – doesn't excuse the action.

        Indeed – taking the two actions out of a political context – and putting them in a bar (for example) – highlights the difference. Throwing a drink over someone may get you tossed out of the bar – or even start a fight (depending on the kind of locale you frequent), but it's not going to result in the police being called, and charges laid. Whereas, repeatedly punching someone in the face, will, indeed result in police charges.

        • Molly 5.1.2.1

          Your comparison to drinks thrown in a bar from someone you may be in a heated exchange with, is not comparable to liquids thrown at you in public from an unknown person.

          Further context was the legacy media rhetoric, and the personal death threats, and the known use of corrosive liquids as a method of violence.

          It is a form of assault.

          Definition of assault from the Crimes Act 1961:

          https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM327394.html?search=sw_096be8ed81d369a9_assault_25_se&p=1

          "assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning."

          Does anyone have a link to the actual charge against Eliana Rubashkyn, to see how the prosecution has interpreted the Act?

          • Belladonna 5.1.2.1.1

            The bar situation seems like a pretty reasonable parallel to me – both public places where a liquid is thrown by someone you don't know.

            You don't have to be engaging in a heated exchange with someone in a bar – for liquids to be thrown. It could happen for a whole range of reasons – everything from mistaken identity, through to 'stop flirting with my boyfriend'.

            I note you haven't commented on the direct parallel of male politicians having objects thrown at them. Historically not regarded as assault – by the police, by the media or by the TS commentariat.

            It seems like a case of special pleading to me.

            • Molly 5.1.2.1.1.1

              "I note you haven't commented on the direct parallel of male politicians having objects thrown at them. Historically not regarded as assault – by the police, by the media or by the TS commentariat."

              For the record, I consider that assault as well. Can't recall ever not doing so.

              Luckily, the TS commentariat is not a hive mind, AND people can change perspectives over years.

              The choice of a staining liquid (tomato juice) also has an aspect of criminal damage, as permanent staining will be the result on clothing.

              • Belladonna

                Minor staining on clothes, compared to concussion – with potential ongoing significant brain injury/impairment (just because it hasn't happened today, doesn't mean there is no effect – we're seeing significant impacts of concussion occurring years later). Really, there is a reason that society regards 'assault' as a serious crime.

                However, glad that you are consistent in regarding throwing objects at male politicians as assault as well. Assume this also means that you regard suffragettes and Springbok tour protesters, who carried out similar 'assaults' as well as actual violence – as equally culpable. After all – perspectives change over the years…..

                Unfortunately, your opinion appears to be in the minority in society in general, as well as on TS.

                • Molly

                  I have participated in public protests – non-violently – and always had a clear message on my placard.

                  I've never – however – gone to disrupt someone else's gathering – but if I did – I would also have a clear understanding of what I was protesting.

                  What is your understanding of what the protestors were protesting at that LetWomenSpeak event in Albert Park (including those that did not engage in violence or intimidation)?

                  • Belladonna

                    I believe that they were protesting the presence of Posy Parker.

                    I've certainly seen some very muddled signs at protests in my time – but not sure why this is at all relevant….. Protesters are not a hive mind, ether. And there may be many strands of opinion present at a single event.

                    • Molly

                      So, your understanding is a crowd of approximately 2000 were protesting:

                      A woman's presence?

                      How did her presence infringe on anyone else?

                  • Belladonna

                    I don't get to decide how or why protesters feel moved to protest. Nor do you.

                    If you are claiming that the protest was in some way 'invalid' and therefore there is no legitimate reason for protest action by the juice-flinger – I think you are seriously reaching!

                    • Molly

                      "I don't get to decide how or why protesters feel moved to protest. Nor do you."

                      I don't know what the protest was about, and I am inquiring if you do. You appear to also be in the dark.

                      Your suggestion is that the protest was about a woman's presence – and imply that is reason enough.

                      I personally consider what happened at the event a form of silencing, intimidation and violence towards women. Not a counter-protest – because there was no protest to counter – just an event.

                      "If you are claiming that the protest was in some way 'invalid' and therefore there is no legitimate reason for protest action by the juice-flinger – I think you are seriously reaching!"

                      On the contrary – you are the one claiming a legitimate – but undefinable reason for protest action – not only by the "juice-flinger" by the other approx 2,000 people who turned up.

                      Yet you appear to be unable to actually give a reason. I wonder how many of the 2,000 will be in the same boat.

                      Can you perhaps reach out to some of them and find a coherent reason for the protest action?

                    • Muttonbird

                      Not a counter-protest – because there was no protest to counter – just an event.

                      This seems wilfully naive. The 'event' is a protest against self-ID and no debate. Keen-minshall flies all over the world to stage these protests.

                    • Molly

                      @Muttonbird

                      Kellie Jay Keen Minshull was invited to NZ by women who felt (in some way) unable to hold such an event under their own names.

                      KJK acts as MC.

                      The content is unknown because participants are not curated and it is an open mike event.

                      17 Australian women got to speak in Melbourne, zero NZ women in Auckland:

                      https://twitter.com/EdgeWatching/status/1637296808622985216?s=20

                    • Belladonna

                      Your suggestion is that the protest was about a woman's presence – and imply that is reason enough.

                      Well, yes, there have been plenty of protests over the years over a particular speaker.

                      You might want to familiarize yourself with the rights to protest in NZ.

                      https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-4-activism/protesting-and-organising-fundamental-rights/

                      Note, none of them say anything about any requirement for some kind of validity-test for the cause for which you are protesting. If you want to protest for the rights of aliens to land flying saucers in the local council carpark – you can go right ahead. Nothing says the cause has to pass the 'Molly sniff test' to be legitimate.

                      There would, I'd venture to say, never have been a protest at which 100% of the protesters were in agreement over *exactly* what they were protesting. The protest organizers were entirely clear that they were protesting the presence of PP at a speaking event in NZ. And, given that the crowd were chanting "Go home, Posy" – it would seem that the majority were on board with this reason.

                      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/486680/posie-parker-rally-hundreds-counter-protest-at-albert-park

                      The fact that you don't agree with the stated cause, is entirely immaterial. Nor is it anyone's 'job' to find out the 'true reason' for their protest.

                      I don't have any issue with the pro-trans groups protesting the PP event. There have been many, many, protests held in NZ where both sides have been agitated, noisy and got their point across – without violence.

                      The issue with the PP event was the failure of the police to keep the two groups apart. If they had done their job – and kept the protesters separated from the PP event – there would have been no issue. No assaults. Both sides would have been able to have their say. Nothing would have been resolved (neither side have any interest in convincing the other) – but it would have been a better outcome for democracy.

                      Saying that PP should have been allowed to speak – is very different from saying that the Trans group should not have been allowed to protest.

                      Quite frankly, your special pleading for your cause – is incredibly dangerous.

                      Do you really want to have some kind of political control over which protests are 'allowed'? That's the beginning of a very slippery slope – and is not something that I would expect any 'leftie' (the parties which are traditionally homes of protest movements) to be arguing for.

                  • Belladonna

                    Your suggestion is that the protest was about a woman's presence – and imply that is reason enough.

                    Well, yes, there have been plenty of protests over the years over a particular speaker.

                    You might want to familiarize yourself with the rights to protest in NZ.

                    https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-4-activism/protesting-and-organising-fundamental-rights/

                    Note, none of them say anything about any requirement for some kind of validity-test for the cause for which you are protesting. If you want to protest for the rights of aliens to land flying saucers in the local council carpark – you can go right ahead. Nothing says the cause has to pass the 'Molly sniff test' to be legitimate.

                    There would, I'd venture to say, never have been a protest at which 100% of the protesters were in agreement over *exactly* what they were protesting. The protest organizers were entirely clear that they were protesting the presence of PP at a speaking event in NZ. And, given that the crowd were chanting "Go home, Posy" – it would seem that the majority were on board with this reason.

                    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/486680/posie-parker-rally-hundreds-counter-protest-at-albert-park

                    The fact that you don't agree with the stated cause, is entirely immaterial. Nor is it anyone's 'job' to find out the 'true reason' for their protest.

                    I don't have any issue with the pro-trans groups protesting the PP event. There have been many, many, protests held in NZ where both sides have been agitated, noisy and got their point across – without violence.

                    The issue with the PP event was the failure of the police to keep the two groups apart. If they had done their job – and kept the protesters separated from the PP event – there would have been no issue. No assaults. Both sides would have been able to have their say. Nothing would have been resolved (neither side have any interest in convincing the other) – but it would have been a better outcome for democracy.

                    Saying that PP should have been allowed to speak – is very different from saying that the Trans group should not have been allowed to protest.

                    Quite frankly, your special pleading for your cause – is incredibly dangerous.

                    Do you really want to have some kind of political control over which protests are 'allowed'? That's the beginning of a very slippery slope – and is not something that I would expect any 'leftie' (the parties which are traditionally homes of protest movements) to be arguing for.

                    • Molly

                      Political protests are part of democracy.

                      What you are excusing is an act of intimidation and violence towards a group of women gathering to speak – who have no political power or authority – and equating it to a political protest.

                      That is the error in your reasoning.

                    • weka []

                      the error in your reasoning is to assume that political protest and acts of intimidation can’t happen in the same place/time.

                    • Molly

                      @weka

                      Provide the reason for the political aim of the protest against a disparate group of women and I will accept that it can.

                      Until you do, at least acknowledge it was a protest against freedom of speech, and now I think of it – freedom of association.

                      Authoritarian and intimidation tactics that I would hope anyone who considers themselves a progressive would shun, rather than dismally excuse.

                    • weka []

                      I have always said it was a thug response. This doesn’t preclude it being a protest. Please see my earlier replies to you, including where I addressed the political aspect of the protest,

                      .https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-11-08-2023/#comment-1964228
                      .https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-11-08-2023/#comment-1964238

                      I do think it was an action against freedom of expression, that’s the whole point of the noise. Probably also against freedom of association, we already know there were activists who wanted KJK banned from entering NZ, and the narrative afterwards was of success in shutting down the event.

                    • Molly

                      @weka

                      "Until you do, at least acknowledge it was a protest against freedom of speech, and now I think of it – freedom of association."

                      In fact, now I review this statement, even this doesn't apply.

                      Because the event was not a event in support of free speech and freedom of association, so the protestors could not be against something that was not occurring.

                      So, we are left with intimidation, violence and mob thuggery.

                    • weka []

                      I think you are arguing an abstract and intellectually convoluted argument here. Whether something is or isn’t a protest isn’t determined by abstract ideas about purpose or the purpose of one’s political opponents. They had politics and actions that fall well within the nature of other political protests in NZ. What is new is the noise, and the violence against citizens. Violence within political protest in NZ is usually between citizens and police. I can’t think where noise has been used like that before in NZ, apart from Mallard at the Parliament protests which likewise set a precedent.

                    • Molly

                      @weka

                      Agree. We seem to be discussing semantics, which is of no purpose really.

                      I view political protests as a specific action, with important criteria (of my own) which I don't feel was met.

                      You hold a different view. We can leave it there.

                    • weka []

                      I don’t think it’s semantics, it looks like differences in how we understand what protest is. I would have less of a problem with your argument if you said ‘This is how I think protest should be defined’ rather than ‘this is what protest means’.

                • Anker

                  https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-shameful-persecution-of-posie-parker-in-new-zealand/. Brendon O Neil writing about what he refers to as the shameful persecution of PP in Albert Park.

                  I am not quite sure what is being debated here. Overall the scenes at Albert Park were disgraceful and show the extent to which the trans rights activists will go to to shut women down. Many NZders saw this with their own eyes.

                  Both the juice throwing and the punching of the elderly women were assaults. Both need to be handled by the court.

                  • Belladonna

                    The point I was trying to make, and with which Molly disagrees, is that the juice-flinging is on the continuum of activist protests – which have generally not been regarded as assault (although they might technically fit that definition). The Steven Joyce incident at Waitangi is a fairly recent (within the last 10 years) example.

                    The actual physical assault – repeatedly punching someone – is *not* in that category – and should indeed be dealt with through the courts (although I fear, not very effectively, in this case).

                    In addition, I feel that her argument that there is some kind of 'legitimacy' test that a protest must meet – is profoundly dangerous for democracy.

                    • weka

                      I agree about the continuum. However Joyce had good political reasons for not laying a complaint about the dildo throwing. Myself, I thought it wasn't a good political action precisely because it legitimised throwing stuff at people.

                      There's a reason why Just Stop Oil protests work. They are designed to gain attention, they cross a legal line, but they don't actually damage the paintings.

                      Throwing stuff at people crosses a different line as well as the basic legal one. It changes what is acceptable.

                      Are liberals going to be ok with pouring unknown liquids over MPs now? What if it's being done by anti-mandaters? At what point does the purpose move on from simple humiliation and disruption, to intimidation? Given KJK had already been on the receiving end of threats of violence, and women at such events had already been attacked, I think we're at the point now where it's reasonable to be afraid of what might be being tipped over one's head. Natural instinctual response. Esp since the liberals and media basically denied that there was a mob.

                      To reiterate, the issue isn't that the sauce tipping is equivalent to punching the elderly woman. It's that it stands on its own as a political act that now needs push back from society. Even if one doesn't care about KJK, that stands.

                    • Molly

                      "In addition, I feel that her argument that there is some kind of 'legitimacy' test that a protest must meet – is profoundly dangerous for democracy."

                      No, I my argument is that it was NOT in any way shape or form, a political protest.

                      If there is no criteria for a political protest, any thuggery can be hand-waved away as "legitimate" protest. Such as you – along with many others – are doing now without any kind of self-awareness.

                      For example: are the co-ordinated looting actions happening across the world, also "protests"? They can be excused as such – using your current perspective of no identified political authority target, or universal form of protest content. If that doesn’t meet your own test, what if they carried placards with “No Capitalism” or “Down With This Sort of Thing” – would that then make it a protest?

                      "Profoundly dangerous" for democracy is political, media and public approval of violence and intimidation used to shut down free speech and freedom of association.

                      That however, requires some self-reflection which is becoming rarer and rarer for some.

                    • weka []

                      No, I my argument is that it was NOT in any way shape or form, a political protest.

                      Yes, but your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You want it to not be a protest, but by NZ standards it clearly was.

                      If there is no criteria for a political protest, any thuggery can be hand-waved away as “legitimate” protest. Such as you – along with many others – are doing now without any kind of self-awareness.

                      This doesn’t make sense. Just because an action is a protest, doesn’t make it legitimate protest. The protest at LWS tipped over into illegitimacy. Look at this way. If they had stayed behind the barrier, it would have looked like any other kind of similar protest.

                      For example: are the co-ordinated looting actions happening across the world, also “protests”? They can be excused as such – using your current perspective of no identified political authority target, or universal form of protest content. If that doesn’t meet your own test, what if they carried placards with “No Capitalism” or “Down With This Sort of Thing” – would that then make it a protest?

                      There are overlaps between protest and looting. If a protest goes out of control and looking ensues that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a protest. Looting can be a reaction to political issues too. But anyone can see the difference between an organise protest and a situation happens where looting breaks out.

                      “Profoundly dangerous” for democracy is political, media and public approval of violence and intimidation used to shut down free speech and freedom of association.

                      When did you lose your ability to think in both/and?

                    • Molly

                      @weka

                      I didn't lose my ability to think… wink, I'm just very careful with language use.

                      Since you have made the distinction – with which I agree – let's have a closer look at "legitimate" protest, which means complying with the Bill of Rights Act 1990, amongst others.

                      There is a good outline here, where it is apparent the protest did not meet the Bill of Rights clauses, and so became strictly speaking "illegitimate".

                      One clear breach is under the Summary Offences Act 1981 s 37:

                      You should take care not to infringe on the right to freedom of expression of any other protest groups. It’s also a criminal offence to unreasonably disrupt a meeting in a public place.

                      Now, if you have a look there are more breaches that occurred, but in reality only ONE is required.

                      This breach was the only stated intention of the protest that took place at Albert Park on March 25th 2023.

                      Now, many may think the action – even if not protected under the right to protest – was "justifiable", "warranted", or "excusable". That's their perspective.

                      However, as you point out, due to the breach it cannot be reasonably called "legitimate".

                      I will not personally use the word protest in this case, when it was stated repeatedly that the sole purpose was to breach Section 37 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 – without any other stated goal or political outcome in mind.

                      I will utilise (for me) the more accurate term "act of intimidation and violence".

                      If you like, replace it with "intended breach of Section 37 of the Summary Offences Act 1981" which is the most precise and neutral language I can write:

                      eg. The 2,000 plus crowd at Albert Park on March 25th were intent on breaching Section 37 of the Summary Offences Act, and were effective in doing so.

          • SPC 5.1.2.1.2

            Has any prosecutor ever claimed that tomato juice is a corrosive liquid?

            And has any prosecutor made the case that anyone who is part of a protest action is guilty by association with death threats made by others?

            You are certainly elaborating the meaning of "over-reach".

            • Molly 5.1.2.1.2.1

              "Has any prosecutor ever claimed that tomato juice is a corrosive liquid?"

              I don't know. But what I do know, is that I haven't made that claim.

              Since you asked – as an acidic compound it will have some corrosive properties, but that wasn't a claim I made. I referred to the unknown aspect of the liquid thrown in the context of the death threats received, AND the known use of corrosive liquids as a form of attack.

              https://www.asti.org.uk/a-worldwide-problem.html

              "UNITED KINGDOM

              Per capita the UK has one of the highest rates of recorded acid attacks in the world. In 2018, in London alone, corrosive substances were used in 310 crimes, compared to 456 in 2017, and so we have seen a substantial drop according to London Police Figures. However, nationwide there has been an increase in acid attacks with 452 reported crimes in 2017 and 501 reported crimes in 2018. "

              I've repeated the link provided above that shows that in the UK – where Kellie Jay Keen is from – this is a common form of assault against women:

              The deliberate use of thrown liquid is not benign given the context.

              • Belladonna

                I don't think that anyone is regarding the juice-flinging as 'benign'.

                It was a political protest, designed to cause embarrassment and inconvenience to PP – as well as potentially damage her image (I'm quite sure that propaganda pictures of the bespattered PP were circulated)

                I think that you'll find that the majority of the acid attacks are restricted to a cultural/ethnic minority in Britain. One to which PP does not belong.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_attack#Motivation_of_perpetrators

                Nor, based on your own figures, can it be regarded as a ‘common’ form of assault. Fists continue to be the most common tool used in assaulting women.

                • weka

                  designed to humiliate her too. Of course the damage to her image aspect worked in her favour, she now uses a photo of her drenched in tomato juice in her social media to good effect and as a rallying call.

                  Re the protest generally, to my mind it crossed from freedom of expression to intimidation and probably worse. I wouldn't call it terrorism yet, but certainly women now feel more afraid to speak than before. There were men there that day that found the mob terrifying too.

                  Whether that kind of intimidation is legitimate in principle or not I don't know. My test is to consider how I would feel if an action were being done by climate activists. eg I think the occupation of parliament grounds was legitimate, but quite a bit of the behaviour wasn't.

                  The noise as a way of drowning out speakers in a public place doesn't seem legitimate either, the only way it makes sense if you believe that KJK is an actual fascist. This is more complicated because she is moving more rightwards including doing public work with the far right, but then how much of that is because of how she has been treated by the left? That's not an issue of blame/blamelessness so much as strategy.

                  No Debate left a vacuum and KJK arose in that vacuum. If progressive GC people had been allowed to speak more freely, we would have a range of left wing voices on gender/sex instead of a major focus on a right wing populist around whom many RW and FR people are now gathering.

                  We can see this in the recent announcement by antifa aotearoa that they are not going to protest LWS in Sept at the court case, because they understand that doing so gives KJK more power and causes more damage to GNC people. They've also said they don't support other people protesting. They're late to the party in understanding this, but at least they are starting to get it.

                  • Belladonna

                    Re the protest generally, to my mind it crossed from freedom of expression to intimidation and probably worse. I wouldn't call it terrorism yet, but certainly women now feel more afraid to speak than before. There were men there that day that found the mob terrifying too.

                    I've witnessed other protests which were also intimidating and frighting. Going right back to the Springbok Tour.

                    If the police had done their jobs – and kept the two groups well separated – none of this would have happened.

                    Both groups had a right to be there [NB: of course I don't mean in exactly the same space]. I don't support cancel culture, nor do I support some form of limitation on the right to protest. In a well-functioning democracy, all views have the right to be expressed. The fact that this failed, needs to be laid at the door of the group which is supposed to ensure that freedom of expression doesn't infringe on the rights of others (i.e. the police – and ultimately the government). Both failed.

                    • weka

                      This is my position too, that what the police chose to do on the day is central and indicates a failure of democracy.

                      It's own goal territory for liberal lefties too. If we establish that that kind of intimidation plus police turning a blind eye is ok, then we won't have any political defence when it happens to us.

                      What were examples from the Tour? There were obviously many clashes between police and protestors, but that's a different thing.

                    • Molly

                      If you listen to those involved in the event, the police not only failed to act – they colluded with those whose strategy was mob intimidation, false rhetoric and justified violence.

                      Comparing it to political protests against government oppression such as apartheid is a form of protest-washing.

                      You – and others – have been unable to provide a coherent reason for the crowd to form at a women's speaking event.

                      So you call it a protest, rather than accept the reality that it was a politically, and media sanctioned mob that sought to stop women from speaking.

                      If any protest I was involved in had acted with such lack of clear messaging, or self-discipline I would immediately call it out for the poorly organised thugfest it has evolved into.

                    • weka []

                      I agree it was a thug fest. It was also hypocritical and damaging to democracy and protest.

                      However, where you say,

                      You – and others – have been unable to provide a coherent reason for the crowd to form at a women’s speaking event.

                      KJK is broadly perceived among TRAs and trans ally liberals to be transphobic and to be courting the far right. There is reasonable evidence for the first bit and good evidence for the second.

                      Some also believe that she poses an existential threat to trans people.

                      I don’t believe that last sentence, but I do think she is actively contributing to a regressive culture around gender non-conformity including trans people, and this does in fact present a problem for people who are social liberal, progressive, or just give a shit about what happens to marginalised people.

                      In other words, there is something there to protest despite the inanity of their positions on No Debate, or women’s sex based rights.

                    • Molly []

                      KJK and the silenced NZ women have no political authority or agency.

                      Thus equating it to the democratic action of protest is an error.

                      It should be rightly recognised as an action AGAINST free speech, because that it what it essentially boiled down to.

                      Women gathered to speak – and a mob was determined to stop them.

                      The failure of progressives to see this clearly continues to surprise.

                    • weka []

                      KJK and the silenced NZ women have no political authority or agency.

                      Sure they do. KJK has a massive reach through social media and public meetings.

                      NZ women have continued to do public events in various places since Auckland LWS. A political party has been formed by some of the women from the Ak LWS event. Organisers of LWS have been active on social and MSM. The elderly woman who was assaulted has been supported and has spoken out to media. The protest was bad enough, let’s not cede the power and agency we do have.

                      You said,

                      You – and others – have been unable to provide a coherent reason for the crowd to form at a women’s speaking event.

                      I provided coherent reasoning for the protest, which you have ignored.

                      You’ve now come back with another set of assertions, which I will counter, but is there any point if you are going to ignore the arguments against your position?

                      Thus equating it to the democratic action of protest is an error.

                      Trying to delegitimise protests we disapprove of is anti-democratic. This is a mistake made by liberals (Parliament occupation, LWS), it’s disturbing to see you running similar lines.

                      It should be rightly recognised as an action AGAINST free speech, because that it what it essentially boiled down to.

                      Which I just did. But it’s both/and.

                      Women gathered to speak – and a mob was determined to stop them.

                      The failure of progressives to see this clearly continues to surprise.

                      I’m a progressive and I see it clearly. The challenge is how to present a convincing argument to change other progressive’s minds, not about KJK, but about women’s rights. KJK herself is a block to that, because of her anti-trans rhetoric, her working with the far right, and her strong anti-left and anti-feminist positions.

                      Women in NZ could instead adopt progressive positions when fighting for women’s sex based rights, and work from there. There are good strategic reasons to do this as well as politically ethical ones.

                      ,

                    • Molly

                      "The challenge is how to present a convincing argument to change other progressive’s minds, not about KJK, but about women’s rights. KJK herself is a block to that, because of her anti-trans rhetoric, her working with the far right, and her strong anti-left and anti-feminist positions.

                      Women in NZ could instead adopt progressive positions when fighting for women’s sex based rights, and work from there. There are good strategic reasons to do this as well as politically ethical ones."

                      I think you are unable to look through the KJK involvement, and see that this is sheer intimidation and thuggery.

                      The use of the words "far right" to me indicate a failure as great as the use of "far left". They are meaningless – unless those using them take time to outline their personal definitions before going further.

                      The impact on women's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association are not just on progressive women, but all women – conservatives and right-wing as well. I defend all women's right to gather and speak, as should all supposed progressives.

                      Kellie Jay Keen Minshull doesn't have political authority in NZ, as you well know. Many would have been unaware of her before her visit was amplified by politicians, activists and media. Vilification – including by some women, ensured that her visit was politicised insofar as to ensure that NZ women clearly understood what they would face if they sought to gather and publicly share their opinions.

                      Progressives and conservative women alike got that message loud and clear.

                    • weka []

                      I think you are unable to look through the KJK involvement, and see that this is sheer intimidation and thuggery.

                      In this thread, I already said “I have always said it was a thug response” and “Re the protest generally, to my mind it crossed from freedom of expression to intimidation and probably worse”.

                      Do you not believe me?

                      The use of the words “far right” to me indicate a failure as great as the use of “far left”. They are meaningless – unless those using them take time to outline their personal definitions before going further.

                      Just because you don’t have a political analysie of far right and far left, doesn’t mean no-one else does. Far right is pretty easy to describe and point to. Why are you unwilling to differentiate between conservatives and those on the right that seek to remove democracy and instead want to impose fascism? Do you think fascism isn’t rising in democratic countries?

                      I don’t call TRAs far left because I think left still has political meaning and what they are doing doesn’t fit into that. They are the neoliberal left, often libertarian, sometimes authoritarian, mostly I call them liberals for simplicity because when they are making their identity politics claims they are practicing individual rights not collective responsibility. Some of them still hold left wing political views no doubt, but to be far left they would need to centre their politics in that, and I don’t see that often. . But if you want to call them far left, I’m going to probably still understand who you mean and no be in denial of them.

                      Whatever, it’s still pretty easy to demonstrate that KJK works with people that sit to the right of what we in NZ consider conservatives, people who have seriously problematic political positions. You can choose to be ok with that, but denying that it’s real is daft and the denial is one of the reasons that feminists have abandoned GC politics. Let me know if you want the references.

                      The impact on women’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association are not just on progressive women, but all women – conservatives and right-wing as well. I defend all women’s right to gather and speak, as should all supposed progressives.

                      I will absolutely oppose the platforming in NZ of women that support someone like the man who murdered people in the Chch mosques. I’m using that as an extreme example to demonstrate the limits of ‘all women’.

                      Obviously conservative women can speak. I’m fast losing patience with you implying that I oppose that. I’ve long supported the concept of LWS. That I critique KJK doesn’t negate that.

                      I’m also on record for condemning the protest at LWS, so please stop speaking to me as if I am not.

                      Kellie Jay Keen Minshull doesn’t have political authority in NZ…

                      So? What’s the point of this sentence?

                      Vilification – including by some women, ensured that her visit was politicised insofar as to ensure that NZ women clearly understood what they would face if they sought to gather and publicly share their opinions.

                      yes. What’s your point? We already are on the same page on this. That being true doesn’t negate anything else I have said here.

                      The criticisms of KJK don’t mean conservative women should never speak. If you think the issue is lw women trying to suppress all rw women’s speech, then you really don’t know what is going on .

                  • Belladonna

                    Sorry Weka – I'm running out of nested comments here.

                    re Springbok tour protests. Violence was widely reported between the pro-rugby and anti-tour protesters – entirely separate from any police activity.

                    Here are a selection of photos:

                    https://digitalnz.org/records/31927383/protesters-and-rugby-fans-in-conflict-1981?from-story=5e6e8c176d390900083a6751

                    https://digitalnz.org/records/40759996/rugby-supporter-attacking-protesters-during-springbok-tour-protest?from-story=5e6e8c176d390900083a6751

                    https://digitalnz.org/records/23168677/anti-springbok-tour-demonstrators-overturn-a-car-auckland-new-zealand-photo?from-story=5e6e8c176d390900083a6751

                    It was widely regarded as being the issue which divided a nation – there was passion and hatred ignited on both sides (I don't think I'm using too strong a word here, decades later there are still families who are divided over the protests)

                    https://digitalnz.org/records/43184/divided-loyalties-springbok-tour-cartoon?from-story=5e6e8c176d390900083a6751

                    • weka

                      yes, I remember the divide, it happened in my family too.

                      Were the clashes between anti-Tour protestors and counter protestors? Or anti-Tour protestors and people watching rugby?

                  • Belladonna

                    "Were the clashes between anti-Tour protestors and counter protestors? Or anti-Tour protestors and people watching rugby?"

                    The pro-rugby supporters were much less organized, I believe. So I don't believe that there were organized counter-protests. Many of the violent incidents happened when access to the ground was blocked by anti-tour protesters, and or/when protesters invaded the pitch. But the approaches to the stadiums were not safe places for anyone – especially towards the end of the tour.

              • SPC

                So you are arguing that the pouring juice over someone is serious offence, if the victim of the stained skin, hair and clothing is from the UK, but not otherwise?

                Is there any evidence that ER knew of the death threats to KJ-K while she was here? And if not, what is the relevance? They are both victims of death threats.

                • Molly

                  My view is that direct violence against persons, and intimidation are not justifiable forms of protest against an individual, or an event in the way it was conducted in Albert Park on March 25th 2023.

                  There is also an assumption that there was something to protest against – which has not been proven or actually put forward as an argument.

                  LetWomenSpeak events are coordinated by Standing For Women, and MC'd by Kellie-Jay Keen or others, but the majority of the event is local women taking the microphone and speaking.

                  So, what was the protest about?

                  • SPC

                    The protest? There were two groups each with different protests, the term counter-protest has been used …

                    • weka

                      Let Women Speak isn't a protest.

                    • Muttonbird

                      Let Women Speak isn’t a protest.

                      Is it not a protest against self-ID and no debate?

                    • weka []

                      nope. It’s an event to literally let women speak in public. It’s broadly focused on women’s sex based rights, but women can speak about whatever they want so long as it is legal. Men can speak too, they just have to wait until the women have finished.

                      https://www.standingforwomen.com/events

                      It’s rooted in the UK tradition of Speakers’ Corner.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner

                    • weka []

                      Here’s another way to understand it. When I’ve put up women only posts on TS, and the ensuing discussion has been largely about women’s sex based rights (for a number of reasons), is that post and discussion a protest? No, it’s not. It’s a space for women to speak in public and these are the topics that women want to talk about.

                    • Molly

                      @Muttonbird

                      It's as weka describes it.

                      Occasionally, someone who describes themselves as a trans ally will get the mike.

              • Sabine

                the vicitms of these attacks are also for the vast majority women.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_attack

                An acid attack,[1] also called acid throwing, vitriol attack, or vitriolage, is a form of violent assault[2][3][4] involving the act of throwing acid or a similarly corrosive substance onto the body of another "with the intention to disfigure, maim, torture, or kill".[5] Perpetrators of these attacks throw corrosive liquids at their victims, usually at their faces, burning them, and damaging skin tissue, often exposing and sometimes dissolving the bones. Acid attacks can lead to permanent, partial, or complete blindness.[6]

                The most common types of acid used in these attacks are sulfuric and nitric acid. Hydrochloric acid is sometimes used but is much less damaging.[7] Aqueous solutions of strongly alkaline materials, such as caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) or ammonia, are used as well, particularly in areas where strong acids are controlled substances.[8][9][10]

                The long-term consequences of these attacks may include blindness, as well as eye burns, with severe permanent scarring of the face and body,[11][12][13] along with far-reaching social, psychological, and economic difficulties.[5]

                Even just throwing juice or yoghurt is to humiliate and render 'dirty' the person who is attacked, thus forcing them to go home and change, being covered in shit for all to see.

                this happened in Iran to two women who were engaged in wrong think and the idea that they had the right to be out without covering their hair. The 'reasoning' for the attack might be 'religion' or 'authority' the intend is the same. To publicly shame women, to make them feel afraid of righteous males who will take it upon themselves to chastise women for their wrong doing, and to compell them to either submit to the demands of these men or to scare them into staying home.

                No difference between the person assaulting Posie or the male in Iran assaulting two women going about their life. They are both cut from the same women hating cloth.

                • Sabine

                  And also nothing new in NZ, here in 2021 a female cop got doused in hot water.

                  https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300303578/boiling-water-thrown-in-face-of-police-officer-in-dunedin

                  “While in attendance an officer received facial injuries and was taken to hospital.”

                  Senior Sergeant Craig Dinnissen confirmed it was boiling water thrown in the face of the female officer.

                  The officer had since been discharged and was ‘'recovering from home’’.

                  A woman, in her 40s, was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

                  I take a dildo being trown at my face any day over liquids. the dildo may brake my nose, or a chip a tooth, or i could just duck and it misses me altogether, but liquids? They can do real damage.

                  But i guess its ok when you are from the Transcaste, then everyone, but specially women need to submit, shut up, suck that transdick and be kind.

                  • Molly

                    The constant deliberate downgrading of the assault (because it is Kellie Jay Keen Minshull?) is astounding to me.

                    Apparently, uppity (or yappity) women deserve it all – especially if we can call them far-right, or some other form of bollocks that means they are fair game.

                    Ungrateful wench that she is, she probably hasn't even posted some form of gratitude on Twitter after this occurred for the grade of this assault, and its legimate use in democratic protests. I mean the intensive crush afterwards, perhaps triggered by this brazen assault, should have rendered this particular incident unimportant, surely?

                    Perspective – people – perspective…

                    Apparently, the real victim is the one on charge for a Clayton's assault that may have to face real world consequences for their own decision making.

                    Who would've guessed that we'd come so far?

          • Molly 5.1.2.1.3

            According to this Herald article the charge regarding Kellie Jay Keen is one of common assault;

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/posie-parker-juice-thower-eli-rubashkyn-en-route-for-new-york-after-arrest-claim/OBCY2CCNPJAULNQOHSQVCXX6Y4/

            The protester who doused controversial British speaker Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull with tomato juice at her Auckland rally has been charged with assault.

            In a statement, police confirmed a person has been summoned to appear in the Auckland District Court on a single charge of common assault.

            It is understood the accused is activist Eli Rubashkyn.

            Common Assault in the Crimes Act 1961:

            https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329385.html?search=sw_096be8ed81d369a9_%22common+assault%22_25_se&p=1&sr=1

            Another later Herald article says there are two assault charges, one with an unknown victim:

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/woman-accused-of-throwing-juice-over-womens-rights-activist-posie-parker-pleads-not-guilty/QI24T5Z5BBCG5GDEDAP6I7KIEI/

            The woman accused of throwing tomato juice at British speaker Posie Parker has pleaded not guilty to two charges of assault.

            Eliana Golberstein, also known as Eli Rubashkyn, 34, did not seek bail or name suppression through her lawyer.

            A court registrar confirmed she entered her pleas by notice yesterday and her attendance was excused.

            Her next court appearance is in July.

            She is charged with assaulting Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, aka Posie Parker, in Auckland on March 25, 2023.

            She faces a second charge of assaulting another person on the same day.

            The charges each carry a maximum term of six months’ jail and a $4000 fine.

    • SPC 5.2

      I know, we're approaching a time when water pistols will be banned to prevent their use to "assault" children.

      Of course politicians, and other public figures involved in campaigns, who have been "lamingtoned or egged" were of the olden times of York'shire – when children walked to cold in gumboots when it was wet (and splashed in puddles) and only avoided bull rush in the middle of winter (because they were banned from bringing mud into classrooms) And suffragettes who poured tomato juice to bloody their victim were called Miss Pansy Wansy goody two shoes.

      But to be aware of any of this is to challenge the narrative and become part of the oppression.

      But of course each and every over-reach (from whatever side) will eventually result in a natural corrective reaction.

      Though I do not think it a conflation to mention both cases in the news update. If they had not, they would have linked to a the most recent coverage about the other case anyhow.

  6. Molly 6

    "But of course each and every over-reach (from whatever side) will eventually result in a natural corrective reaction."

    What "over-reach" was enacted by mostly middle-aged women gathering to speak and/or listen?

    • SPC 6.1

      Of itself none, it's part of (democratic society) freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

      Of course that then entails an acceptance that others can also organise in the same way. And on the same day and at the same place.

      And thus some risk of a larger group using either noise or numbers to kettle another groups event. Which can be seen as an over-reach.

      To use a well-known example, back in 1981 there were events planned and others gathered to obstruct them from going ahead. On that occasion police acted to prevent that, if not protest at the event occurring.

      Thus presumably, the complaints made as to whether police have an obligation to ensure an event can be held – secure the perimeter for an event, or not (should there be a counter-protest planned – to keep the peace).

      • Molly 6.1.1

        "Of itself none, it's part of (democratic society) freedom of assembly and freedom of speech."

        This is the most relevant part of your comment.

        The fact it is then skipped over after referring to it as "over-reach" with abstract musings indicates a narrative approach to questions of violence and intimidation.

        • SPC 6.1.1.1

          The fact it is then skipped over after referring to it as "over-reach" with abstract musings indicates a narrative approach to questions of violence and intimidation.

          Balderdash. First, I referred to the larger group's over-reach, not the smaller one. A misrepresentation used to throw shade – question any approach to the issue not on the "right side".

          Third the issue of (mutual) rights is relevant, not abstract musings.

          • Molly 6.1.1.1.1

            "But of course each and every over-reach (from whatever side) will eventually result in a natural corrective reaction."

            "Balderdash. First, I referred to the larger group's over-reach, not the smaller one"

            Unclear from your original comment – (from whatever side).

            "Third the issue of (mutual) rights is relevant, not abstract musings."

            It is abstract at this moment because it does not specify what rights you are talking about. Just musing about the rights to protest, and comparing it to the Springboks protests that were about apartheid.

            What rights ARE you talking about?

            • SPC 6.1.1.1.1.1

              Very clear in the comment made to which you were replying to

              And thus some risk of a larger group using either noise or numbers to kettle another groups event. Which can be seen as an over-reach.

              The rest is semantic twaddle. Done with it.

              • Molly

                Despite the numbering the comment I was replying to was this one:

                https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-11-08-2023/#comment-1963946

                Obvious, because I used quotes to copy your sentence from it:

                ""But of course each and every over-reach (from whatever side) will eventually result in a natural corrective reaction."

                You then modified in a following statement (in order to not have to answer the question?)

                "The rest is semantic twaddle. "

                The rest was another simple – but clumsily avoided question – which I will repeat "What rights were protestors protecting?"

                "Done with it."

                Of course you are. Another relevant question, best avoided by those with no coherent answers.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Middle East, Africa deployments extended
    The Government has approved two-year extensions for four New Zealand Defence Force deployments to the Middle East and Africa, Defence Minister Judith Collins and Foreign Minister Winston Peters announced today. “These deployments are long-standing New Zealand commitments, which reflect our ongoing interest in promoting peace and stability, and making active ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 hours ago
  • Climate Change Commission Chair to retire
    The Climate Change Commission Chair, Dr Rod Carr, has confirmed his plans to retire at the end of his term later this year, Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says. “Prior to the election, Dr Carr advised me he would be retiring when his term concluded. Dr Rod Carr has led ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 hours ago
  • Inaugural Board of Integrity Sport & Recreation Commission announced
    Nine highly respected experts have been appointed to the inaugural board of the new Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission, Sport & Recreation Minister Chris Bishop says. “The Integrity Sport and Recreation Commission is a new independent Crown entity which was established under the Integrity Sport and Recreation Act last year, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    9 hours ago
  • A balanced Foreign Affairs budget
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters confirmed today that Vote Foreign Affairs in Budget 2024 will balance two crucial priorities of the Coalition Government.    While Budget 2024 reflects the constrained fiscal environment, the Government also recognises the critical role MFAT plays in keeping New Zealanders safe and prosperous.    “Consistent with ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago
  • New social housing places to support families into homes
    New social housing funding in Budget 2024 will ensure the Government can continue supporting more families into warm, dry homes from July 2025, Housing Ministers Chris Bishop and Tama Potaka say. “Earlier this week I was proud to announce that Budget 2024 allocates $140 million to fund 1,500 new social ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    13 hours ago
  • New Zealand’s minerals future
    Introduction Today, we are sharing a red-letter occasion. A Blackball event on hallowed ground. Today  we underscore the importance of our mineral estate. A reminder that our natural resource sector has much to offer.  Such a contribution will not come to pass without investment.  However, more than money is needed. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government sets out vision for minerals future
    Increasing national and regional prosperity, providing the minerals needed for new technology and the clean energy transition, and doubling the value of minerals exports are the bold aims of the Government’s vision for the minerals sector. Resources Minister Shane Jones today launched a draft strategy for the minerals sector in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government progresses Māori wards legislation
    The coalition Government’s legislation to restore the rights of communities to determine whether to introduce Māori wards has passed its first reading in Parliament, Local Government Minister Simeon Brown says. “Divisive changes introduced by the previous government denied local communities the ability to determine whether to establish Māori wards.” The ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • First RMA amendment Bill introduced to Parliament
    The coalition Government has today introduced legislation to slash the tangle of red and green tape throttling some of New Zealand’s key sectors, including farming, mining and other primary industries. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop says the Government is committed to  unlocking development and investment while ensuring the environment is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government welcomes EPA decision
    The decision by Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to approve the continued use of hydrogen cyanamide, known as Hi-Cane, has been welcomed by Environment Minister Penny Simmonds and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay.  “The EPA decision introduces appropriate environmental safeguards which will allow kiwifruit and other growers to use Hi-Cane responsibly,” Ms ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Speech to Employers and Manufacturers Association: Relief for today, hope for tomorrow
    Kia ora, Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kātoa Tāmaki Herenga Waka, Tāmaki Herenga tangata Ngā mihi ki ngā mana whenua o tēnei rohe Ngāti Whātua ō Ōrākei me nga iwi kātoa kua tae mai. Mauriora. Greetings everyone. Thank you to the EMA for hosting this event. Let me acknowledge ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Government invests in 1,500 more social homes
    The coalition Government is investing in social housing for New Zealanders who are most in need of a warm dry home, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. Budget 2024 will allocate $140 million in new funding for 1,500 new social housing places to be provided by Community Housing Providers (CHPs), not ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • $24 million boost for Gumboot Friday
    Thousands more young New Zealanders will have better access to mental health services as the Government delivers on its commitment to fund the Gumboot Friday initiative, says Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey.  “Budget 2024 will provide $24 million over four years to contract the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill passes first reading
    The Coalition Government’s Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which will improve tenancy laws and help increase the supply of rental properties, has passed its first reading in Parliament says Housing Minister Chris Bishop. “The Bill proposes much-needed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that will remove barriers to increasing private ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Montecassino Commemorative Address, Cassino War Cemetery
    Standing here in Cassino War Cemetery, among the graves looking up at the beautiful Abbey of Montecassino, it is hard to imagine the utter devastation left behind by the battles which ended here in May 1944. Hundreds of thousands of shells and bombs of every description left nothing but piled ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • First Reading – Repeal of Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989
    I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill Mr. Speaker, I move that the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the Bill. Thank you, Mr. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • First reading of 7AA’s repeal: progress for children
    The Bill to repeal Section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act has had its first reading in Parliament today. The Bill reaffirms the Coalition Government’s commitment to the care and safety of children in care, says Minister for Children Karen Chhour.  “When I became the Minister for Children, I made ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • China Business Summit 2024
    Kia ora koutou, good morning, and zao shang hao. Thank you Fran for the opportunity to speak at the 2024 China Business Summit – it’s great to be here today. I’d also like to acknowledge: Simon Bridges - CEO of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. His Excellency Ambassador - Wang ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Assisted depatures from New Caledonia
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed a New Zealand Government plane will head to New Caledonia in the next hour in the first in a series of proposed flights to begin bringing New Zealanders home.    “New Zealanders in New Caledonia have faced a challenging few days - and bringing ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Assisted departures from New Caledonia
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed a New Zealand Government plane will head to New Caledonia in the next hour in the first in a series of proposed flights to begin bringing New Zealanders home.  “New Zealanders in New Caledonia have faced a challenging few days - and bringing them ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago
  • Government to rollout roadside drug testing
    The Coalition Government will introduce legislation this year that will enable roadside drug testing as part of our commitment to improve road safety and restore law and order, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.  “Alcohol and drugs are the number one contributing factor in fatal road crashes in New Zealand. In ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Minister responds to review of Kāinga Ora
    The Government has announced a series of immediate actions in response to the independent review of Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “Kāinga Ora is a large and important Crown entity, with assets of $45 billion and over $2.5 billion of expenditure each year. It ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Pseudoephedrine back on shelves
    Associate Health Minister David Seymour is pleased that Pseudoephedrine can now be purchased by the general public to protect them from winter illness, after the coalition government worked swiftly to change the law and oversaw a fast approval process by Medsafe. “Pharmacies are now putting the medicines back on their ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • New Zealand-China Business Summit
    Tēnā koutou katoa. Da jia hao.  Good morning everyone.   Prime Minister Luxon, your excellency, a great friend of New Zealand and my friend Ambassador Wang, Mayor of what he tells me is the best city in New Zealand, Wayne Brown, the highly respected Fran O’Sullivan, Champion of the Auckland business ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • New measures to protect powerlines from trees
    Energy Minister Simeon Brown has announced that the Government will make it easier for lines firms to take action to remove vegetation from obstructing local powerlines. The change will ensure greater security of electricity supply in local communities, particularly during severe weather events.  “Trees or parts of trees falling on ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Wairarapa Moana ki Pouakani win top Māori dairy farming award
    Wairarapa Moana ki Pouakani were the top winners at this year’s Ahuwhenua Trophy awards recognising the best in Māori dairy farming. Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka announced the winners and congratulated runners-up, Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board, at an awards celebration also attended by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • DJ Fred Again – Assurance report received
    "On the 27th of March, I sought assurances from the Chief Executive, Department of Internal Affairs, that the Department’s correct processes and policies had been followed in regards to a passport application which received media attention,” says Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden.  “I raised my concerns after being ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • District Court Judges appointed
    Attorney-General Judith Collins has announced the appointment of three new District Court Judges, to replace Judges who have recently retired. Peter James Davey of Auckland has been appointed a District Court Judge with a jury jurisdiction to be based at Whangarei. Mr Davey initially started work as a law clerk/solicitor with ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Unions should put learning ahead of ideology
    Associate Education Minister David Seymour is calling on the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) to put ideology to the side and focus on students’ learning, in reaction to the union holding paid teacher meetings across New Zealand about charter schools.     “The PPTA is disrupting schools up and down the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Craig Stobo appointed as chair of FMA
    Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly today announced the appointment of Craig Stobo as the new chair of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). Mr Stobo takes over from Mark Todd, whose term expired at the end of April. Mr Stobo’s appointment is for a five-year term. “The FMA plays ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Budget 2024 invests in lifeguards and coastguard
    Surf Life Saving New Zealand and Coastguard New Zealand will continue to be able to keep people safe in, on, and around the water following a funding boost of $63.644 million over four years, Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Associate Transport Minister Matt Doocey say. “Heading to the beach for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand and Tuvalu reaffirm close relationship
    New Zealand and Tuvalu have reaffirmed their close relationship, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters says.  “New Zealand is committed to working with Tuvalu on a shared vision of resilience, prosperity and security, in close concert with Australia,” says Mr Peters, who last visited Tuvalu in 2019.  “It is my pleasure ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand calls for calm, constructive dialogue in New Caledonia
    New Zealand is gravely concerned about the situation in New Caledonia, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.  “The escalating situation and violent protests in Nouméa are of serious concern across the Pacific Islands region,” Mr Peters says.  “The immediate priority must be for all sides to take steps to de-escalate the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand welcomes Samoa Head of State
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon met today with Samoa’s O le Ao o le Malo, Afioga Tuimalealiifano Vaaletoa Sualauvi II, who is making a State Visit to New Zealand. “His Highness and I reflected on our two countries’ extensive community links, with Samoan–New Zealanders contributing to all areas of our national ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Island Direct eligible for SuperGold Card funding
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown has announced that he has approved Waiheke Island ferry operator Island Direct to be eligible for SuperGold Card funding, paving the way for a commercial agreement to bring the operator into the scheme. “Island Direct started operating in November 2023, offering an additional option for people ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Further sanctions against Russia
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters today announced further sanctions on 28 individuals and 14 entities providing military and strategic support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  “Russia is directly supported by its military-industrial complex in its illegal aggression against Ukraine, attacking its sovereignty and territorial integrity. New Zealand condemns all entities and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • One year on from Loafers Lodge
    A year on from the tragedy at Loafers Lodge, the Government is working hard to improve building fire safety, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says. “I want to share my sincere condolences with the families and friends of the victims on the anniversary of the tragic fire at Loafers ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Pre-Budget speech to Auckland Business Chamber
    Ka nui te mihi kia koutou. Kia ora and good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for having me here in the lead up to my Government’s first Budget. Before I get started can I acknowledge: Simon Bridges – Auckland Business Chamber CEO. Steve Jurkovich – Kiwibank CEO. Kids born ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand and Vanuatu to deepen collaboration
    New Zealand and Vanuatu will enhance collaboration on issues of mutual interest, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.    “It is important to return to Port Vila this week with a broad, high-level political delegation which demonstrates our deep commitment to New Zealand’s relationship with Vanuatu,” Mr Peters says.    “This ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Penk travels to Peru for trade meetings
    Minister for Land Information, Chris Penk will travel to Peru this week to represent New Zealand at a meeting of trade ministers from the Asia-Pacific region on behalf of Trade Minister Todd McClay. The annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministers Responsible for Trade meeting will be held on 17-18 May ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-05-24T10:07:22+00:00