Daily review 13/07/2021

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, July 13th, 2021 - 22 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 …

22 comments on “Daily review 13/07/2021 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Muttonbird 1
    13 July 2021 at 6:00 pm

    This was originally a reply to Anker on Open Mike but I have put it here instead.

    There’s a lot of feeling out there over this division, not helped by third parties using it for political purposes (the FSU/TPU), or for acting like complete pricks (Campbell Barry).

    Lower Hutt Mayor Campbell Barry posted on Facebook last week saying: “If this group needs a venue in the Hutt, I’ve got some nice new waste bins they can use?”

    That’s a horrible thing to say by someone clearly insensitive to the situation. What an idiot. But then Jordan Williams of the FSU/TPU made a complaint about it.

    The Free Speech Union made a complaint about the comment. Union spokesman Jordan Williams said the comment was discriminatory. “Elected officials need to get with the programme. Free speech matters, and the law requires it. They cannot use public office and local facilities as personal serfdoms to discriminate against political views they do not like.”

    Umm. Isn’t that the very type of free speech you are trying to defend, Jordan? And it is the very definition of politics, you hypocritical twat. Judith Collins pulls this shit every other day!

    Can’t have it both ways. What is clearly obvious is the the hard right wing of NZ politics feel they can insert themselves into this at will for their own advantage. They have highjacked what is a very difficult social dilemma in order to drum up some votes. Whose votes is another question.

    In my opinion, the SUFW billboard which was taken down was quite provocative. So be it, but it stared the cancellation process and has now been cancelled. So be that, too.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/speak-up-for-women-controversy-billboard-removed-mayor-apologises/CGUGDIAATDU3CCE56TUMCMJOQM/

    • Nic the NZer 1.1
      13 July 2021 at 6:56 pm

      SUFW seems to think both the Hutt and Wellington councils are trying to intimidate them, and groups have intimidated a bill board company into pulling an advert they posted.

    • greywarshark 1.2
      13 July 2021 at 8:33 pm

      Ever heard of *Orwell’s concept of confusion by language?

      The sign complained of stated a dictionary definition that describes the point of the group?

      ‘woman – women – noun – adult human female’

      Is that bad? Really?? Will we have selective book-burning next?

      *Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. … The word is comparable to George Orwell’s Newspeak and Doublethink as used in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, though the term Doublespeak does not appear there. Doublespeak – Wikipedia

      • I Feel Love 1.2.1
        13 July 2021 at 10:34 pm

        Well I’m assuming you’re non trans? Therefore you wouldn’t find it offensive. If on the other hand you were trans, aware of the context of the message conveyed in the sign, you may find it offensive.

        The tattoo parlour, the business inside the building where the sign was displayed, also asked for it to be removed.

    • weka 1.3
      13 July 2021 at 10:41 pm

      “In my opinion, the SUFW billboard which was taken down was quite provocative. So be it, but it stared the cancellation process and has now been cancelled. So be that, too.”

      How did SUFW start the cancellation process?

      • Muttonbird 1.3.1
        14 July 2021 at 9:41 pm

        SUFW did not start the cancellation process. Members of he public and the Wellington Phoenix as partners of Go Media did that.

        • weka 1.3.1.1
          14 July 2021 at 10:39 pm

          You said,

          … but it stared the cancellation process and has now been cancelled

          What did you mean by "it started the cancellation process"?

    • Fran 1.4
      14 July 2021 at 2:35 pm

      I am not sure how this billboard is provocative. I am also not sure why trans people need my gender label. Perhaps they could simply be proud of their own e.g. trans gender female, and the rest of us could just accept that and let people lead their lives.

      Feminists are not hate groups, this transgender debate is silencing women. Giving someone rights should never mean taking someone else’s away and unfortunately that is what is happening here.

      • Muttonbird 1.4.1
        14 July 2021 at 9:52 pm

        It's a civil war in the Rainbow Community and that is unfortunate. The billboard is certainly provocative. It is a blunt and deliberate rejection of transgenders. It cancels them. But public opinion had it taken down so SUFW is on the wrong side of public opinion.

        • weka 1.4.1.1
          14 July 2021 at 10:40 pm

          How does the billboard cancel trans people?

          • Rosemary McDonald 1.4.1.1.1
            14 July 2021 at 10:56 pm

            How does the billboard cancel trans people?

            Because, obviously, it perpetuates the archaic theory of biological essentialism.

            Parthenogenesis will need to be the next step in human evolution.wink

            • weka 1.4.1.1.1.1
              14 July 2021 at 11:19 pm

              strange that science is pursuing womb transplants instead.I wonder why 🤔

              Even if AHF is biological essentialism (which it's not) it still doesn't mean that trans people don't exist. The existence of trans isn't dependent upon denying science nor women's right to their own political class.

    • Anker 1.5
      14 July 2021 at 11:09 pm

      Not sure what comments of mine you were replying to.

      you say in a later comment here muttonbird that SUFW are on the wrong side of public opinion but that is incorrect. A vote compass poll taken just before last years election showed that the majority of voters don’t support gender self id. And while not a scientific poll a recent news hub poll showed something like 90% of people did not support trans women competing in women’s sport. We have a very vocal group of trans activists who are intent on shutting down debate by referring to women who query gender ideology as bigots and require that everyone adheres to their ideology.

      many women on the standard speak up for women’s rights. There is a significant amount of men on this site whose silence is deafening. If they can’t support women, I might have hoped they would speak up for girls, who will have to increasingly put up with biological males in their change rooms and sporting competitions

      • weka 1.5.1
        14 July 2021 at 11:24 pm

        My guess is that most of the NZ public will be broadly supportive of trans rights and draw a line at self ID and access to women's space once they understand that the trans umbrella now means males who have no intention of medical/surgical transition. What will happen when we get to NB rights, I don't know (still waiting for the explanation of why NB males should have access to women's space).

      • weka 1.5.2
        14 July 2021 at 11:33 pm

        Press release from SUFW on the vote compass poll.

        http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/5/385437

        Results from a Vote Compass poll, run by TVNZ prior to the 2020 general election, show that the majority of New Zealanders do not support the idea of sex self-identification. Over 181,000 people responded to the question ‘People should be allowed to change the sex listed on their birth certificate, without having to undergo a medical treatment to change their gender.’ Only 29% of those respondents agreed or strongly agreed. 47% disagreed or strongly disagreed, with the remainder unsure or neutral.

  2. gsays 2
    13 July 2021 at 6:38 pm

    In lieu of any noticeable media campaign, awareness or even any talking points from the NZNO, spare a thought for the nurses as their industrial action approaches.

    It’s important to remember the money isn’t the main issue.

    Enrolled nurses have been left behind in the last few years.

    Clinical Nurse Specialists and Nurse Practitioners are roles that are emerging and evolving with conditions and support still to be formalised.

    Short staffing is common and the skill mix is often sub-optimal. Our local ED has issued a Provisional Improvement Notice, for the same reasons Wellington Staff did after events last week.

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/wellington-hospital-ed-nurses-issue-notice-management-fix-unsafe-working-conditions

    The nurses will be key leaders of change when the proposed Health Authority comes into existence and we need to stem the loss of senior nurses from the profession.

    • Sacha 2.1
      13 July 2021 at 9:50 pm

      The nurses will be key leaders of change when the proposed Health Authority comes into existence and we need to stem the loss of senior nurses from the profession.

      So much this. The cost of letting that expertise out of the country is way higher than paying what they are asking for.

    • weka 3.1
      13 July 2021 at 10:43 pm

      my feeling is we are witnessing the next wave in the rise of fascism in the UK, but not really quite understanding that it is happening yet. Easily as bad as what happened in the US between 2016 and 2020.

  4. Jenny How to get there 4
    14 July 2021 at 3:58 am

    After reading excerpIs of the draft script, as supplied by Newshub, I would agree with the generally held opinion that the “They are us” movie is an offensive opportunist Americanisation of tragic events. And should not see the light of day.

    One thing I would note, is David Seymour’s objection to his portrayal as fictional Christian conservative leader ‘Solomon Marsh’, who opposes gun reform to please his right wing base. Obviously this portrayal would resonate with American audiences, being a character familiar to them. That Seymour is a Christian fundamentalist is completely untrue. Of his proposed portrayal on screen, Seymour goes on to claim that his objection to banning semiautomatic weapons was only on procedural grounds. Seymour is proved a liar by his appointment of a right wing pro gun lobbyist as his deputy. Seymour’s depiction as an opportunist who opposes gun reform to please his right wing base is accurate.

    From the script the rest of the movie is sensationalist rubbish, even sexist.

    However I would say one more thing, the portrayal of Winston Peters was way more generous than he deserves. The portrayal of Peters questioning himself over his past racist scapegoating of Asian and Muslim migrants was way too sympathetic.

    https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/offensive-peters-bridges-seymour-condemn-portrayals-in-draft-film-script/ar-AAM5giH?ocid=msedgntp

    • McFlock 4.1
      14 July 2021 at 2:00 pm

      It’s the worst type of Hollywood “based on a true story”: enough gore for people to wank on about “realism” (saving ryan’s privates I’m looking at you), but with all the portrayed actions of people simply being invented to reflect contemporary USian themes.

      I quite like a lot of Andrew Niccol’s movies, but this is shit – and well out of his usual lane (unless he’s being very meta).

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.