Daily review 22/11/2021

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, November 22nd, 2021 - 27 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 …

27 comments on “Daily review 22/11/2021 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Molly 1
    22 November 2021 at 6:25 pm

    Community owned assets:

    Lancashire village buys its own pub – to add to its shop and library

    And it’s not just the local watering hole they acquired: the residents of Trawden have also communally bought, reopened and operated, one by one, the shop, the library and the community centre, making them the first village in Britain to do so. The triumphant reopening of the Trawden Arms this month after a long period of closure completed the set.

    …The pub had been put up for sale – which these days generally means being turned into holiday homes for absentee owners – but the villagers successfully applied to have it listed as an asset of community value, which prevented developers swooping just long enough for the locals to raise the cash themselves.

    • Anker 2.1
      22 November 2021 at 6:53 pm

      Ok progressives on this site who think you are doing the right thing supporting gender ideology (as opposed to transgender people). Wake up. This is part of what us women on this site have been trying to draw your attention to.

      The implications of this of course if you can't say same sex (but only same gender) then does homosexuality even exist?

      • weka 2.1.1
        22 November 2021 at 6:57 pm

        Wtf does equality dance couple even mean? Oh sorry, that’s EQUALITY dance couples.

        just have an additional term for NB and trans ppl, it’s not hard.

      • Johnr 2.1.2
        22 November 2021 at 8:25 pm

        I know I'm an old fart, so perhaps its normal that I dont understand the LGBT alphabet soup gender stuff. I've tried to understand all the threads on this site but it is beyond me.

        When I was a youth we all knew someone that was a bit different, but if you were a good person with decent values everybody excepted you. Life went on.

        Today we seem to have to label everybody's behaviour and slot them into a box, when normal human tolerance would have sufficed.

        Oops I need to go. My woolly brown (desperately in need of a groom) cocker spaniel just climbed up onto the saloon table in the boat demanding a serious back scratch, I am fully trained.

        • higherstandard 2.1.2.1
          22 November 2021 at 8:54 pm

          yes

        • Gezza 2.1.2.2
          22 November 2021 at 9:35 pm

          When I was a youth we all knew someone that was a bit different, but if you were a good person with decent values everybody [accepted] you. Life went on.

          👍🏼

          You’re speaking truth to flower there, Johnr. 😀

        • Patricia Bremner 2.1.2.3
          22 November 2021 at 10:46 pm

          Spaniels get into your heart heart

        • Molly 2.1.2.4
          23 November 2021 at 8:48 am

          The discussion is not about social acceptance, it is about the impact of legal and institutional change that has/is likely to come about due to well-intentioned but badly drafted legislation and policies.

          Gender critical perspectives, are not critical of gender expression, they are critical of the expectation that your biological sex determines how you are permitted to express yourself. In this both the active transgender lobby and gender critical people are aligned. I would posit that most gender critical people really don't have the issue with alternate gender expression that a lot of others have. Where the discussion is, is on the knock on effect of law and policy changes.

          To give some understanding, does anyone know the answer to the questions I posted a couple of nights ago? This kind of conflation of the terms sex and gender, has multiple knock-on effects, and the public is unaware it is happening.

          Looking at NZ legislation for Human Rights:

          Section 21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination

          (1) For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are—

          (a) sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth:

          (b) marital status, which means being— list provided

          (c) religious belief:

          (d) ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions:

          (e) colour:

          (f) race:

          (g) ethnic or national origins, which includes nationality or citizenship:

          (h) disability, which means— list provided

          (i) age, which means,— list provided

          (j) political opinion, which includes the lack of a particular political opinion or any political opinion:

          (k) employment status, which means— list provided

          (l) family status, which means— list provided

          (m) sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.

          The Human Rights Commission has the following:

          • Human Rights Act 1993 – It is unlawful to discriminate against anyone in New Zealand because of their sexual orientation or sex/gender identity. These include applying for a job, at work, in education and health care, in government agencies’ policies and practice, and when you buy things or pay for services.

          The Students Rights NZ website also states:

          Can I attend a single-sex school of my chosen gender?

          Human Rights Act 1993, s 21

          Yes. You have the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex, which includes gender and gender identity. However, the school may ask for proof of your gender or of your intention to transition.

          I'm not as up to the play on legislation processes as others here, so my questions are:

          1. To me these interpretations of the discrimination term – sex are incorrect. The discriminatory practices were on the basis of biological sex. There is no provided list of descriptors as there are for disability and marital status.
          2. If this change conflating sex and gender identity did take place at legislative level, when did it happen?
          3. Where was the public discussion?
          4. What does this mean for discrimination based on biological sex?
          5. Should the Human Rights Commission (and other bodies) be interpreting the law in such a way if it has not been through legislative processes?
    • observer 2.2
      22 November 2021 at 6:57 pm

      Context: this dancer is nothing to do with anybody making any decisions about the TV programme, or indeed anything else in the UK or anywhere.

      So basically the Daily Mail headline (and nobody else is bothering with it) is … "Irrelevant person says something".

      Searching tabloids for shock stories is not hard. Or meaningful.

      • weka 2.2.1
        22 November 2021 at 7:00 pm

        That might be true were it not for this being a mainstream example of the increasing homophobia from gender identity politics.

        Stonewall managed to convince the BBC to change its language style guide so the definition of homosexuality is same gender rather same sex. This is intentional social engineering.

        • Gezza 2.2.1.1
          22 November 2021 at 9:40 pm

          It’s absolute shite, is what it is. Good on you guys for calling it out when you see it. This is an attempt to bully everyone thru guilt tripping & OTT PC, by a pernicious & dishonest minority that needs a good kick in their collective arse, imho.

  3. observer 3
    22 November 2021 at 6:42 pm

    How to manufacture a story …

    Tonight's Newshub poll question:

    "If it was down to Judith Collins or Simon Bridges, who would you pick to lead the National Party?"

    But it isn't.

    Tomorrow's poll question: "If it was down to arsenic or cyanide … ?"

    Newshub headline – "Kiwis back cyanide". (But they really, really don't).

  4. Anker 4
    22 November 2021 at 6:53 pm

    Ok progressives on this site who think you are doing the right thing supporting gender ideology (as opposed to transgender people). Wake up. This is part of what us women on this site have been trying to draw your attention to.

    The implications of this of course if you can't say same sex (but only same gender) then does homosexuality even exist?

  5. Maurice 5
    22 November 2021 at 6:57 pm

    From: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/order-paper-questions/business-statement/document/53NZPBusiness202111181/business-statement-thursday-18-november-2021

    Hon Chris Hipkins, Leader of the House, made the following statement relating to the business of the House:

    "I have notified the Business Committee that I intend to move urgency on Tuesday for a bill concerning the next state of the response to COVID-19."

    Yet there is no text or link to the Bill or even a name so essentially the Public will know little more of this until it is reported by Parliament AFTER it is passed under Urgency.

    Transparency?

    • Nordy 5.1
      22 November 2021 at 7:05 pm

      Wrong – it is a public document once it is tabled before any debate (if not before depending on release decisions by the govt).

      In this case the govt has already stated (last week) it will release it to other parties (i.e. effectively making it public) once it has been finalised.

      Also, they have already stated what it will contain when they first announced it. Do some research before making things up.

  6. Reality 6
    22 November 2021 at 9:17 pm

    Barry Soper is having a whinge in the Herald about the PM's press conference. He thinks his deadline should have precedence over others and the PM fobs the media off. Well just as well she asserts her role or she would be shoved all over the place and Soper would be saying she is a lightweight. He has lost the plot well and truly.

  7. KJT 7
    23 November 2021 at 4:35 am

    Bit of background about Rittenhouse, the Kenosha Police and the incitement for the wannabee Rambo's.

    Opinion | Kyle Rittenhouse Didn't Act Alone: Law Enforcement Must Be Held Accountable | Leah Watson (commondreams.org)

    "On the night of August 25, law enforcement not only failed to protect protestors calling for police accountability and more humane treatment of Black people, but actively put them in harm’s way. Officers enabled and encouraged predominantly white, right-wing armed civilians and militia groups that night, creating a situation in which tensions escalated and people were killed."