Open Mike 10/08/2018

Written By: - Date published: 5:53 am, August 10th, 2018 - 137 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

137 comments on “Open Mike 10/08/2018”

  1. Ed 1

    What are we as a country doing to mitigate catastrophic climate change?
    The only solution must be the abandonment of capitalism.
    are we prepared to abandon the pursuit of greed and individualism ?

    • Dennis Frank 1.1

      We’re doing the program that James Shaw has devised in collaboration with the relevant government departments. Too little too late. But let’s hope.

      I agree it would be a good move to abandon capitalism at this point. The tricky bit is how to do so. Eliminating usury would be a good start. Businesses would become cooperative, meaning risk is shared as well as profit. Employees would go hungry until they learn to stop arguing & start collaborating. This would prove especially difficult for leftists.

      “Are we prepared to abandon the pursuit of greed and individualism?” Not until consensus on the alternative system has been developed. So overcoming reluctance to work together on that task is the first step.

      • Ed 1.1.1

        We’re doing nothing that will deal with the issue quickly or significantly enough.
        This is a war and we need to mobilise.
        What you’re seeing in the northern hemisphere this year will seem tame in 3 years time.

        • solkta 1.1.1.1

          But it ISN’T a war. Repeatedly saying so will not change that.

          • greywarshark 1.1.1.1.1

            It takes a definite statement that is a bit OTT to raise people out of the torpor of wondering whether it will be sunny next weekend for sport or to get a certain amount of sleep in a quiet safe spot out of the rain.

      • Pat 1.1.2

        ” This would prove especially difficult for leftists.”

        on recent form (indeed historical) impossible

      • Incognito 1.1.3

        Not until consensus on the alternative system has been developed. So overcoming reluctance to work together on that task is the first step.

        So, who does ‘develop’ this consensus and how? Many people misunderstand the concept of consensus and in political context it is often frowned upon as something unworkable and unpractical, i.e. as something negative that should be avoided. There’s no good role model! A show of hands, a (majority) vote, is all that’s needed, right? In addition to this reluctance there are, of course, those who actively resist it …

        • Dennis Frank 1.1.3.1

          There is a role model, just not in the public domain. It’s in the Green Party Standing Orders & Constitution. Or at least it was when I sent our recently-adopted Constitution to Sir Geoffrey Palmer so he could register the Greens with the Electoral Commission in ’95.

          The method I used when I led the process to constellate consensus and produce both documents was as described in those documents. Starting from intense rivalry & disagreement amongst the leading activists in ’91, lots of word-smithing on my computer, lots of branch, regional & provincial meetings to approve the documents until final approval was achieved at national conference AGM.

          Consensus was defined as all agreeing (in the initial ideal) then in practice modified to all agreeing bar one dissident determined to object. If there was more than one oddball with his/her knickers in a twist, we were required to continue discussion. Resolution to an impasse was usually attained via two or more dissenters agreeing to defer to the majority as long as their objection was formally recorded. That allowed the minority group a basis for continuing to lobby via other meetings, letters (no email back then) or party magazine.

          • Pat 1.1.3.1.1

            .
            “Starting from intense rivalry & disagreement amongst the leading activists in ’91…..”

            “leading”..not all. and therein lies the issue. A consensus within a self determined range of opinions may well be (eventually) possible….this does not reflect society, hence democracy and the’ tyranny of the majority’

            Especially as any time we may have had has likely been squandered.

            • solkta 1.1.3.1.1.1

              Yes, consensus works well in the Green Party with all members agreeing to the Charter principles before they join. It is quite different in wider society where many individuals have very little concern for the environment and other people.

              • Pat

                would add that even within that self selected group (the Greens) one could not seriously suggest consensus given recent events

                • solkta

                  Consensus as a decision making process yes. Consensus does not mean everybody agreeing.

                  • Pat

                    consensus as a process is only as effective as its adherence,presentation and acceptance….none are evident

                    • Dennis Frank

                      I’ve expressed similar doubts about the competence of our parliamentarians in this forum. Especially in regard to the Exec decision to expel the two who disagreed with Metiria.

                    • KJT []

                      The two who dumped on the Green party, joining in the hypocritical holier than thou, racist and misogynist bene bashing, then expected to remain our representatives, you mean. At meetings I attended, there was overwhelming support for Shaw and Turei

                    • Pat

                      The expulsion of Clendon and Graham is just but one manifestation, there are many others

                    • corodale

                      With due respect to Clendon, he was doing a lot of work in law, n that no walk in the park. Imagine him as a great local green, but really the greens need more folk in the house, if they are going to be seriously tackling issues like, the need for Royal Commissions on key issues; ubi and social credit.

                    • solkta

                      @KTJ

                      Yes, those two were very lucky to be aloud to stay in the Party.

                  • corodale

                    ya know the charter is real good, but its impossible to totally satisfy it. Easy for plants to derail progress, but also a natural safe guard to provide conservative policy on what are otherwise awesome and potentially radical folk.

                    • Pat

                      and any of that supports the notion of the effectiveness of consensus how?

                    • solkta

                      Easy for plants to derail progress

                      Is that a reference to cannabis?

                    • Dennis Frank

                      My point was about whether the Exec followed the rules in making their decision. When they informed us of that decision, they failed to specify precisely how the rules had been broken. Three possible explanations for their failure:

                      1. contempt for members (“we’re above being accountable for our decision, we don’t need to prove we’re right”)

                      2. “uh, we forgot. sorry.”

                      3. they didn’t actually know the Constitution & Standing Orders define consensus and how to apply it to GP decisions (“hey, we’re the younger generation, why would we bother to read rules written by the older generation?”)

    • xanthe 1.2

      nationalize all debts and then gradually retire them

      • Ed 1.2.1

        And abandon capitalism.

        Our future,” scientist James Lovelock has written, “is like that of the passengers on a small pleasure boat sailing quietly above the Niagara Falls, not knowing that the engines are about to fail.”

    • Enough is Enough 1.3

      No

  2. Ad 2

    Never thought I’d hear a massive crowd chanting for “Don Brash Don Brash Don Brash” again.

    • Ed 2.1

      Depressing frankly that there are so many racist climate deniers in this banana republic.

    • AB 2.2

      Give the man a baseball cap and a fake tan and God knows how much damage he might do.

    • Jenny 2.3

      In my opinion Auckland University acted rashly in inviting Brash to their Campus, at such short notice.

      In my opinion A.U. management have acted as opportunists motivated by gaining some cheap notoriety at Massey’s expense.

      I have two issues with how Auckland University have behaved in this matter.

      Opportunism

      First of all, It was an insult to the leadership of Massey.

      In my opinion A.U.’s behaviour was appalling and opportunist, taking advantage of M.U.’s difficulties in this matter.

      Instead of standing in solidarity with their sister University, Auckland University have delivered them a deliberate public slap in the face.

      If A.U. were really convinced that Brash’s views needed an airing, then probably what they should have done, is consulted with their sister faculty first, and come up with a combined strategy on how to deal with the thorny issues raised by Brash.

      That they didn’t do this is obvious from the indecent haste with which A.U. acted in giving Brash a platform to speak.

      Hypocrisy

      As has been widely reported, Auckland University did exactly the same as Massey when it suited them. Canceling a talk from Hone Harawira, allegedly on the grounds of threatened protests against him.

      But Auckland University have no issue with protests when it is a white supremacist speaking on campus.

      Just as Te Reo Putake has pointed out in his post on this matter, “There is no such thing as free speech”

      To which I might add; Not if you are Maori, or poor, or from a minority group.
      If you are from one of these above groups and your speaking venue is canned by an institution like Auckland University, the media will not even think it newsworthy, Rich white people will not dig into their pockets to the tune of $50 thousand to sue the institution which has shut you out. And we wouldn’t even be talking about it.

      There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech
      TE REO PUTAKE – July 11, 2018

      • solkta 2.3.1

        I would hope that universities would stand on principle as they see it rather than just follow whatever line another university has taken.

        • Dennis Frank 2.3.1.1

          I agree. Free speech denial will be much less successful than climate change denial! MU will struggle to regain credibility. I suspect they will have to eventually admit their error due to weight of public opinion.

      • Ad 2.3.2

        The Education Act 1989 requires that Universities show that they are acting as a “critic and conscience of society”.

        Here’s a few of the stories that show how some of them are, on a dedicated website.

        http://www.criticandconscience.org.nz/

      • dukeofurl 2.3.3

        remember this ?

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4996046/Harawira-lecture-axed-because-of-redneck-racism
        No, well it was 2011

        Hone Harawira says “redneck” racism is to blame for the last-minute cancellation of a lecture he was to give in Auckland today.

        The Mana Party leader was due to speak about the foreshore and seabed at Auckland University Law School.

        Law student Charlotte Summers said the Faculty of Law cancelled the lecture on the basis of “there may be a breach of the peace”.
        She said the Young Nationals organisation was behind the protest.

        “How is it fair that the Young Nats decide to be disruptive, threaten to be disruptive, and then an entire event is cancelled because of their choices and what they threaten to do?”

      • The New Student 2.3.4

        Massey’s VC made the decision after being approached by the student group (who invited Brash for their event) who raised safety concerns. Appears to parallel that of the incident with Harawira’s speech so I’m not sure what all this angst is about.

        AS an aside, I find it amusing that it took an Australian woman to finally listen to us, when we say that Te Tiriti principles matter.

  3. Jenny 3

    Make a run for it

    Don’t

    An Earthquake strong enough to topple your building will knock you off your feet and will drop you to the ground before you make it to the door, leaving you completely vulnerable to being crushed by falling debris.

    Indonesia’s Lombok quake revives the question of taking cover versus running outside
    Robin George Andrews – Scientific American, August 9, 2018

    ….if a quake strikes when one is inside a building, many experts’ core mantra remains surprisingly simple and unchanging: Drop, cover and hold on.

    This method is promoted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, American Red Cross (pdf), Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the New Zealand Ministry of Civil Defense and Emergency Management (pdf) and the Japanese government, to name but a few. None of these recommend going outside if one is already in a building.

  4. Adrian Thornton 4

    Hijacking Victimhood and Demonizing Dissent:
    The Post 2014 Gaza Bombing Anti-Semitism Moral Panic – a Short History
    By Gavin Lewis….
    https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/hijacking-victimhood-and-demonizing-dissent/

    Israel Is The Real Problem…
    http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=archive&task=view&mailid=500&key=521d744d358c2252091b6dea00b40a3b&subid=33571-17a82b7ee5289bb302b211d107541de8&tmpl=component

    • corodale 4.1

      Yeah, this article also, makes a clear case: August 9, 2018 – The Crisis in Corbyn’s Labour Party is Over Israel, Not Anti-Semitism, by Jonathan Cook, Nazareth.

      Sure, so Israel is the problem; but what’s the solution?

      China have hinted they would occupy Syria, if invited. Expecting this will suit Turkey, along with Iran. These are probably the three countries Israel will work hardest to smear in the media over the next few years, to avoid new regional dynamics.

      Note that if Israel are seriously challenged, they will probably have the money power to bring down the SWIFT inter-bank payment system. But BRICS have an alternative inter-bank payment system, tested globally, including NZ. Or Israel could also potentially false flag an atomic launch at Hawaii from North Korean waters, but the US should be able to shot that down…

      It’s like a giant squid, cornered in a pool of LSD. But some how we must dive into those waters, tame it and demonstrate peace.

      Shalom shalom shalom.

  5. AsleepWhileWalking 5

    Today might be the day Tesla failed.

    • Chris T 5.1

      It has been failing for a long long time now

    • tc 5.2

      Tesla is an enigma wrapped in a dream chasing an electric rainbow currently under musk.

      He is all over the shop with estimates of capital requirements, loss/profit projections, technology and supply issues especially with the battery manufacture.

      I can only see it continuing with a more level head in charge or the funds may dry up as Elons been very tetchy with the analysts who he desperately needs onside.

      The boy wonder needs to step back and let in some rationality IMO.

      • Kevin 5.2.1

        He tweeted the other day about maybe taking it private. Reckons he has the finance in place. Put the wind up the SEC.

  6. Puckish Rogue 6

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/08/who-is-jordan-peterson-a-guide-to-the-next-controversial-canadian-to-grace-our-shores.html

    Ok so this is basically a way over-simplification of what Dr Jordan Peterson, purely designed to court controversy, has actually said but if he comes to Christchurch I’ll be there

    Maybe I’ll see some of you there as well 😉

    • Pete 6.1

      It used to be said that a skin-head, meathead, right wing nationalist front type element flourished in Christchurch. Maybe a big meeting there could be the catalyst to further the plans “to create a European culture “protected community” in North Canterbury … to “build a unified mini state that we could build up in future to be a base for other like minded Europeans to come to from other dying countries.”

      • Dennis Frank 6.1.1

        I vote that it be relocated to Auckland Island. The climate will toughen the roosters up. They could make a reality tv show out of the survival process.

        • greywarshark 6.1.1.1

          Dennis Frank
          Best idea you have had so far. I’ll put small donation into a funding pool to take that forward. Along with Give a Little to buy that station down south and keep in NZ hands.

          • Dennis Frank 6.1.1.1.1

            Thanks grey 😎 it’s actually an old idea of mine. Early nineties I was running the Greens justice policy development as convenor of the working group & put a suggestion into the policy draft that recidivist violent offenders be parked down there & left to fight it out. Had a few greenies looking askance at me after that!

      • Puckish Rogue 6.1.2

        I’m originally from Dunedin, i’m just here for the work 🙂

    • marty mars 6.2

      Yes not surprised you’ll be going after reading that – I don’t really like his views on women and roles and stuff.

      “He believes in “traditional” gender roles because he thinks men might simply be more competent than women, and he’s suggested women shouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup to work because it’s “sexually provocative”.”

      “When a member of the ‘incel’ community drove a van into a crowd in Toronto and killed 10 people, Dr Peterson proposed a system of ‘enforced monogamy’ in which women are given to men as sexual partners in order to prevent such acts of violence.”

    • Bill 6.3

      Well, at least you’ll be well versed in the art of non-sequiturs 😉

  7. Chris T 7

    Had to laugh at that Brash thing yesterday

    Good luck to the protesters, but way to prove Brash’s point

    Talk about a backfire

    • Carolyn_Nth 7.1

      Ah the rightees are leading public discussion off on a merry ‘free speech’ red herring jaunt.

      This is not about ‘free speech’ as originally intended: it was intended to ensure democratic debate so that all views get heard.

      Today the issue is about which voices get heard most in the mainstream, and the kinds of views that get heard most frequently, and most positively in the mainstream – it’s about access to dominant platforms, and the attention economy – everyone is free to express their views online, but it’s hard for everyone to get people to pay attention to their views.

      It was intended to be about freedom from government/state censorship.

      The old Jeffersonian free market of ideas ideal, was that, if all views get heard and debated in public, the best of thinking will rise to the top, and dodgy thinking will be found out and drop out of the consideration. But, as we can see with Trump, Brash, Canadian alt-righters, etc, in the digital age, a lot of dodgy populist speakings gets mainstream attention and acceptance by some.

      The guests on the UoA panel was skewed to Pakeha, older people, and the Right (see the still image fronting the video you posted). They did have an unknown person of Maori Pacific descent speak in the debate. But, the attention was all on ye olde Pakeha Name people.

      The protesters were adding the voices of those excluded from the debate. They were protesting the voices that have been excluded, and against the (one-sided bigoted mis-informed views on ‘race’, etc) issues that have been slid into the mainstream under the guise of ‘freedom of speech’.

      In the short term, many with power will be tut-tutting about the protest. However, when the students are protesting strongly about inequities, democratic fails, misinformation, damaging propaganda, etc., then there is still hope for our world.

      • Chris T 7.1.1

        “Adding voices”

        If by that you mean yelling incoherently, yes they were.

        As is their right.

        And we can judge for ourselves which looked the least idiotic

      • Molly 7.1.2

        I’m not convinced that giving so much attention to those who are adept are provocation and flawed reasoning, is producing the outcome that most would wish for – a dismissal of their rantings.

        Perhaps a different approach is required to deal with this kind of invasion of rhetoric, other than vocal protestors at venues. I’m thinking about the effect on those who attend, exiting the venue only to be exposed to approbation, censure and loud shouting. Leading, as is expected from human nature, to further entrenching views – that as yet might have been not fully formed.

        The only proposal I can come up with at present, that aligns with a progressive form of counteracting such views taking root is not fully formed, but here goes:

        Instead of a continuation of rhetoric and speaking, an invitation for those attending to have their say, and talk about their personal situations and why they felt that the speaker had something to say worth paying for.

        A cohesive and comprehensive plan for a Listening Post form of protest would involve people getting together, and learning how to address the fears and concerns of those who might be persuaded by such rhetoric, by genuine conversation and discussion of alternative views and options. Invite people as they exit to talk and then genuinely listen. Without judgment, then offer a counter view – to that one individual that you have engaged with.

        If the end result is to innoculate our people from the harm that comes from following such ill-considered public opinions, then the media focus and vocal protests seem to be doing the opposite.

        I would be interested in hearing if there are other proposals for effective actions out there.

        • Pat 7.1.2.1

          that is a far more sensible and productive approach.
          The purpose is not to silence the extremist but to ensure their views remain exactly that..extreme. What is needed is to seek empathy from as wide an audience as possible and that is most effectively achieved by recounting personal experience and eliciting understanding….the opposite is achieved by shouting slogans and presumptive judgements

        • Puckish Rogue 7.1.2.2

          Sounds like you’re sort of saying if you attack me I’ll dig my heels in and won’t listen and if I attack you you’ll do the same and no ones point of view gets changed?

          If so yeah absolutely thats what’ll likely happen so yep I agree with your conclusions

          Reasoned, polite conversation is always a good way to go

          • Molly 7.1.2.2.1

            “Reasoned, polite conversation is always a good way to go”
            This sounds good, but in reality some of the most polite amongst us can be very destructive and use that skill to “win” arguments.

            I’m thinking along the lines of better listening, and genuine engagement – which may or may not be considered genteel, but is conducted with respect. Reinforcing the ‘listening’ rather than the talking.

            Saying that you need people who are skilled at this type of interaction, I know only a few myself. 🙂

            • Puckish Rogue 7.1.2.2.1.1

              There certainly is a major difference between hearing and listening, in NZ though I do like to believe that there are more things that we all have in common then what we have as differences

              • Molly

                I don’t believe that differences should be a problem. Trying to homogenise experiences and perspectives, causes more alienation than it heals.

                Accepting differences seems to be a hurdle for many. Differences in choice, perspectives and actions.

                However, I do agree with you, if what you are saying is that many do share either unexpressed or badly expressed values.

                It is insistence on those values being followed in specific ways, without allowance for difference perspectives, approaches or resources that causes ongoing problems.

                • Dennis Frank

                  I use the coin as model for the way the brain operates. Left hemisphere differentiates between parts, right hemisphere integrates parts into wholes. The big picture combines both (holism).

                  So when we focus on the differences between us, we differentiate ourselves as unique humans & get idiosyncrasy (see the original meaning of that). When we focus on commonalities we share, we form an integral view. When we apply the latter in political praxis, we develop consensus. If I were a political psychology lecturer, that’s how I’d teach it to my students.

                  Toss a coin, see how it lands. Tails, say the leftists. Heads, say the rightists. People see what they’re looking for. Doesn’t matter, say the centrists. The coin has both sides concurrently regardless of how it lands. Both/and logic, not zero-sum logic. Applied holism.

                  • Molly

                    “So when we focus on the differences between us, we differentiate ourselves as unique humans & get idiosyncrasy (see the original meaning of that). When we focus on commonalities we share, we form an integral view. When we apply the latter in political praxis, we develop consensus. If I were a political psychology lecturer, that’s how I’d teach it to my students.”

                    Except this approach predisposes a common view, when life experiences and perspectives differ even when values do not.

                    In your example, I would focus on the shared values – and work from that. That would be true engagement, else along with presupposed commonalities – that may or may not exist – you usually come up with presupposed solutions to presupposed problems.

                    I would think a long-term sustainable solution would acknowledge that multi-pronged and adaptable solutions from a diverse range of people with the same values is a good result.

                    • Dennis Frank

                      Not in my experience. The common view emerges organically from the discourse. That’s why it is authentic: it is based on genuine commonalities that people discover connect them in a sense of belonging to a cultural context or group or society. The discovery process requires identification and acknowledgement of those in order to objectify them into what eventually constellates as a belief system. So it’s a natural process humans do.

                      Yes, crowd-sourcing wisdom is indeed an optimal technique when used in a diverse social context. Best seen in brain-storming sessions. Discussion groups can produce it but it depends whether members have what it takes to operate as catalysts. Teams work even better than brainstorming because of their task focus.

                    • Molly

                      “The common view emerges organically from the discourse. That’s why it is authentic: it is based on genuine commonalities that people discover connect them in a sense of belonging to a cultural context or group or society. The discovery process requires identification and acknowledgement of those in order to objectify them into what eventually constellates as a belief system. So it’s a natural process humans do.”

                      I agree with you insofar as it applies to values.

                      I disagree in terms of how adept we are as a society into looking past differences in order to achieve good outcomes for shared values.

                      From that perspective, there are two options:
                      1. Take time and energy to identify – or construct – commonalities before working together,
                      2. Acknowledge the differences – and work together.

                      I have a suspicion that we are talking along the same lines, but I do think there is an important consideration to make for allowances of differences in genuine engagement.

            • Molly 7.1.2.2.1.2

              Apologies for the “genteel”, been discussing Austen with my daughter, and some of that vocab slipped in…

        • Carolyn_Nth 7.1.2.3

          Thanks, Molly. i do agree there needs to be conerted and co-ordinated approach. The question is how to have that conversation with a mainstream media that is too superficial, rightward leaning, and focused on beating up drama and conflict?

          I am not so critical of the protesters. It is, as I said about getting the attention of the mainstream media. Protesting politely somehow tends not to get that much cut-through in the dominant media and forums.

          And, I am very pleased to see highly motivated protesters try ways that they decide to counter the way most kiwis are being led by the nose by some well resourced right wing propagandists. Some will learn fromt heir protesting experiences in ways that will inform their activism in the future.

          I despair at how MOR the majority of Kiwis seem to be and how fearful of young activists with a fresh view on things.

          The protesters rightly made the issue about racism – right wingers are using the free speech mantra as a foreground in order to slide in their dodgy bigotry.

          • Molly 7.1.2.3.1

            To be clear, I’m not criticising the protestors for being passionate about something that is destructive to our shared society. I’m just wondering how we ensure the long-term effectiveness of actions against these views. And if there are other – perhaps additional – or replacement – methods that would produce the results that would benefit us all.

            The point you make about racism is valid. What I’m struggling with is how much time we are giving to addressing the rhetoric of overseas self-promoters when many New Zealanders experience varying degrees of racism every day. If we can find a way to address that systemically, then society as a whole, including the media, would not allowed themselves to be played for publicity.

            If we don’t ask why those – brought up or choosing NZ as a home – are finding these speakers attractive, then we are missing a trick in working out how to make sure that pull is reduced.

      • Cemetery Jones 7.1.3

        “The old Jeffersonian free market of ideas ideal, was that, if all views get heard and debated in public, the best of thinking will rise to the top, and dodgy thinking will be found out and drop out of the consideration. But, as we can see with Trump, Brash, Canadian alt-righters, etc, in the digital age, a lot of dodgy populist speakings gets mainstream attention and acceptance by some.”

        I’m not actually seeing what the ‘but’ is here. So what if there’s a bit of back and forth along the way? Unless you’re a Marxist, there’s no reason to believe the process will be logical and linear, it’s a game of snakes and ladders.

        I thought the protesters (I was in the room) were 90% on the right tone, they respectfully but firmly interjected and disrupted, but overplayed their hand eventually and became disrespectful and childish. At that point they allowed the MAGA hat types that if it is going to descend into a contest of loud noises, they won’t be the ones who win. And of course at that point they let Brash speak, then marched out of the still unfinished debate.

        What’s also amusing is that these people who came to protest – supposedly about people of colour not being listened to – marched out without waiting to listen to Sir Anand Satyanand’s very thoughtful closing speech. I thought they wanted to hear from non-Pakeha? And yet they walked out on a person of colour who exemplifies the successful side of NZ’s multiculturalism.

        Meme of the night came from Elliot Ikilei: Hey Marxists: where’s Dad?

        • Carolyn_Nth 7.1.3.1

          Thanks for the firsthand report, CJ.

          Maybe the protesters have some things to learn about effective activism. The only way to learn effective methods, is to give various methods a try.

          Brash is such an long-time mainstream speaker, I doubt one loud protest against him will make racist views any worse than they are now in the mainstream.

          And from some reports, the loud protests only happened for a few minutes, and Brash was not prevented from delivering his whole speech.

          Hmmmm… actually the Stuff report, gives a whole different view from just selected video clips of the shouting moments. They focus on Brash speaking, not being silenced.

          “Don Brash speaks at boisterous Auckland University debate, punctuated by protests”

          Former National Party Leader Don Brash was given a fiery response from protesters as he took part in a free speech debate at Auckland University on Thursday evening.

          For a time it appeared Brash would not be able to speak as protesters sang and shouted over him inside the auditorium but after a few minutes calm was largely restored and Brash was invited to finish his speech.

          Brash said to the boisterous crowd that they were themselves demonstrating free speech, which was in favour of what he was about to debate.

          Community group A New University, made up of Auckland University students, said it had organised the protest of Brash’s inclusion in the debate, which was hosted by the university’s debate society.

          A New University spokeswoman Beth Stanley said the group did what it intended, which was to show that there was strong opposition to Brash participating because of his views towards Te Tiriti o Waitangi, te reo Māori and the rights of Māori people in New Zealand..

          “Don Brash spoke. We didn’t in anyway disrupt his speech. He got his whole speech out,” Stanley said.

          “We wanted to show that people are not happy about what he has to say and that he is not welcome on our university. We got our point across.

          We are not opposing the event or anything like that, we’re opposing specifically Don Brash being invited onto campus.”

          Brash said the protesters were off-putting, but he wasn’t intimidated.

          We are not opposing the event or anything like that, we’re opposing specifically Don Brash being invited onto campus.”

          Brash said the protesters were off-putting, but he wasn’t intimidated.

          So, really it’s looking like people getting sanctimonious about loud, short-lived protests are really off on a wrong track.

          And all the reports I’ve seen focus mostly on what Brash had to say. I have no idea what this has to do with the issue:

          Meme of the night came from Elliot Ikilei: Hey Marxists: where’s Dad?

          Or what it means. Just sounds like a superficial, and unexplained anti-Marxist jibe.

          So what?

          • Cemetery Jones 7.1.3.1.1

            “Maybe the protesters have some things to learn about effective activism. The only way to learn effective methods, is to give various methods a try”

            Agreed – a pity that instead of being honest about it, their leaders come out with this statement, which bends the truth

            “Don Brash spoke. We didn’t in anyway disrupt his speech. He got his whole speech out,” Stanley said.

            Yeah, they did disrupt it. Which in itself is cool, they made him sit it out for 4 or 5 minutes while they spoke. But it did not progress as she claims. They made their speeches (cool), ensured their viewpoint registered with speakers and the crowd (vitally important), and then basically played up for the news cameras and made a spectacle of themselves until the crowd had no choice but to show them that if it’s just a contest of noise, they won’t be the ones who win. A lesson they ought to digest for future actions.

            Brash got to speak in the end, and hell I’m not a fan of the guy. I’m actually kinda mad at these pesky kids that they’ve forced me to accept Brash as a proxy for the debate about these rights. But only when the audience called time on their performance (not their protest, but the performance which ensued once the actual protest was over) did that happen. Beth Stanley attempts to give the impression that they voluntarily made their point and stepped back. She says ‘we didn’t in any way disrupt his speech’. That’s not true, but also not the part she needed to be dishonest about.

            “So, really it’s looking like people getting sanctimonious about loud, short-lived protests are really off on a wrong track.”

            Perhaps it’s people taking a protest leader’s less-than-candid statements at face value who are the wrong track ; )

            As for the Marxists, “Where’s dad?” is the response their screechings about capitalism and colonialism will garner for a long time to come.

    • You_Fool 7.2

      Do the protesters not have a right to free speech? Can’t they say what ever they like whenever they like? Or is that only OK if you are white, rich and insulting other cultures?

      • Anne 7.2.1

        I watched the debate last night and the protesters on this occasion walked straight into a trap of their own making. Honestly, they didn’t exhibit a whole brain between them. It was inevitable Brash would play the… “oh look, I’m being denied my right to speak” card. He claimed it as an example why pc language is so dangerous which of course is a false equivalence (nothing to do with being pc) but that detail would go over the top of most people’s heads.

        I hope the students in question get a bollocking for being so stupid from their peers today.

      • Puckish Rogue 7.2.2

        Of course they do however what they’re doing is anti-free speech

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

        ‘The common example is the termination of a speech or demonstration in the interest of maintaining the public peace based on the anticipated negative reaction of someone opposed to that speech or demonstration.’

        ‘In common parlance, the term is used to describe situations where hecklers or demonstrators silence a speaker without intervention of the law.’

        • Anne 7.2.2.1

          To be fair it only involved a handful of protesters. The rest stood silently at the back of the chamber holding up their signs which could be clearly seen. That was fine, but the idiots who yelled through megaphones when Brash started speaking well… Brash made the most of it when he was finally able to speak and who can blame him.

          @ You Fool.

          The protesters were exercising their right to speak outside the entrance for a long time prior to the start of the meeting. They no doubt exercised the same right when the crowd left. But they had no right to disrupt speaker, Don Brash (whose views I despise) inside the hall.

          • Puckish Rogue 7.2.2.1.1

            Couldn’t agree more with this

              • Puckish Rogue

                Was wrong then and would be wrong now

                • Robert Guyton

                  I think you are. I like to see expressions of passion, such as interjections.
                  Pucky; you exhibit passion toward your pin-up dowager girl, Judith; do you think we should call for your expulsion from TS because your “shout-outs” offend us?

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    Well in all fairness I’ve never been a Young Nat nor a student at Auckland University however the difference is while I accept that Jude is potentially the daughter of god (those initials can’t be a coincidence) I don’t try to stop anyone disagreeing with me

                    Whereas those protesters were trying to drown out Dr Don Brash

                    • McFlock

                      So?

                      Freedom of speech doesn’t silence other people, surely? If enough people in the audience had told the dickheads to shut up and let Brash speak without interjection, they would have. Hell, the protestors would have been ejected by security to the applause of the audience.

                      And then you’d have been boldly defending their right to free speech, surely?

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      “Freedom of speech doesn’t silence other people, surely?”

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

                      ‘In common parlance, the term is used to describe situations where hecklers or demonstrators silence a speaker without intervention of the law.’

                      “If enough people in the audience had told the dickheads to shut up and let Brash speak without interjection, they would have.”

                      You’re not that naive, you know as well as I do that all that would have happened is that both sides would have ended up shouting at each other and Don Brash wouldn’t have been able to speak

                    • McFlock

                      Funny thing about meetings like that: people can’t yell forever. And being yelled over doesn’t mean you have to shut up.

                      Dealing with a hostile crowd is a basic skill for politicians and comedians.

                      Frankly, raising the “heckler’s veto” is a bullshit way of trying to guilt protestors into silence. Note: that’s not the same as “silencing” someone.

                      One would think you’d never been to a disorderly gathering of a lively crowd and seen someone win it over to a previously unpopular position.

              • Gabby

                Well the Harawiras are a bit racist.

      • Chris T 7.2.3

        No one said they couldn’t

      • indiana 7.2.4

        Do the protesters not have a right to free speech?

        Perhaps the question is how you execute your freedom of speech.

    • greywarshark 7.3

      A backfire. Is that a polite word for a fart?

    • corodale 7.4

      Germany are talking about conscription again. Definitely an option for these kids. Embarrassing to be out-smarted by DB. Send them on some social and ecological projects as well as military. Can we do it, unemployment rate could be lower? Yes.

  8. AsleepWhileWalking 8

    Bloody insurance company!

    Hamilton woman Abby Heartly fell in in Bali and is in an induced coma. Article links to GiveALittle.

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12104556

    • Chris T 8.1

      Would be helpful if they said why the insurance company isn’t covering it.

      “Our mum is fighting for her life in ICU in a hospital in Bali and unfortunately insurance company is refusing to cover any medical costs,”

      Sounds like they didn’t have any cover for medical insurance

      Which if true doesn’t really make the insurance company the bad guy (if someone has to have one)

  9. marty mars 9

    Why a slap on the wrist? How is this company allowed to continue? Why do we take this shit sandwich and ask for another? When are people going to say ,’sorry, but sorry isn’t good enough. No more!!!’.

    “The council estimated that 450 cubic metres of dairy effluent was discharged when the incident occurred in November 2016.

    This is the equivalent of 17 truck and trailer units full of effluent. The volume was such that it was able to be detected eight kilometres downstream at Lake Ohakuri.”

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/106161773/farmer-fined-for-contaminating-stream-that-was-flowing-green-with-effluent

    • tc 9.1

      I still see unfenced waterways with livestock standing in rivers and streams…..why ?

      Because they can !

    • bwaghorn 9.2

      They fined them $46000 for what was probably an accident and you call it a slap on the wrist. !!

      • McFlock 9.2.1

        These “accidents” need to stop. They don’t just happen, they’re borne of negligence. That pipe pumped sewage into the waterway for 14 straight hours. I bet they have systems in place to detect an equivalent milk loss pretty bloody quickly.

        Obviously the level of fine isn’t cutting it.

        • bwaghorn 9.2.1.1

          You understand what siphoning is as opposed to pumping . ?
          Using your rational we need to quadruple speeding and parking fines there levels are not cutting it .

          • McFlock 9.2.1.1.1

            Meh. The point stands – shit went through the pipe into the waterway.

            And yes, I reckon that all fines should be a proportion of wealth and traffic fines could be higher. Especially parking tickets – on the odds of getting caught, it’s cheaper to wear the occasional ticket than it is to pay for parking all the time.

      • John up North 9.2.2

        Yep there’s too many of these “accidents” and dairy farmers/companies will push council to hold off on fines etc with promises of getting things sorted. Here’s a classic example from my neck of the woods.

        “Two farms that belonged to Northland farmers David and Frances Webster were responsible for allowing dairy effluent to flow into waterways in what an Environment Court judge Craig Thompson called the worst case of “prolonged non-compliance” he had ever seen.

        The offending, which saw a huge amount of untreated dairy effluent put into the Manganui River, which feeds into the Northern Wairoa River and the Kaipara Harbour was described as “blatant, ongoing and serious”, with one of the farms being “awash with dairy effluent”, resulting in “gross contamination”.”

        “Outside the court the council’s farm monitoring manager Dennis Wright said the companies “grossly polluted waterways for at least eight years and the environment wore the cost”.”

        And an even better ending to the story, when finally taken to court (at a cost of $50K to rate payers) the shifty fuckers managed to side-step paying any fines by selling the farm and shifting funds into trust accounts (obviously Nat voters).

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/103892720/fine-of-225000-for-dirty-dairying-will-go-unpaid-because-companies-are-broke

        These are the sort of people we have out on the land screwing our waterways and I wonder how many times they professed it was due an “accident”

        • bwaghorn 9.2.2.1

          I have no problem with fining offenders . I just had to call mm for his bullshit wet bus ticket claim ,so the rabid farm haters here that probably won’t read his link but nod their heads and growl fuck yes get some balance in their diet.

          • marty mars 9.2.2.1.1

            I do think it was minimal – what’s the cap value of the farm what income produced- that amount is the second car or third tractor.

            • Rosemary McDonald 9.2.2.1.1.1

              Back in 2011 ish, the Waikato Regional Council was struggling to gain(never mind maintain) a reputation as a hardarse enforcer in relation to the Clean Streams Accord. Long story short….WRC with the aid of helicopter observers found, investigated and successfully prosecuted a King Country farmer. Big write up in local rag and a fine of $50 thousand. I spoke with this farmer and pretended sympathy for the hit to his bank balance from the fine. “No worries, my insurance covers the fine and the costs.”

              Bus ticket? Pantomime.

              WRC at best useless.

              (That particular cocky had not contaminated any waterway, btw, there was simply a risk of that happening.)

      • greywarshark 9.2.3

        You are so kind and fair bwaghorn. Probably an accident! It actually matters that it happened, that it was destructive and will have ongoing results, and that the systems set up to cope with the production of effluent were inadequate. Like our previous government. We have been drowning in their muck and have only just survived. Perhaps they should pay half of that fine?

        • bwaghorn 9.2.3.1

          When you start calling for city rate payers to be fined for their shit in the harbours I’ll consider your input .till then zip it sweety.

          • greywarshark 9.2.3.1.1

            You are getting a bit silly bwaghorn. I think you are spending too much time with your sheep.

  10. indiana 10

    Support growing for an unqualified accountants pre-election economic analysis?

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12104552

  11. OnceWasTim 11

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/106160806/new-zealand-to-ban-singleuse-plastic-bags

    Mike Hoskings is writing about how outraged he is as the news breaks

    • Puckish Rogue 11.1

      Are there any chemist or scientist types on here that could explain if its possible to maybe develop and add something to a plastic bag that would make it break down quickly or give it a shelf life or something?

      • veutoviper 11.1.1

        There are already plenty of biodegradable (and/or compostible) plastic products including bags available in NZ – but there is also some dispute as to whether they actually breakdown as claimed, especially in landfills.

        Sorry, cannot help on the science etc and must rush out, but here is a link to a Google search which provides lots of info on what is available in NZ.

        https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=biodegradable+plastic+bags+nz&rlz=1C1LDJZ_enNZ499&oq=biodegadable+&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l5.10513j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      • Pat 11.1.2

        the main problem is what they break into….even broken down they contaminate

        • Dennis Frank 11.1.2.1

          Precisely. I saw a science report on the tv news about that several weeks ago, think it was BBC originated. Microscopic bits of plastic in ocean water. Imagine how much they are likely to disrupt organic process within when ingested by any organism. Scary stuff.

          So the problem that first became evident via reporting on those mid-ocean gyres long ago has a deep dimension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

          • gsays 11.1.2.1.1

            Yes, that plastic includes the green scourers in kitchens, fibres from thermals (modern long John’s), polar fleeces and the like.

      • OnceWasTim 11.1.3

        Are you advocating for an inquiry @ PR? Or given the submissions and comments and lobbying already done, should we not just get on and do the bleeding obvious.

        However, if you’re really committed, you could consider looking at some of the evidence various places in the 3rd World have sought that has led them to single-use plastic bans

        • OnceWasTim 11.1.3.1

          “……… led them to single-use plastic bans”
          should of course read “led them to BAN single use plastic bags”.

          (perhaps there should be an inquiry into the ‘mis-spoken’ ‘mis-typed’ as gNatz would advocate, rather than into things of importance and substance.
          (Pauline Kingi and the Wally springs to mind), but then I defer to your superior intellect, perceived class, and troll status.
          DId I ever tell you how gorgeous I think you are?
          Whoar! I dream about you nights

      • RedBaronCV 11.1.4

        I’ve been using some of those ones made of corn starch. So not plastic at all according to the fine print. Not too bad and they can go into a compost bin but i believe they can take a while to disintegrate as they are designed for much hotter industrial composting. Having said that it looks like a couple of things do burn holes in them (i’m suspecting dobs of chicken fat but could be wrong. ) Also some internet hints that some are made from GE corn bt I guess if we grow the corn here and make them here that would not be an issue.

    • Kay 11.2

      For Mike, outrage over something is necessary for survival, the withdrawal symptoms would be unbearable. Preferably something proposed by people with a different idealogical leaning to his own.

      As for the bags- great start, but as many are saying, the bigger problem is all the completely unnecessary wrapping of things that don’t need to be wrapped, supermarkets being the main culprits. Countdown want to tell us how committed they are to the environment but STILL won’t provide paper bags in their bakery section (plastic only) etc etc. But at least their Bobby bananas don’t have a plastic wrapping, unlike the Pak’nSave version, which unfortunately are much cheaper…

  12. Ad 12

    “Retailers rush to support government plastic bag ban”

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12104719

    Who was saying business doesn’t have confidence in this goverment?

    • indiana 12.1

      Dang it! My keep-cup is made out of plastic!

    • Cinny 12.2

      My girls and I are thrilled about this announcement.

      May retailers step up and also cut down on plastic packaging as well.

      A big thanks to our government for doing something rather than nothing, it’s a great start and long overdue.

  13. Philj 13

    Great achievement Coalition. So progressive and courageous….. Oh wait. The Supermarkets were doing it anyway. Lol. And the soft drinks bottles?

    • dukeofurl 13.1

      Were doing it anyway ?

      Yes not like they need to stop them from fast food, liquor stores and the myriad small stores

  14. eco maori 14

    The Nation Business I agree with Grant Roberson that the money from Kiwi saver funds and the Cullen fund should be invested in Aotearoa infrastructure build it now and it will cost less than build in the future not hard to figure that out .
    The thing about business leader’s is that are mostly supportive of national that’s a fact so if they can help the neo capitalist they will help distorts the business conferdince state with a few white lies and walar it crashes .
    A low New Zealand Dollar is good for Aotearoa and the environment we get more for our exports and because imports are more expensive we import less and manufacturer the products our selves .
    What did I say the quoter management system is a system set up for mone men to rip off the system . And the justice system is set up for the 00.1 % to be able to use there mone for impunity that’s a fact look at the fine they got 25 years ago$1 million dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to 500 tons x $6000 a ton = $3 million and what about all the fish that has been stolen over 30 years they should have been banned from fishing 25 years ago banned from any business.
    Ka kite ano

    • The Chairman 14.1

      Here is something for you to ponder, eco, thus perhaps reconsider your approval.

      As both Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund seek a return on their investment, they are not the most cost effective way to fund our infrastructure. Utilising the tax take is.

      Moreover, when we take into account the opportunity cost of doing so (using Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund) it’s just not worth it. The nation won’t grow its wealth charging ourselves more (due to the return required from the investment) to use our infrastructure. It’s inflationary, thus adds to the cost of production.

      Even borrowing funding would be cheaper than using Kiwisaver and the Cullen Fund.

  15. eco maori 15

    Here you go Eco did say that good Kiwi’s can see trough the historical hysterical emotional things the neo capitalist project on Us good Kiwis to raise there profile in public eyes and gone brash wonder’s why Maori mokopuna’s have high suicide rate’s the link is below ka kite ano

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/08/10/186757/yesterdaze-plastic-correctness-gone-mad

  16. eco maori 16

    This is a good win for the common tangata against multi national company’s who never admit liability round up is a poisiosn full stop link is below ka kite ano

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/10/monsanto-trial-cancer-dewayne-johnson-ruling P.S we could make machines that use steam heat to kill weed’s or pay people to weed or machines to weeders better than poisoning the tangata
    Thanks to the Europeen Union for its stance on this poison

  17. eco maori 17

    This is to all the mone people Human Caused Climate Change link below.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/06/domino-effect-of-climate-events-could-push-earth-into-a-hothouse-state Ka kite ano

  18. eco maori 18

    Sugar has a direct link to the cause of diabetes contrary to what the 2 to 3 company’s lobbying mone let’s the media say about there bad product sugar .They only let researcher say that sugar doe’s not cause diabetes with there big lawyer’s ready to sue the truth teller’s . Eco say it does have a direct link it stuff up your liver and walar one has diabetes . If your whano has this disease get rid of the sugar you don’t need it we did not have sugar in OUR diet for thousands of years it’s not hard to give up Eco has .
    Ka kite ano link below.

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sugar-liver-diabetes

  19. eco maori 19

    Good evening Newshub There you go trump is adding to idiots ego’s that’s not hard to see . That mess in Tolaga Bay with all the waste from forestry washing down river’s on to the beaches there is the same mess back home at the Waiapu river mouth beaches .
    I have been following that round up story for a while New’s hub I say that that story on the video game that checks peoples navigational skill’s is full of ——- another way of glorifying the Europeen culture and men is what I see there . how about I take some one in the bush and then we will see who has the best navigation skill’s I see the deceit has be happening for centuries .How do I know this why Analyse the difference in skill’s of different cultures and sex’s to prove that one sex or culture is better than the other and publicize it {fake till you make} it is the capitalist way look at trump .
    .The game of 3 halves is a good way for the couch to check if he has picked the correct players .
    It would be awsome if the Wahine Rugby World Cup was played in Aotearoa
    Ka kite ano

  20. eco maori 20

    English version of Aotearoa Stan Rita Maisey Troy

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Significant step in Pike River drift re-entry
    Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry Andrew Little has received the report on re-entering the Pike River drift following nine months of intensive work by Te Kāhui Whakamana Rua Tekau Mā Iwa Pike River Recovery Agency. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Ngāpuhi mandate proposal to vote
    Ngāpuhi rangatira and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Andrew Little have unanimously agreed to move towards negotiations by taking the vote to the people after meeting at Parliament tonight ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Criminal Case Review Commission Bill passes first reading
    Justice Minister Andrew Little’s Bill establishing a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) passed its First Reading in Parliament today.  ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Trans-Tasman e-Invoicing Arrangement signed
    Today in Canberra Small Business Minister Hon Stuart Nash signed the formal trans-Tasman e-Invoicing Arrangement with Australian Assistant Treasurer, Hon Stuart Robert. As well as signing the Arrangement they also discussed the longer term advantages for businesses using the Australian ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Minister visiting Australian counterparts
    This week Minister for Small Business, Hon Stuart Nash, is travelling to Canberra for a range of meetings with his Australian counterparts across three of his portfolios. The first visit is with the Australian Assistant Treasurer, the Honourable Stuart Robert ...
    3 weeks ago