Open mike 11/06/2020

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 11th, 2020 - 96 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 …

96 comments on “Open mike 11/06/2020 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Michael Kelly 1
    11 June 2020 at 7:08 am

    https://youtu.be/ST595CNN_6U

    [It seems you are new here and started with spamming the site and spreading false information about the PM’s agenda on vaccination. You have one day to provide compelling and convincing evidence that Jacinda Ardern is interested in implementing ‘forced vaccination’ in NZ. If you fail to comply, you will be banned permanently from this site – Incognito]

    • Andre 1.1
      11 June 2020 at 9:52 am

      It looks like quite the paranoid delusional stretch to go from what Ardern actually said to "Forced Vaccination Agenda?".

      Nevertheless, when safe and effective vaccines are available but there are grossly antisocial individuals who refuse to be vaccinated without good medical reason, I'd be all for holding them accountable should they get the disease and spread it to others.

      In the context of places like the US, that accountability might come in the form of lawsuits for damages. In NZ, as I understand it, there's precedent for prosecuting through the justice system those that spread disease such as HIV.

      • Sabine 1.1.1
        11 June 2020 at 11:56 am

        .

        They either make it mandatory, or they don't – remains to be seen as currently we don't even have a scientific consensus as to what this virus actually is.. But unless they are making the vaccine for Covid 19 mandatory the Anti Vax People will not volunteer themselves or their children for a vaccine. No matter what the PM says or not.

        Currently however we do nothing when un-vaccinated children / adults spread measels. I think it falls under "Meh", what can be done about it.

        • Kevin 1.1.1.1
          11 June 2020 at 12:12 pm

          I cant see it being mandatory, but if you don't get it you will probably face travel restrictions outside of NZ.

        • Andre 1.1.1.2
          11 June 2020 at 12:50 pm

          Currently, yeah, it seems to be "meh" about unvaccinated (without good medical reason) people spreading measles. I can't think of any other examples in our society where wilful gross negligence causing easily preventable harm to others is tolerated without incurring consequences.

          It's time consequences were applied to those that end up spreading disease because they refused to take an extremely cheap, simple and safe precaution against spreading that disease.

          • Rosemary McDonald 1.1.1.2.1
            11 June 2020 at 3:07 pm

            It's time consequences were applied to those that end up spreading disease because they refused to take an extremely cheap, simple and safe precaution against spreading that disease.

            Andre. Pray tell what exactly are the "consequences" you demand be brought down upon the heads of these willful disease spreaders?

            Fines? Imprisonment? Forced vaccination? Termination of employment? Denial of benefits or publicly funded healthcare, expulsion from educational facilities?

            "Extremely cheap, simple and safe precaution…" not so much for the approximately 91 poor souls per year so seriously injured by a vaccine that they qualify for ACC cover.

            (I have an OIA list of successful claims per year for vaccine injury from ACC if anyone wishes to query this number. )

            And every single time the experiences of these victims of vaccine harm are dismissed by the likes of the 60% of Kiwis (such as yourself) who wholeheartedly and without reservation accept the official narrative that 'all vaccines are safe and effective', the gulf betwixt the twain will widen.

            https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12338534

            • Andre 1.1.1.2.1.1
              11 June 2020 at 4:18 pm

              Your OIA info that you're ominously making out as showing vaccinations are dangerous – is it the response to Kayla French that includes this?

              The accepted claims related to vaccinations are associated with different injury groups; the most common accepted injury group is infections. The infection injury group accounts for 47% of the accepted claims. It is also worth noting that serious or fatal treatment injuries as a result of vaccinations are vanishingly rare; accounting for fewer than 0.2% of claims made in the 10-year period you mention. (my italics)

              Note that at a rate of 0.2% for serious or fatal with an average of 91 claims per year – that works out to once every five or six years that someone thinks someone has suffered a serious or fatal injury from vaccination. And with the way a very active group of kooks are trying hard to falsely paint vaccines as dangerous, I suspect even that one incident every five or six years is more likely than not a misattribution. But sure Rosemary, carry on with trying to present a false argument that anti-vaxxers have any kind of reason or logic on their side.

              As for consequences for disease spreaders – personally I think recovering the full cost of treating them and the unfortunates they passed it on to plus the consequential costs suffered by their unfortunate victims would be a good place to start.

              • Rosemary McDonald …
                11 June 2020 at 5:12 pm

                Oh, Andre. I do so envy your sureness on this issue.

                I guess you have never, ever spoken to someone who has experienced first hand an adverse reaction to a vaccine? A parent, perhaps, who 'lost' their previously milestone hitting child after a post- immunisation fever caused significant neurological damage?

                A senior citizen, persuaded to have their very first flu vaccine, who ends up seriously ill with the flu for the first time in their lives?

                No, I guess not.

                How is it that while many of those who are vaccine hesitant acknowledge the overall benefits of some vaccines, it is almost unheard of for a proponent of vaccines to acknowledge that some people are harmed by vaccines and that not all vaccines are effective?

                Surely respectful discussion with the 40% of the population who do not share your unquestioning belief in the safety and efficacy of vaccines would be more productive than the jackboot to the neck approach?

                Because hey….in New Zealand we don't even hold those who willfully drink and drive responsible for the injuries they cause. And drink driving is illegal.

                • Andre …
                  11 June 2020 at 5:35 pm

                  You're almost certainly falling for the correlation means causation fallacy.

                  Childhood vaccinations are frequent enough that the onset of any problems will likely occur *shortly after* a vaccination for significant numbers of children. But that association in time does not *prove* that the vaccine caused the problem. That proof can only come from careful examination of massive data sets. And that careful examination shows the opposite – that vaccines do not cause almost all of the ailments that have been attributed to them.

                  As just one example, here's a look at encephalopathies that have been falsely blamed on vaccines.

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2603512/

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4718347/

                  To be sure, there have been a very few instances of vaccines making it out into general public use and then failing to meet the extremely stringent safety performance expected of them. Invariably, those particular vaccines have been withdrawn extremely rapidly.

                  As to that idiot segment of the population that has deluded themselves into fearing vaccines through following their feels and ignoring facts, reason, knowledge – I dunno.

                  Education won't help those who refuse to be educated. Presenting facts and evidence won't help those who refuse to consider them. Coddling them with empathy about their feels doesn't seem a likely route to bring them into the world of reason and evidence.

                  That doesn't leave much else other than holding them accountable for the outcome of their stupidity, which so far they have been entirely insulated from.

                • francesca …
                  12 June 2020 at 8:49 am

                  My brother-in-law, a retired cardiologist was unlucky enough to suffer anaphylactic shock from a flu shot, and now refuses to take the flu vaccine.

                  Andre would have him strung up

                  • Andre …
                    12 June 2020 at 9:14 am

                    If you bothered to try to understand what I actually wrote, you might have twigged to the idea that your brother-in-law falls into the category of people I think deserve the protection of widespread herd immunity from the diseases anti-vaxxers seem so determined to spread around. That herd immunity is created by widespread vaccination of the general public. Because he actually has a medically sound reason not to be vaccinated.

                    The risk of allergic reaction (with anaphylaxis at the extreme) is a significant part of questionnaires to be asked before administering a vaccine. Every single time I've received a vaccination, the provider has been particularly careful on that point, coming at it with questions from several different angles.

                    Rare as those reactions actually are, they are still the reason why you're expected to stay at the doctor's office for a waiting time after receiving the vaccination. It's also important to note that such reactions, when appropriately managed, are a temporary nuisance, not a long term problem.

                    https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/adverse-reactions.html

                  • Rosemary McDonald …
                    12 June 2020 at 9:41 am

                    Heh!

                    Andre might need a break from noose tying (those hanging ropes are hard and heavy) and have a read…

                    https://robwipond.com/archives/1758

                    Many news articles about a study of influenza vaccine and miscarriages raised good questions—but for questionable reasons, reports Rob Wipond.

                    (This article appeared in The BMJ (British Medical Journal), January 5, 2018.)

                    When reporting on medical studies, the popular press has a habit of sensationalising. So the muted response to a recent research paper reporting increased risk of miscarriage with influenza vaccines was at first sight surprising.

                    …and just one response from a BMJ reader.

                    https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k15/rr

                    In any discussion of influenza epidemiology we should acknowledge the careful and steady (one could even say fearless) work of Danuta Skowronski and her Canadian public health colleagues. It was they who found that the 2008-9 flu shot doubled the risk of illness from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic flu. Their observations were considered important enough to alter Canadian vaccine recommendations for the 2009-10 season. However, for some reason, they had a good deal of difficulty getting their study finally published. (Skowronski, PLoS Med 2010;7(4):e1000258) This observational study was a revelation, even a shock, to many public health experts. US officials never publicly acknowledged the findings…..This is just one of a number of important papers published over the years by Skowronski and her colleagues, who have a reputation for high scientific and ethical standards.

                    And further from a former BMJ editor….

                    https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/03/13/richard-smith-who-is-most-likely-to-have-side-effects-to-flu-vaccination/

                    I wondered if I could find an answer to the simple question of “Who is most likely to experience adverse effects of influenza vaccination?” Might it be related to age, gender, having the vaccine for the first time, having reactions in the past, being pregnant, a history of not having the flu, or other factors?

                    The first paper I found, from JAMA, seemed to conclude that there are no side effects; I had imagined them or, as my wife correctly pointed out, it might be coincidence that I had the vaccination and then symptoms from some other cause. That was hard for me to believe, but I knew that she could be right.

                    So I couldn’t find an answer to my simple question of who was most likely to get side effects from influenza vaccination despite hundreds of millions being vaccinated every year. I was also left with the conclusion that researchers are much more interested in efficacy than side effects, which fits with the observation that adverse effects are poorly collected and poorly reported in randomised trials. Indeed, I found two systematic reviews of multiple trials of effectiveness. It’s understandable that researchers, particularly those who develop vaccines, will be much more interested in efficacy than side effects, particularly in the context of antivaccinationists making a tremendous amount of noise about mostly false adverse effects of vaccines. The researchers, who will rightly believe in the great effectiveness of vaccines, will not want people to be put off from being vaccinated. But patients are interested in both efficacy and side effects, and if they are to give genuinely informed consent they need high quality evidence on both. The nurse who vaccinated gave me no information at all (perhaps because she knew I was a doctor, and I didn’t ask) and told my wife there were no side effects (perhaps she’d read the JAMA trial).

                    This discussion happened just over one year ago.

                    One year ago. And one of the planet's more reputable medical journals publishes and allows open discussion on the more than murky field of vaccine research.

                    Beware Andre….your head just might explode…

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 1.2
      11 June 2020 at 9:56 am

      The top image is hosted on a site selling massively expensive debunked cancer "treatments" (e.g. gcMAF – " Once proclaimed a ‘magic protein’ capable of curing cancer, GcMAF has been proven ineffective."). The site also features some 'unconventional' theories on the origins of cancer ( e.g. "cancer is NOT a genetic disease" )

      No surprises there.

    • Incognito 1.3
      11 June 2020 at 10:08 am

      See my Moderation note @ 7:08 AM.

    • Michael Kelly 1.4
      11 June 2020 at 11:03 am

      It is a question and a concern designed to promote healthy discussion on this matter. We have recently seen the “COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020” being rushed through parliament in a way that was deeply concerning to The Human Rights Commission. This act gives government the power to issue orders that require persons to take any specified action, or any specified measure, if the government believes it will help to prevent the spread of Covid-19. This overrides The Bill of Rights and deeply concerns me that the government may consider mandatory vaccinations when a vaccine comes along. This concern was heightened with another recent event when “The Covid-19 Public Health Response (Safeguard from forced vaccinations)” amendment bill, tabled by Jami-Lee Ross was rejected by other political parties and after viewing the video of Nationals Christopher Luxon responded “Yes I do” to the question “Do you support cutting benefits to solo parents who do not vaccinate their children?”

      I am not against vaccines, but I support The Bill of Rights and the freedom of individuals to choose.

      [You do not seem to understand the Moderation request. You have been asked to put up evidence for an agenda by Jacinda Ardern to implement forced vaccination in NZ. It follows directly from your first comment @ 1 and its content and presentation. The onus is on you to comply with the Moderation request, not to argue your agenda and detract with BORA, et cetera. NB Christopher Luxon is not even in Parliament yet and you have created another strawman.

      I find your opening gambit highly disingenuous. There are other ways to design and promote discussion on the matter of COVID-19 vaccination.

      By associating your ‘discussion’ with Jacinda Ardern, and with 100 days until the Election, you politicised the issue from the outset.

      I suspect that you have an agenda and ulterior motives, and my suspicion is further raised by the company website you are associated with.

      Are there currently any examples of forced vaccination in NZ?

      Are there currently any examples of mandatory vaccination in NZ?

      Being deeply concerned is no reason to deliberately spread disinformation to stoke fear.

      Did you know that it is not mandatory to tell your partner that you are HIV-positive before having sex as long as you use a condom for protection (of your partner)?

      Did you know that currently there is no vaccine against HIV?

      If your comment @ 1 was merely based on your speculation and concern, you can provide a clarification as such that leaves no doubt whatsoever that you made it up and that Jacinda Ardern has no such plans for forced vaccination.

      You have until tomorrow or face a permanent ban – Incognito]

      [As I suspected, you’re not interested to “promote healthy discussion”. You deliberately started off in a highly politicised manner and together with your website this immediately gave away your agenda. I’ve given you an opportunity to take your contribution to where we can trust you and respect you for your opinions and engage with you in good faith, but you decided not to take it. I take this as another sign of your disingenuous agenda. Long story short, you were warned and you are now banned permanently from this site – Incognito]

      • Peter Chch 1.4.1
        11 June 2020 at 11:24 am

        We all live in a society. The cost of the huge benefits we receive from that is that our freedoms can never be absolute.

        Individuals cannot have absolute freedom if that freedom takes away the freedom of others. In this case, a poor uptake of a covid 19 vaccine places all in danger. Some measure of coercion is unfortunately necessary for the good if the majority (and the fruitcake anti vaxxer minority themselves).

      • mac1 1.4.2
        11 June 2020 at 11:24 am

        And you have a duty to report accurately and factually, not flout garbage touted by the very people with whom you say you disagree.

        The rights of people always carry responsibilities as well. The right to an opinion does demand the responsibility to be as informed, accurate and factual as possible.

        Otherwise, you are badly informed, stupid, a quack or a nutter, vapid, vacuous and vacant.

        English has a wide vocabulary for people who offer crazy notions as bona fide opinions.

        Boorish, biased, bigoted, prejudiced, potty, pillock, contrary, conspiratorial, clot, foolish, fanciful, flibbertigibbet.

        • Peter Chch 1.4.2.1
          11 June 2020 at 11:28 am

          Mac1. And you are certainly using that wide vocabulary with all the words starting with p, v, b. I am impressed! Great stuff.

        • Adrian 1.4.2.2
          11 June 2020 at 12:08 pm

          You left out "fucking idiots " Mac, but then I know that's not your style.

          People who cling "RIGHTS "always disregard the corresponding "RESPONSIBILITIES."

        • Adrian 1.4.2.3
          11 June 2020 at 12:08 pm

          You left out "fucking idiots " Mac, but then I know that's not your style.

          People who cling to "RIGHTS "always disregard the corresponding "RESPONSIBILITIES."

      • Andre 1.4.3
        11 June 2020 at 11:29 am

        How can you tell if someone is an anti-vaxxer?

        It's a pretty good clue when someone says something like "I am not against vaccines, but …" in the midst of raising all kinds of spurious concerns. Then when you do a search on them and find their handle on another forum linking approvingly to a notorious anti-vaxxer …

        • Michael Kelly 1.4.3.1
          11 June 2020 at 11:51 am

          I do not hide behind any handle or first name only. I have never written on any blog against vaccines.

          • Peter Chch 1.4.3.1.1
            11 June 2020 at 12:08 pm

            And personally, I respect you for using your full name, and for your posts. Absolutely opposed to your views, but you and others hold them and it is important they be aired and refuted.

          • Andre 1.4.3.1.2
            11 June 2020 at 12:38 pm

            Are you or are you not the Michael Kelly that commented on the No Punches Pulled blog linking to a video featuring Judy Mikovits PLANDEMIC?

            (not linking because that site and its comments are nuttier than the buffet at a squirrel convention)

            As for handles here, the culture is that most commenters use a pseudonym. Including almost all authors, even those whose real life identities are openly disclosed. When I started commenting here, it frankly felt weird not using my full name, but that's what this forum is.

            • Drowsy M. Kram 1.4.3.1.2.1
              11 June 2020 at 1:00 pm

              “…nuttier than the buffet at a squirrel convention” – ha, very good.

          • Cinny 1.4.3.1.3
            11 June 2020 at 1:56 pm

            Hi Michael

            In the USA the MAGA crowd believe that covid tests are a way of collecting a person's DNA, and they are dead against taking a vaccine. Yes it's a crazy way of thinking, but that's how the trump supporters roll.

            Freedom of choice is one matter but spreading MAGA propaganda narratives is another. JS

      • Shanreagh 1.4.4
        11 June 2020 at 2:05 pm

        I am not against a healthy discussion about vaccination per se. I regard this though as a strawman argument because

        1 there is currently no vaccine against Covid-19

        2 It is not the way of NZ to enforce vaccination on those who do not wish to have it as long as those doing so have a knowledge of what they are doing

        3 The best example is for the vaccination given to teenage girls where there is an ability for them to opt for or not personally, despite what their guardians may or may not believe.

        4 A specific regime of vaccination unless you/guardian specifically opt out will catch the 'can't be bothered' parents of which there are many.

        5 Despite no compulsory vaccination those who do not vaccinate or arrange to have their children vaccinated may find that some avenues may be closed for them and their children eg

        -Travel some countries may not allow unvaccinated travellers from NZ to visit their countries in much the same way as earlier generations of travellers up to the 1990s at least could not visit places unless we could show up to date vaccination certificates for yellow fever & malaria in 1996 in Mauritius and Kenya.

        -Private NZ places such as rest homes, early childhood orgs etc may legitimately ask that people wishing to avail themselves of services offered may be required to produce vaccination certificates so that the resthome, ECE is able to keep residents/children safe. I do not regard this as punitive but of a responsible owner of an enterprise. There is no Bill of Rights provisions to say that a private owner is not able to take reasonable steps and must admit those who do not abide by these reasonable steps. Just as despite some of our greatest social advance/freedoms there are still some will not admit LGBT to their private homes or home based businesses.

        So while interesting the post is in response to 'screamers' in the media doing a beat-up.

        We obviously will have to regard all threats to our individual liberty seriously just as we accept many provisions for the greater good, harking back really to King John and the Robber barons when I lost my ability to raise a private army!

        I had thought that the strength of this legislation COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 was diluted that it was time bound just as the Declarations of Emergency etc under the Health and Civil Defence Acts all the way through the pandemic were time bound.

        It quotes junk science. This is one of my my biggest objections. Advancing an argument should be done without recourse to dubious websites/science.

      • Incognito 1.4.5
        11 June 2020 at 9:53 pm

        See my Moderation note @ 11:03 AM.

      • Incognito 1.4.6
        13 June 2020 at 10:18 pm

        See my second Moderation note @ 11:03 AM.

    • Ad 1.5
      11 June 2020 at 12:20 pm

      It should be "opt out only", just like teenage MMR.

      And opt out means can't go to school.

      Maybe a social welfare file flag that they deliberately made themselves a public menace.

    • SPC 1.6
      11 June 2020 at 8:21 pm

      It appears someone does not appreciate the distinction between available to all and compulsory for all.

  2. francesca 2
    11 June 2020 at 7:26 am

    Hydroxychloroquine just won't lie down and die

    from Yale

    https://medicine.yale.edu/yigh/news-article/25085/

    https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586

    an excerpt

    "COVID-19 is really two different diseases. In the first few days, it is like a very bad cold. In some people, it then morphs into pneumonia which can be life-threatening. What I found is that treatments for the cold don’t work well for the pneumonia, and vice versa. Most of the published studies have looked at treatments for the cold but used for the pneumonia. I just looked at how well the treatments for the cold worked for the cold. There are five studies done this way, four of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin and one with hydroxychloroquine plus doxycycline, and they all show that treating the cold part of COVID-19—the early part—works very well."

    • Peter Chch 2.1
      11 June 2020 at 11:42 am

      I guess the minute WHO came out against it, it was pretty obvious that there was at least some value in the drugs. They seem to specialise in disinformation and promoting confusion.

  3. Molly 3
    11 June 2020 at 8:33 am

    A relevant article in the Herald in regard to the conversations about statues and public monuments that have been discussed in the last few days:

    "George Floyd protests: New Zealand's controversial statues and the calls to bring them down – Micheal Neilson"

    One of the statues discussed was Captain Cook –

    But it was not until last year, for the 250th commemorations of Cook's arrival in the country, that it was removed.

    Today new sculptures stand in its place, produced by Tupara – one of his tupuna Te Maro, and "Crook Cook" is about to be erected in the grounds of Tairāwhiti Museum.

    Rather than it being pulled down in dramatic fashion, as has been seen overseas, Tupara said it was good to see the community come to a consensus over a two-year consultation period, even if it had taken nearly 50 years for Māori to be listened to.

    "Not everybody was happy, many wanted the statue completely destroyed, but we were keen to continue a cordial relationship.

    "It started conversations about our true history. Half the population is Māori here, but there was almost no imagery to reflect that.

    "Cook had also only ever been depicted as this heroic figure, and selectively taught about in the curriculum, editing out things like the diseases and abuse and killings his crew brought through the Pacific. His connections with slavery are also rarely discussed."

    However, the sense of achievement from that success was overshadowed very quickly,

    But in recent weeks the Gisborne District Council once again come under fire after failing to consult iwi over its decision to install two new Endeavour replica models in the town centre.

    Protests today, led by youth, took place, as the council under pressure reversed its decision.

    "A lot of people are pretty disappointed," Tupara said.

    "It really ran counter to everything we've just been through, like no lessons have been learned."

    For those that remain unaware – there are almost always those, who despite setbacks, have persisted to right wrongs. The example above shows how unless the change is genuine, it is one battle after another to get real systematic and institutional change.

    • Sacha 3.1
      11 June 2020 at 9:07 am

      Please add links to the source if you are quoting.

      Gisborne councillors are fortunately seeing the error of their ways: http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/local-news/20200610/decision-revoked/

      “Talk to us — that's the whole point,” said a protester at this morning's extraordinary meeting of Gisborne district councillors as they voted unanimously to revoke their earlier decision to instal models of James Cook's Endeavour ship in Gisborne city without community consultation.

      • Molly 3.1.1
        11 June 2020 at 12:57 pm

        Sorry, Sacha I thought I had on the name of the article and author, but obviously didn't.

        Thanks for the reminder.

        • Molly 3.1.1.1
          11 June 2020 at 1:02 pm

          George Floyd protests: New Zealand's controversial statues and the calls to bring them down

          (Missed link on 3. Had to change devices to provide link.)

          • joe90 3.1.1.1.1
            11 June 2020 at 1:12 pm

            Crook Cook.

            Because the face is not readily recognisable as a likeness of Cook, and the uniform is incorrect, it was thought for many years to not be a statue of Cook at all. A plaque was installed in October 1998 with the words ‘‘Who is he? We have no idea?” based on this erroneous conclusion.

            […]

            Is the uniform correct?

            No. Cook is not wearing the uniform of a British naval officer, nor does his uniform resemble that of any other European naval uniforms.(6) The uniform has been described as ‘Italian’ in style.

            The sculptor has him wearing a coat with collar down and buttoned across the chest – a late-eighteenth/early nineteenth century style, dating from after Cook’s death. He wears a Lieutenant’s coat, with Captain’s epaulettes.

            On his head he wears a Captain’s bicorne (a style which replaced the tricorne in the 1790s) worn in the ‘athwart’ (side-to-side) style as it would have commonly been worn in the 1790s. Cook’s uniform would have included a tricorne hat and an open coat with a low collar and no epaulettes (as shown in the Webber portrait).

            https://tairawhitimuseum.org.nz/2019/03/26/the-crook-cook-the-story-of-the-statue-2/

      • Molly 3.1.2
        11 June 2020 at 1:05 pm

        It's great the councillors have seen the error of their ways… again.

        But really how many times do they need to be reminded? How many times do tangata whenua have to be the ones reminding?

        The rubber band that takes them back to the original non-consultative decision making process needs to be broken.

    • Ad 3.2
      11 June 2020 at 12:30 pm

      We have so little history commemorated here.

      We need a lot more controversial public memorials, not fewer.

      A statue to Mr Floyd is in order for starters.

      Also one for

      – Kate Shephard

      – King Potatau

      – Helen Clark

      – Colin McCahon

      – Mr Baxter the anti war activist

      – Mr Upham VC and bar

      – One at Mangere for Stonefields protest

      – multiple for medical people who got us through COVID 19.

      A dozen more. Stop being afraid.

      Up and down the country. 1 a year for a decade. Go check out the one NZTA and Waikato did south of Meremere for the big battle there.

      Proud, troubled, uneven, but more importantly, US.

      • Chris 3.2.1
        11 June 2020 at 1:28 pm

        We shouldn't waste money on one for helen clark because it'll just get smashed up.

        Although if one does get made I suppose we could put its remnants in Te Papa.

        The description on the piece could read:

        "helen clark's statue was destroyed amidst protests against celebrating a leader who oversaw widespread right-wing reform of our social welfare system, who thought she could get away with further dispossession of Maori in the 21st century, who reached agreement with the Australian government to wreck thousands of peoples' lives by removing all rights from New Zealanders living there and who continued to uphold the raison d'être of the previous government which spent nine years destroying the cultural fabric of our nation through blind adherence to neo-liberal principles displaying almost complete disdain for the welfare of citizens."

        Yes, okay then. A statue for helen clark would be good.

      • mac1 3.2.2
        11 June 2020 at 2:59 pm

        Upham VC has a statue already in Amberley since 1997.

        https://www.hurunui.govt.nz/find/about-the-district/history/charles-upham-vc-and-bar

        Archibald Baxter had a ‘guerilla statue’ in Wellington in 2016 for a short time.

        I’d add, Ad, statues for Mother Suzanne Aubert, the CO and member of the NZ Legislative Council, Mark Briggs.

      • observer 3.2.3
        11 June 2020 at 3:29 pm

        There are many better ways to acknowledge people than statues. Might as well put up a sign saying "Here's your symbol, protesters gather here". Helen Clark would be getting vandalised every pissed-up Saturday night.

        They also feed the false notion of progress being achieved by a lone Superhero. That's Hollywood history.

      • Chris T 3.2.4
        11 June 2020 at 3:58 pm

        "We need a lot more controversial public memorials, not fewer.

        A statue to Mr Floyd is in order for starters."

        Why on earth for?

        And Helen Clark?

      • Macro 3.2.5
        11 June 2020 at 9:15 pm

        We have a statue for Keith Park in Thames – the town where was born. There is also a statue of Keith Park in London in Waterloo Place just off from Trafalgar Square.

        For those who don't know who this NZer is,

        Sir Keith Rodney Park
        Air Marshal Sir Keith Park.jpg

        Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Rodney Park, GCB, KBE, MC & Bar, DFC

        (15 June 1892 – 6 February 1975) was a New Zealand soldier, First World War flying ace and Second World War Royal Air Force commander. He was in operational command during two of the most significant air battles in the European theatre in the Second World War, helping to win the Battle of Britain and the Battle of Malta. In Germany, he was supposedly known as "the Defender of London"

      • roblogic 3.2.6
        12 June 2020 at 1:23 am

        Gizzy should put up a statue of Kupe somewhere up the street from Cap Cook, But make Kupe bigger and riding a Polynesian double-hulled waka

  4. Tricledrown 4
    11 June 2020 at 9:29 am

    The EU accuses China of misinformation fudging its Corona virus infection rates showing a sudden jump in numbers then an immediate flat line no other outbreak has followed that pattern ,the guardian.

    This is the outbreak on Chinas border with Russia I believe.

  5. Incognito 5
    11 June 2020 at 9:59 am

    National could have saved itself a lot of agony by simply (!) demanding retraction of the poll results 😉

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/300032157/donald-trump-demands-apology-retraction-of-cnn-poll-showing-joe-biden-leading

    Simon and Paula would still be riding high.

    • Andre 5.1
      11 June 2020 at 10:07 am

      Could just hokey up some completely fake numbers like that McLaughlin does. Though I s'pose it's a bit harder to pull it off when you've got to mollify 50-odd caucus members than when you just have to pacify an Individual-1.

      • Incognito 5.1.1
        11 June 2020 at 10:10 am

        I quite like the pragmatic approach. John Key was pretty good at it.

      • Peter 5.1.2
        11 June 2020 at 11:24 am

        'Could' just hokey up some completely fake numbers? Chuckle, chuckle.

        Washington Post May 23rd:

        “Every once in a while, President Trump tweets something like this:

        “96% Approval Rating in the Republican Party. Thank you!”

        He doesn’t offer a source for the purported poll number because there is literally no evidence that a source exists. For more than a year, Trump’s just occasionally shared random assessments of his popularity within his party, never offering any explanation for where the figure came from.

        In fact, he’s painting himself into a corner, as we reported last month. In January 2019, he started claiming that his approval with Republicans was 93 percent. Last summer, he cranked it up to 94 percent. Then, as impeachment loomed and he sought to keep Republicans in line, it climbed to 95 percent. A month ago, under fire for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, he decided he’d hit 96 percent.”

        The demand for an apology is a stunt, its ridiculous, he told them to do it, they'd be sacked if they didn't humour him and the gesture in his little mind is slamming the hoax media. In itself it's a lovely little of picture of someone who's lost it.

    • mac1 5.2
      11 June 2020 at 11:10 am

      In Incognito’s reference above at #5, Trump wrote "which I felt were FAKE based on the incredible enthusiasm we are receiving".

      I was going to point out that the self-proclaimed genius President does not understand what the word 'incredible' actually means.

      Then I examined the language of the tweet. It sums up his approach to science, to evidence, to fact-based logic.

      He wrote "which I felt".

      Feelings- not thought, not logic, not understood- "felt".

      This is of course what informs his supporters.

      It also informs many voters in NZ.

      Fortunately, Ardern (and Robertson whom I saw recently at a budget presentation to the local Chamber of Commerce) are both empathetic and genuine individuals who connect at the levels of both feelings and intellect.

      But, as Andre says below, there are other opinions……….

  6. bruce 6
    11 June 2020 at 11:28 am

    It seems some lives matter more than others or is we don't like to interfere in the affairs of others.

    https://wkzo.com/news/articles/2020/jun/08/thai-exiles-kidnapping-sparks-protests-over-missing-critics/1026879/?refer-section=world

    • Peter Chch 6.1
      11 June 2020 at 11:37 am

      Sadly true. All these posers pulling down statues in England of historic slave traders, yet blissfully ignoring the millions of slaves in the world today, particularly in West Africa, and even within England itself of Eastern European sex slaves.

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/longform/african-slave-trade/%3famp=true

      And why on earth does NZ even accept the yuan bank notes, each one with the potrait of Mao, a far greater killer than Hitler ever was.

      Sadly the world is a hypocritical place where coloured lives dont matter if they live in Africa or China.

      • solkta 6.1.1
        11 June 2020 at 11:48 am

        I'm fairly sure that if a statue of a known and documented sex slaver was put up in England it would be torn down.

        • Adrian 6.1.1.1
          11 June 2020 at 12:32 pm

          Yeah but a very English good mate of a sex slaver won't even answer questions to a court about him, but then He must be above that sort of thing.

          • solkta 6.1.1.1.1
            11 June 2020 at 1:16 pm

            lol, took me a moment to twig. Not sure how English he is though, aren't they a German family?

        • mauī 6.1.1.2
          11 June 2020 at 6:27 pm

          But the issue here is removing old statues put up by historical people living in a different era. Removing a new statue put up in the current era is a very different idea.

          • roblogic 6.1.1.2.1
            12 June 2020 at 1:14 am

            The Moutoa memorial is one example, the English inscription reads:

            "To the memory of those brave men who fell at Moutoa 14 May 1864 in defence of law and order, against fanaticism and barbarism. This monument is erected by the Province of Wellington."

            At first glance one might assume this inscription is a bit racist. But it's actually a memorial to Maori warriors who fought a contemporary 'insurgency' (for want of a better term). A blog comment doesn't do justice to the history of this statue; but this piece from the Whanganui Chronicle is pretty good.

            • joe90 6.1.1.2.1.1
              12 June 2020 at 8:10 am

              Samuel Clemmens (Mark Twain) had this to say about the Whanganui memorial to the Kūpapa (Queenites) who fought alongside colonials.

              The other monument cannot be rectified. Except with dynamite. It is a mistake all through, and a strangely thoughtless one. It is a monument erected by white men to Maoris who fell fighting with the whites and against their own people, in the Maori war. “Sacred to the memory of the brave men who fell on the 14th of May, 1864,” etc. On one side are the names of about twenty Maoris. It is not a fancy of mine; the monument exists. I saw it. It is an object-lesson to the rising generation. It invites to treachery, disloyalty, unpatriotism. Its lesson, in frank terms is, “Desert your flag, slay your people, burn their homes, shame your nationality—we honor such.”

              – Following the Equator

              • roblogic …
                12 June 2020 at 8:49 am

                The Whanganui Chronicle piece I linked explains the history in detail of that difficult time, and why Twain's tourist impression is misguided. I don’t think destroying a piece of history is going to solve anything

      • Sabine 6.1.2
        11 June 2020 at 12:06 pm

        I mean, its like why don't Black Live Matters don't acknowledge white victims of police brutality, or why don't female survivors of sexual assault don't acknowledge male victims of sexual assault and and and……….

        and yeah, funny that you mention Mao and Hitler – now i think in China – where Mao did all his killing – he is somewhat a hero, and one day there might be a generation that will knock over his edifices but Hitler, you will be hard pressed to find anything re Hitler in public places in Germany, you will however find many cast bronze, or carved sculptures that were lifted to the memory of his victims. Heck, whole Concentration Camps were kept in order to show the plight of the victims of the Nazis.

        And yeah, the audacity of US American Protesters – many whom are people of color, and their white allies, to protest the shit that is going on in their own country and their own communities rather then some stuff in Thailand or elsewhere. Must be hypocrisy.

        And in the meantime, some other cop somewhere in the US is gonna kill someone cause he / she can. For no other reason. Mind if i were inclined to be a serial killer in the US i would join the coppers…..so as long as i was afraid and scared for my life i can kill someone life on telly over 8 min and 48 seconds.

        • Peter Chch 6.1.2.1
          11 June 2020 at 12:11 pm

          I guess my post was not too clear. I absolutely support Black Lives Matter. No question there.

          It is just sad how the majority of victims in the world are ignored.

          • observer 6.1.2.1.1
            11 June 2020 at 3:36 pm

            Your main point is absolutely correct. Slavery is very much with us today. Not just in the economic sense of poorly-paid wage slaves, but literal, imprisoned, abused slaves. Millions of them.

  7. joe90 7
    11 June 2020 at 12:00 pm

    Obedience and loyalty to the cult trumps millennia of resistance.

    https://twitter.com/AbbyChavaStein/status/1270739459781394433

  9. mac1 9
    11 June 2020 at 12:19 pm

    A great story from Australia, one I had not known but which brought a tear to my eye. Five year old article about an event in 1968 but very topical today about one man's ethical stand and its aftermath.

    https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-white-man-in-that-photo/

    • roblogic 9.1
      11 June 2020 at 12:56 pm

      Great story, RIP Peter Norman

    • ianmac 9.2
      11 June 2020 at 3:28 pm

      Yes. A very cruel world for the very brave.

    • Chris T 9.3
      11 June 2020 at 4:04 pm

      Read about this a few years ago.

      Pretty inspiring stuff.

      Think they were all friends for years (without reading the long link)

      • mac1 9.3.1
        11 June 2020 at 5:29 pm

        They were friends. They carried his coffin after his early death in 2006. The long link is a good read but I think you've got most of it already. He was Salvation Army so had a good background for developing a social conscience.

        Imagine having Parliament apologise to you , even six years after your death in 2012. http://www.andrewleigh.com/3389

        Something the Australian PM, John Howard, could not do for the stolen generation of aboriginals earlier……..

    • gsays 9.4
      11 June 2020 at 5:40 pm

      Thanks for the wonderful read.