Three strikes?

19 comments on “Three strikes? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. PK 1

   25 March 2010 at 1:01 pm

   ***I think that says a lot about National’s commitment to fundamental human rights.***

   What exactly is a fundamental human right? I thought that these were always weighed against other rights – for instance racial discrimination is allowed in some cases (ie. affirmative action, different funding based on race etc) as a justified limitation. Basically you need a policy justification for the need to discriminate. I haven’t read what the AG says in this case though.
   • The Voice of Reason 1.1

     25 March 2010 at 1:09 pm

     Well, as the post makes reference to the Bill of Rights Act, that’s probably the benchmark for this discussion. There are also a lot of UN commitments and organisations NZ is party to that require minimum standards to be observed here.

     The point is that National don’t give a flying fuck about human rights, except the right to enrich themselves and their mates. The idiotic comment from Appaula Bennett yesterday about fair and reasonable discrimination really spells it out. And no, she doesn’t get positive discrimination on account of her intellectual incapacity.
   • Ari 1.2

     25 March 2010 at 4:58 pm

     Read the preamble of the B.O.R.A. if you want to know why affirmative action policies are consistent with fundamental human rights.
2. mickysavage 2

   25 March 2010 at 1:34 pm

   According to the right wing the rule of law only applies to the poor and ethnic minorities and not to wealthy businessmen or the members of their Government.
3. katie may 3

   25 March 2010 at 2:06 pm

   Honestly, who didn’t expect a major welfare reform to happen after Bennett got her chubby hands on the social development portfolio? I’m actually surprised it has taken this long – no doubt she has spent the past year shifting in her cabinet seat with all the pained anticipation of a child who has been forced to sit through Christmas dinner before getting to open their presents.
   What does surprise me though is that the proposal, being such a raison d’etre for Bennett, wasn’t combed over for, you know, little things like breaches of human rights. Perhaps she was SO excited she didn’t notice the technicalities – or at least hoped no-one else would.
   Sorry, but not everyone has your (clearly low) level of mental aptitude and understanding. Just as not every solo mum will have had/will have the same experience you did. People and circumstances vary Paula.
   • The Voice of Reason 3.1

     25 March 2010 at 2:32 pm

     Nice anology about xmas, Katie May, though from the look of her on TV last night, she probably trampled the prezzies in her hurry to get to the food. She seems to be enormous, even compared to how bloated she was at the start of the parliamentary term. The subsidised stomach stapling can’t be far away.
     • Ari 3.1.1

       25 March 2010 at 5:01 pm

       Wow, that fat-hate is pretty disgusting. If that’s the only way you have to criticise Paula Bennet, you have a very limited imagination.
       • The Voice of Reason 3.1.1.1

         25 March 2010 at 5:21 pm

         Oh no, I have many many ways to criticise Bennett, and I don’t think it’s fat-hate to point out that while dealing to the poor she has guzzled herself to the size of a house.

         I saw her on telly wearing what looked like a designer bin liner. Some sort of shiny satin poncho arrangement presumably intended to make her less like a troughing Brownlee wannabee. Didn’t work. Bet she can’t even fit in the leopard skin car anymore.

         I appreciate that the Parliamentary lifestyle encourages MP’s to put on weight, but there is a gym available courtesy of the taxpayer. It won’t help her intellectually, but she could at least show us she has some self control while snatching the food from the mouths of the children of NZ’s solo parents.
         • QoT 3.1.1.1.1

           25 March 2010 at 6:51 pm

           Sadly, TVoR, it is fat hate to refer to someone as being “the size of a house” and assuming they are that size due to eating “too much”. In fact, bonus fat hate points for referring to Bennett as “guzzling”. Oh, and she “can’t fit in her car” and fat people lack self control and fat people obviously don’t go to the gym.

           In fact, everything you just wrote is fat-hate. You should be congratulated on the fact that your prejudice is so apparently effortless.
           • B 3.1.1.1.1.1

             25 March 2010 at 7:34 pm

             yeah not a good look when kids will go hungry though eh
           • The Voice of Reason 3.1.1.1.1.2

             25 March 2010 at 7:42 pm

             I think its a prejudice people will think is fair and reasonable in this case ; )
4. Margaret 4

   25 March 2010 at 2:18 pm

   Bennett is so out of her depth
   http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/breakfast-wednesday-march-24-3429933/video?vid=3430036

   in this clip she first says 85,000 on the invalid’s benefit and then a minute later it is 58,000. WTF? Do National know what is going on?
5. Draco T Bastard 5

   25 March 2010 at 2:41 pm

   Nationals commitment to fundamental rights is to get rid of them as they get in the way of their exploitation of everyone else.
   • drooping 5.1

     25 March 2010 at 3:19 pm

     Bit like your commitment to rational thought.
   • Bored 5.2

     25 March 2010 at 5:04 pm

     Of course, you have become if you have not yet been informed “homo economicus”…the rational consumer of what the market has to offer. Key word, consumer, no longer a citizen nor an individual with “rights”. You have been reduced to your only necessary role in the eyes of our brave new government, participation as a “consumer” or “client”. You dont need to vote any more, just send signals by buying stuff an all necessary decisions will rationaly follow.
6. B 6

   25 March 2010 at 7:28 pm

   Great analysis as always here –
   http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/03/25/on-the-jackson-film-review-and-benefit-policy/
   although bennet did mutter something about social services being alerted if ‘we havent heard from somone whose benefit has been halved in awhile’ -so they can check the kids are still alive presumably. Sounded like she was making it up on the spot tho
7. Akldnut 7

   25 March 2010 at 10:11 pm

   The mother of a friend has been denied the sickness & invalid benefit, she’s 55 yo and has end stage renal failure, she barely has the strength to get out of bed and dialyzes 3 days a week at over 6 hours per day.

   Her husband has been paid as her caregiver for the past six months by WINZ, but because they will only classify her as unemployed her benefit was stopped thru choosing to go to dialysis over turning up to a job search seminar and they would not accept her explanation. Thankfully her daughter spoke up for her and the pittance that is the dole was resumed.

   WTF is up with that!

   Who are they targeting? The aged, in firmed, uneducated and low income portion of our society.

   F8#$*ng Pricks!
8. B 8

   25 March 2010 at 10:34 pm

   I agree Akldnut -It is real life situations like these which show the true outcomes of attitudes such as this govt is taking against beneficiaries.

   My mother in law is ‘lucky’ enough to get the sickness benefit – she has emphesema, lupus and finds it hard to get around due to hip and knee trouble but she actually qualifies for the women alone domestic purposes which is quite a lot more, however was refused. The call centre staff even confirmed to me on the phone that she qualified -but she was still refused without reason.

   After mortgage rates and insurance she has $10 to live on – she eats by living off her vege garden
   How she will afford extra drs visits the govt are now requiring i dont know
   • Cnr Joe 8.1

     26 March 2010 at 8:32 am

     I really feel for the WINZ workers – these nasty systems they must enforce are not to help people and thats what they used to go to work for.
     captcha – government – not mine

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS