Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Lucia S59 Repeal is now a Government Bill

It's official, the Section 59 Repeal is now a Government Bill. To be debated and passed whenever the Government wants. Yet, apparently this bill is not important to the Labour, according to Michael Cullen a couple of days ago.

Helen Clark has also compared the outrage New Zealanders feel over this to the opposition over homosexual law reform and then the civil union bill. I think she hopes to continue her line that Christians are the only people outraged and are whipping everyone else into a frenzy.

The only problem with this type of comparison is that both the homosexual law reform and civil union bill only impacted directly upon a minority of people. While as the Section 59 Repeal will impart directly upon the majority of New Zealanders. It's no longer one of those things that only affects people out there - it's going to affect all of us. Any parent who smacks will be committing a criminal offence.

The first two laws were also liberalisation laws, while as the Section 59 repeal is an authoritarian law, restricting freedom rather than expanding it. Which goes to show how authoritarian laws will always follow liberalisation. Increased freedom, or license to do as what one wants without regard for other people will lead to increased societal problems. Like our massive child abuse statistics that have followed the dramatic increase in single mothers following the liberalisation of divorce laws and societal relaxation of sexual norms. Therefore the natural outcome is increased interference in everyone's lives. The beginning of the end.

So, any bets on what they are going to do? Pass it now and hope the electorate forgets, given time, or wait until all the furore has died down and pass it then?

UPDATE: It's NOT a government bill yet. Labour are holding off on this one, even though everyone expects they'll make it a government bill. Could it be they are afraid of the heat on this one?

12 comment(s):

Dave said...

The bill is about as important to Labour as Labour's relationship with 80 percent of its voters is at the moment. The real relationship importance is between Labour and the Greens. Nothing else matters.signatures to reerendoum dontmatter, select committee submissions dont matter and protestors don't matter - until the next election when Labour hope that people have forgotton about the issue
thats why the referendum's important - not so much to force the Govts hand but to keep the issue alive for the 2008 election

Barnsley Bill said...

This is about green support to ram through electoral reform to publicly fund the morally and financially bankrupt labour party.
Lets face it, they were going to lose last time until the mass advertising at the end and the wild bribes that were sprayed around like a mad ladies piss. They will win again at the next go because they will promise more money for more people and national will fail to counter the shrieking by Cullen, mallard and co about how National will take all the lollies away.

dad4justice said...

Bradford said about passing the bill onto liebour to take up, as it will give it “mana and credibility”.
She also froths that “the best torturers in the world know how to hurt people without leaving a mark.” I suggest that Bradford be incarcerated in a maximum-security psycho ward and treated with copious amounts of psychotropic medication until her psychosis settles down. Her and Clark make a mad hatter’s tea party seem trivial, as they both are dangerous consummate liars .

Matthew said...

Lucyna,

your observation is right on the money.

The more "freedoms" humanity demands, the more selfish we become and hence the more problems we introduce.

While I am supportive of free speech, it should not be used to support things which are patently wrong, for example swearing, pornography and violence. I just cam back a from a country in Asia where swear words and pornography were routinely edited out of TV programs and movies. Unsurprisingly it doesn't detract from the storyline, and certainly doesn't make the program less enjoyable. Quite refreshing really.

Keep writing.

Lucyna said...

Thanks, Matthew!

suze said...

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that decreased interference leads to increased interference? And that both are bad?

Matthew said...

Suze, I think Lucyna is saying that increased licentiousness (decreased prohibitions) leads to increased problems, which then requires increased prohibitions (or a paricular sort). Interfering in people's lives is only relevant when you attempt to prevent them from doing what is right, not when you prevent them from doing wrong; therefore your "decreased interference" is actually increasing inteference.

Psycho Milt said...

Spoken (er, written) like a good Soviet citizen, Matthew. I get the feeling you probably have some other group than the CPSU that you trust to decide what's right and what's wrong though...

ZenTiger said...

F*cken oath, PM. The moment you can't f*ckin say the word f*ck every f*ckin third f*ckin word, you know the KGB are just about to boot the f*cken door down and its off to the f*cking Gulags.

Well, f*ck that , I say. If you cant f*cking express yourself in the name of f*cken artistic license, you may as well wear a Che T-Shirt and bend over and take it right up the f*cken arse like a comrade.

It's a fair bet that if they f*cken take the word f*ck out, they are just as likely to remove whole f*cken paragraphs, like the f*cken brilliant one I wrote just above this one, that would have f*cken made you weep for the sheer f*cken poetry of it. But the bastards just ripped the f*cker right out, leaving a gaping hole in the context of my point.

f*ck knows what I really was trying to say, it really did require that missing para.

Damn.

Matthew said...

I don't have in mind any other group to decide what is right and wrong.

Therein lies the weakness of your point.

Let me know if you disagree with this, and/or don't understand my second paragraph.

BTW, which group are you part of? Just curious as it seems to imply we are all in separate groups.

Psycho Milt said...

Matthew, you wrote:
"While I am supportive of free speech, it should not be used to support things which are patently wrong, for example swearing, pornography and violence."
And:
"Interfering in people's lives is only relevant when you attempt to prevent them from doing what is right, not when you prevent them from doing wrong;"

thereby leaving open a gaping logical chasm, to be filled by some appropriate method of determining what's right and what's wrong. I assumed you would at least have the teachings of a religion to base this determination on. But now you say:
"I don't have in mind any other group to decide what is right and wrong."

which means you support restrictions on freedom so long as you personally feel they're restrictions on what is wrong. You're not unusual in that respect, but hopefully the govt of a country will seek a somewhat wider consensus for decisions regarding which of our freedoms can be trampled on.

Matthew said...

If the govt passed a law that compulsorily required you to get an axe and chop me up into little pieces because my name is Matthew, then that is a clear example of the govt intefering in your life to prevent you from doing what is right. It also illustrates the opposite: that the laws state that you cannot murder me, which indicates a lack of interefence in society, and actually the law is merely a benign (but important) restraining force.

Now this example doesn't require you to sign up to anything or any [religious] group; they are just patently wrong to a human being. I think "methods" can come unstuck among human beings but if you really want me to describe my method, it is that in essence I am relying on you as the method. Having said that, I wouldn't base my method on Hitler, once again because it is patently obvious.

I am assuming that you think it is wrong to initiate violence, look at pornography, and swear at other people who have not provoked you.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.