LoL 'when Maori say 'no' it's a threat to profit'. Some iwi have MILLIONs salted away while their people continue to languish in the crime stats, homelessness, baby-killing, so much winning!
If only the 'elite' scummy brownclowns would say 'NO' to killing babies, 'NO' to gang membership, 'NO' to malfeasance and grift with public money.
Really the longer all this crap goes on for, the more age sensitive I get, as in "are you old enough to have been trained in facts or in fantastic visions of a new world order that will be created through destroying the world as it is now?".
I do not want to be treated by any doctor who prioritises gender identity over sex or one who doesn't even believe in sex as a factor that impacts on health and disease. I am not interested in paying big money to a lawyer who prides herself on being "inconsistent", unless perhaps she is also happy with being paid inconsistently.
I also don't believe that everything is a zero-sum game, that's it's every man for himself (or every woman for herself; there is no such thing as a nonbinary mammal), or any of the other mantras so beloved by the current crop of SJW.
Hmm. I am not up to speed with The Bill, but Gilbey's essay against it has intrigued me to take a look.
The argument she appears to be making is that The Bill will make it easier for "Them" to invade us, given that, should "They" so wish, "They" would already control our infrastructure, due to our inability (cos, The Bill) to retain sovereignty over it. I for one would prefer this outcome to having "Them" bomb the bejeezus out of us (thereby likely destroying said infrastructure along with presumably many peripheral human beings).
It seems a really dumb argument. If "large-scale international conflict" decides on an Antipodean adventure, I can't imagine any legislation of ours will protect us from "Them" muscling up to our bar.
The tone of your piece is unnecessarily derogatory.
The implications of this Bill are very far reaching. It claims to empower individual
People . But it is deceptive not least because in law corporations are defined as having the rights of ‘natural persons’ . Hence it not only ties the hands of governments into the indefinite future but gives unlimited power to companies including the biggest global giants.
Hmmm. I agree with you on a lot of things, Katrina, but I think you may have missed the mark on this one. When scholars as reputable and thoughtful as Anne Salmond and (constitution law expert)Geoffrey Palmer warn us that the bill is as dodgy as catshit (to paraphrase) I'd be inclined to listen to them rather than yr random lawyer mate. Have you actually read the thing?
I've refrained from making much in the way of a personal opinion on the bill. Do the pair you mention also think the bill will lead to privatisation and control by outside forces?
LMFAO Ann Salmond has her tongue firmly up the arse of the 'elite' Maori who are balls-deep in the marae malfeasance and information gathering at the Manurewa marae and beyond; Half-Witi even says he's 'not a fan of democracy' and recently praised an African despot as his hero. I'll listen to those racist maggots when the sun rises over Western Ireland.
I've read the bill and it's tightening up sloppy law. We ceded sovereignty too, and there are NO 'principles' in the Treaty. NONE. They were introduced by that gurning wheyfaced fuckwit Palmer in 1975. So all the feels and crywanking from Te Partly-Maori and their supporters are just that - whingeing. Perhaps if they weren't so busy doing stupid haka, performing ugly stunts like bringing a noose into the house, flouting the rules while being racist losers, they'd see most Maori don't support their apartheid and racism.
LoL 'when Maori say 'no' it's a threat to profit'. Some iwi have MILLIONs salted away while their people continue to languish in the crime stats, homelessness, baby-killing, so much winning!
If only the 'elite' scummy brownclowns would say 'NO' to killing babies, 'NO' to gang membership, 'NO' to malfeasance and grift with public money.
Really the longer all this crap goes on for, the more age sensitive I get, as in "are you old enough to have been trained in facts or in fantastic visions of a new world order that will be created through destroying the world as it is now?".
I do not want to be treated by any doctor who prioritises gender identity over sex or one who doesn't even believe in sex as a factor that impacts on health and disease. I am not interested in paying big money to a lawyer who prides herself on being "inconsistent", unless perhaps she is also happy with being paid inconsistently.
I also don't believe that everything is a zero-sum game, that's it's every man for himself (or every woman for herself; there is no such thing as a nonbinary mammal), or any of the other mantras so beloved by the current crop of SJW.
Hmm. I am not up to speed with The Bill, but Gilbey's essay against it has intrigued me to take a look.
The argument she appears to be making is that The Bill will make it easier for "Them" to invade us, given that, should "They" so wish, "They" would already control our infrastructure, due to our inability (cos, The Bill) to retain sovereignty over it. I for one would prefer this outcome to having "Them" bomb the bejeezus out of us (thereby likely destroying said infrastructure along with presumably many peripheral human beings).
It seems a really dumb argument. If "large-scale international conflict" decides on an Antipodean adventure, I can't imagine any legislation of ours will protect us from "Them" muscling up to our bar.
Surely there must be better reasons to oppose it?
I will have a look...
The tone of your piece is unnecessarily derogatory.
The implications of this Bill are very far reaching. It claims to empower individual
People . But it is deceptive not least because in law corporations are defined as having the rights of ‘natural persons’ . Hence it not only ties the hands of governments into the indefinite future but gives unlimited power to companies including the biggest global giants.
Your opinion is duly noted :-)
Hmmm. I agree with you on a lot of things, Katrina, but I think you may have missed the mark on this one. When scholars as reputable and thoughtful as Anne Salmond and (constitution law expert)Geoffrey Palmer warn us that the bill is as dodgy as catshit (to paraphrase) I'd be inclined to listen to them rather than yr random lawyer mate. Have you actually read the thing?
I've refrained from making much in the way of a personal opinion on the bill. Do the pair you mention also think the bill will lead to privatisation and control by outside forces?
LMFAO Ann Salmond has her tongue firmly up the arse of the 'elite' Maori who are balls-deep in the marae malfeasance and information gathering at the Manurewa marae and beyond; Half-Witi even says he's 'not a fan of democracy' and recently praised an African despot as his hero. I'll listen to those racist maggots when the sun rises over Western Ireland.
I've read the bill and it's tightening up sloppy law. We ceded sovereignty too, and there are NO 'principles' in the Treaty. NONE. They were introduced by that gurning wheyfaced fuckwit Palmer in 1975. So all the feels and crywanking from Te Partly-Maori and their supporters are just that - whingeing. Perhaps if they weren't so busy doing stupid haka, performing ugly stunts like bringing a noose into the house, flouting the rules while being racist losers, they'd see most Maori don't support their apartheid and racism.
I get the impression that there are people more afraid of what the bill might stop them from doing, than any other issue with it.
I hope you know just how much I love your work, Rex. Most people let their politeness overcome their truth; you never do this.
Thank you so much, that’s a lovely thing to say. Courage calls to courage! Bless you, Robin.