• Suspension justified?

    From Rich80105@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 9 10:36:35 2025
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360714790/analysis-was-maori-party-haka-suspension-justified-or-racist-mischaracterisation?


    and from Facebook:
    In 2007 MP Trevor Mallard threw a punch at fellow MP Tau Henare in the
    lobby, just off the Chamber, after challenging him in the Chamber, "to
    step outside". No referral to the Privileges Committee then.
    Similarly blathering on about �finger guns� by an Act MP while
    defending the right for people to have access to semi-automatic guns.
    There is a litany of unparliamentary behaviour that has passed without
    the sanctions visited upon those MPs who performed a haka. For
    example:
    In 2006 Mallard hit National's Bob Clarkson with a manila folder.
    Earlier still then MP the late Dr Cullen got out of his seat and
    approached Mr Banks, shaking his fist in Mr Banks' face.
    In 1998 then leader Mr Bolger of the opposition, threw a ballpoint pen
    across the chamber after Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer
    questioned his intelligence.
    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    And from Tonys favourite blog: https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/06/a-parliamentary-lynching.html https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/05/outrageous-and-antidemocratic.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Jun 8 23:23:22 2025
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360714790/analysis-was-maori-party-haka-suspension-justified-or-racist-mischaracterisation?


    and from Facebook:
    In 2007 MP Trevor Mallard threw a punch at fellow MP Tau Henare in the
    lobby, just off the Chamber, after challenging him in the Chamber, "to
    step outside". No referral to the Privileges Committee then.
    Similarly blathering on about �finger guns� by an Act MP while
    defending the right for people to have access to semi-automatic guns.
    There is a litany of unparliamentary behaviour that has passed without
    the sanctions visited upon those MPs who performed a haka. For
    example:
    In 2006 Mallard hit National's Bob Clarkson with a manila folder.
    Earlier still then MP the late Dr Cullen got out of his seat and
    approached Mr Banks, shaking his fist in Mr Banks' face.
    In 1998 then leader Mr Bolger of the opposition, threw a ballpoint pen
    across the chamber after Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer
    questioned his intelligence.
    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    And from Tonys favourite blog: >https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/06/a-parliamentary-lynching.html >https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/05/outrageous-and-antidemocratic.html The TPM leadership and you are all children, the punishment was at best appropriate and at worst lenient. You can politic and lie and obfuscate all you want but the majority of New Zealanders believe the behaviour in parliament of those three (especially the two leaders) was abhorent, disrespectful and they should be shunned by those that voted them in - they are greedy, pathetically foolish and beyond contempt. So are you.
    As for norightturn, it is a rag and I didn't read the links, no point in reading the crap they produce.
    Comparing the previous behaviour of MPs is irrelevant, not that you would be able to understand why.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 9 00:30:00 2025
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn’t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Mon Jun 9 00:44:08 2025
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn’t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter.
    Of course not, Rich posted the comment and he doesn't do balance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 9 01:42:16 2025
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 13:22:40 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 00:30:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn’t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter.

    Yes that is relevant as well; but it was not in the articles I was
    referring to.

    Wonder why not? Do you think she got off lightly too?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 13:22:40 2025
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 00:30:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn�t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter.

    Yes that is relevant as well; but it was not in the articles I was
    referring to. I am sure there have been other instances of the
    procedures of the House not being followed - by members of all parties
    in parliament.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 03:10:44 2025
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 01:42:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 13:22:40 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 00:30:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn�t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter.

    Yes that is relevant as well; but it was not in the articles I was
    referring to.

    Wonder why not? Do you think she got off lightly too?

    I wonder as well, but perhaps the author just forgot about it -
    certainly it has been mentioned in other articles; from memory there
    was a punishment, but it did not go before the Head Judge Crusher
    Collins . . .
    Ms Collins is not a judge, just as you are not sentient. Your use of sarcasm has become your only tenuous hold on reality.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 14:20:35 2025
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 01:42:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 13:22:40 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 00:30:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn�t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter.

    Yes that is relevant as well; but it was not in the articles I was
    referring to.

    Wonder why not? Do you think she got off lightly too?

    I wonder as well, but perhaps the author just forgot about it -
    certainly it has been mentioned in other articles; from memory there
    was a punishment, but it did not go before the Head Judge Crusher
    Collins . . .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 9 03:01:49 2025
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:20:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    I wonder as well, but perhaps the author just forgot about it ...

    Or was just trying to slant things to further an agenda.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gordon@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 04:26:27 2025
    On 2025-06-08, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360714790/analysis-was-maori-party-haka-suspension-justified-or-racist-mischaracterisation?


    and from Facebook:
    In 2007 MP Trevor Mallard threw a punch at fellow MP Tau Henare in the
    lobby, just off the Chamber, after challenging him in the Chamber, "to
    step outside". No referral to the Privileges Committee then.
    Similarly blathering on about “finger guns” by an Act MP while
    defending the right for people to have access to semi-automatic guns.
    There is a litany of unparliamentary behaviour that has passed without
    the sanctions visited upon those MPs who performed a haka. For
    example:
    In 2006 Mallard hit National's Bob Clarkson with a manila folder.
    Earlier still then MP the late Dr Cullen got out of his seat and
    approached Mr Banks, shaking his fist in Mr Banks' face.
    In 1998 then leader Mr Bolger of the opposition, threw a ballpoint pen
    across the chamber after Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer
    questioned his intelligence.
    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    And from Tonys favourite blog: https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/06/a-parliamentary-lynching.html https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/05/outrageous-and-antidemocratic.html

    In all of those examples it was a single MP behaving badly. The TPM was orchestrated, with no provication. It was a willful act of trying to arrest
    the MP doing their lawful business.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 04:53:27 2025
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 03:10:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 01:42:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 13:22:40 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 00:30:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn�t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter. >>>>>
    Yes that is relevant as well; but it was not in the articles I was
    referring to.

    Wonder why not? Do you think she got off lightly too?

    I wonder as well, but perhaps the author just forgot about it -
    certainly it has been mentioned in other articles; from memory there
    was a punishment, but it did not go before the Head Judge Crusher
    Collins . . .
    Ms Collins is not a judge, just as you are not sentient. Your use of sarcasm >>has become your only tenuous hold on reality.

    Since she was effectively acting as prosecutor and as Chairman of the >Committee, the de facto judge, she should have considered whether the >Committee should have had regard to the Human Rights ACT
    As I wrote and you ignored "you are not sentient. Your use of sarcasm
    has become your only tenuous hold on reality."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 04:56:21 2025
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 03:01:49 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:20:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    I wonder as well, but perhaps the author just forgot about it ...

    Or was just trying to slant things to further an agenda.

    Anything is possible; what I am aware of is:

    On 1 May 2024 during a parliamentary debate on roading projects,
    Genter walked over to from her seat and yelled "Read the report!" at
    National MP and Minister Matt Doocey. Genter returned to her seat then
    rose and apologised. The Speaker later said he would refer Genter to >Parliament's privileges committee.

    On 1 August 2024, Genter was found in contempt of Parliament, censured
    and ordered to apologise after shouting at Doocey in May 2024. The
    Green Party described her actions as unacceptable and in breach of
    standards expected of MPs.
    _________

    So it bears some similarity to the other incidents raised in the
    original article, but no more relevant than the others.

    The biggest difference from the Haka incident appears to be that she
    was not docked 21 days pay, and she was not excluded from the House
    and her party not permitted to vote on her behalf through the normal
    proxy vote system.
    __________

    Are there any other incidents that should be considered in this effort
    to cover all bases? Perhaps someone could work out how much money it
    is saving the government to not be paying the three MPs while they are >suspended . . . (gotta pay for the handout to landlords . . .)
    There is no similarity between any of those and any others that I can remember and the 3 TPM ones.
    All of the others were one person versus another. TPM raised their middle fingers to every New Zealander - they effectively said F... you New Zealand. That is the difference. And you refuse to see it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Crash@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 9 16:57:20 2025
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:35:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jun 2025 04:26:27 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 2025-06-08, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360714790/analysis-was-maori-party-haka-suspension-justified-or-racist-mischaracterisation?


    and from Facebook:
    In 2007 MP Trevor Mallard threw a punch at fellow MP Tau Henare in the
    lobby, just off the Chamber, after challenging him in the Chamber, "to
    step outside". No referral to the Privileges Committee then.
    Similarly blathering on about ?finger guns? by an Act MP while
    defending the right for people to have access to semi-automatic guns.
    There is a litany of unparliamentary behaviour that has passed without
    the sanctions visited upon those MPs who performed a haka. For
    example:
    In 2006 Mallard hit National's Bob Clarkson with a manila folder.
    Earlier still then MP the late Dr Cullen got out of his seat and
    approached Mr Banks, shaking his fist in Mr Banks' face.
    In 1998 then leader Mr Bolger of the opposition, threw a ballpoint pen
    across the chamber after Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer
    questioned his intelligence.
    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    And from Tonys favourite blog:
    https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/06/a-parliamentary-lynching.html
    https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/05/outrageous-and-antidemocratic.html >>
    In all of those examples it was a single MP behaving badly. The TPM was >>orchestrated, with no provication. It was a willful act of trying to arrest >>the MP doing their lawful business.

    An attempt to arrest an MP was involved? How did we all miss that?
    Which MP was the target?

    Cripes Rich - more grandstanding from you if you truly did not
    understand what Gordon was referring to. While the word 'arrest' is
    most commonly used in references to Police actions, it has other
    meanings. Do a little bit of Google searching - 5 minutes should
    suffice.

    It is my hope that if anyone ever performs a haka as the Maori Party
    MPs did, they should be treated in the same way as convicted criminals
    causing a disturbance of the peace in a public place.


    --
    Crash McBash

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 04:57:34 2025
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On 9 Jun 2025 04:26:27 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 2025-06-08, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360714790/analysis-was-maori-party-haka-suspension-justified-or-racist-mischaracterisation?


    and from Facebook:
    In 2007 MP Trevor Mallard threw a punch at fellow MP Tau Henare in the
    lobby, just off the Chamber, after challenging him in the Chamber, "to
    step outside". No referral to the Privileges Committee then.
    Similarly blathering on about ?finger guns? by an Act MP while
    defending the right for people to have access to semi-automatic guns.
    There is a litany of unparliamentary behaviour that has passed without
    the sanctions visited upon those MPs who performed a haka. For
    example:
    In 2006 Mallard hit National's Bob Clarkson with a manila folder.
    Earlier still then MP the late Dr Cullen got out of his seat and
    approached Mr Banks, shaking his fist in Mr Banks' face.
    In 1998 then leader Mr Bolger of the opposition, threw a ballpoint pen
    across the chamber after Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer
    questioned his intelligence.
    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    And from Tonys favourite blog:
    https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/06/a-parliamentary-lynching.html
    https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/05/outrageous-and-antidemocratic.html >>
    In all of those examples it was a single MP behaving badly. The TPM was >>orchestrated, with no provication. It was a willful act of trying to arrest >>the MP doing their lawful business.

    An attempt to arrest an MP was involved? How did we all miss that?
    Which MP was the target?
    More sarcasm - you are a fool.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Crash@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 9 17:09:16 2025
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360714790/analysis-was-maori-party-haka-suspension-justified-or-racist-mischaracterisation?


    and from Facebook:
    In 2007 MP Trevor Mallard threw a punch at fellow MP Tau Henare in the
    lobby, just off the Chamber, after challenging him in the Chamber, "to
    step outside". No referral to the Privileges Committee then.
    Similarly blathering on about �finger guns� by an Act MP while
    defending the right for people to have access to semi-automatic guns.
    There is a litany of unparliamentary behaviour that has passed without
    the sanctions visited upon those MPs who performed a haka. For
    example:
    In 2006 Mallard hit National's Bob Clarkson with a manila folder.
    Earlier still then MP the late Dr Cullen got out of his seat and
    approached Mr Banks, shaking his fist in Mr Banks' face.
    In 1998 then leader Mr Bolger of the opposition, threw a ballpoint pen
    across the chamber after Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer
    questioned his intelligence.
    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    And from Tonys favourite blog: >https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/06/a-parliamentary-lynching.html >https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/05/outrageous-and-antidemocratic.html

    Rich you are comparing apples with pears in everything you gave said.
    What the Maori Party MPs did was perform a haka on the floor of
    Parliament directly in front of ACT MPs. That action was
    unprecedented - you will never be able to cite any similar action from
    the past. I remind you that all MPs are 'guests of the house' in
    Parliament and it is clear that the Maori Party clearly consider that
    they should be able to perform cultural verbal violence from a bygone
    era in the floor of Parliament.


    --
    Crash McBash

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 16:32:21 2025
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 03:10:44 -0000 (UTC), Tony
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 01:42:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 13:22:40 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 00:30:00 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn�t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter.

    Yes that is relevant as well; but it was not in the articles I was
    referring to.

    Wonder why not? Do you think she got off lightly too?

    I wonder as well, but perhaps the author just forgot about it -
    certainly it has been mentioned in other articles; from memory there
    was a punishment, but it did not go before the Head Judge Crusher
    Collins . . .
    Ms Collins is not a judge, just as you are not sentient. Your use of sarcasm >has become your only tenuous hold on reality.

    Since she was effectively acting as prosecutor and as Chairman of the Committee, the de facto judge, she should have considered whether the
    Committee should have had regard to the Human Rights ACT . . .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to Gordon on Mon Jun 9 16:35:31 2025
    On 9 Jun 2025 04:26:27 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 2025-06-08, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360714790/analysis-was-maori-party-haka-suspension-justified-or-racist-mischaracterisation?


    and from Facebook:
    In 2007 MP Trevor Mallard threw a punch at fellow MP Tau Henare in the
    lobby, just off the Chamber, after challenging him in the Chamber, "to
    step outside". No referral to the Privileges Committee then.
    Similarly blathering on about ?finger guns? by an Act MP while
    defending the right for people to have access to semi-automatic guns.
    There is a litany of unparliamentary behaviour that has passed without
    the sanctions visited upon those MPs who performed a haka. For
    example:
    In 2006 Mallard hit National's Bob Clarkson with a manila folder.
    Earlier still then MP the late Dr Cullen got out of his seat and
    approached Mr Banks, shaking his fist in Mr Banks' face.
    In 1998 then leader Mr Bolger of the opposition, threw a ballpoint pen
    across the chamber after Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer
    questioned his intelligence.
    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    And from Tonys favourite blog:
    https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/06/a-parliamentary-lynching.html
    https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/05/outrageous-and-antidemocratic.html

    In all of those examples it was a single MP behaving badly. The TPM was >orchestrated, with no provication. It was a willful act of trying to arrest >the MP doing their lawful business.

    An attempt to arrest an MP was involved? How did we all miss that?
    Which MP was the target?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 16:29:59 2025
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 03:01:49 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:20:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    I wonder as well, but perhaps the author just forgot about it ...

    Or was just trying to slant things to further an agenda.

    Anything is possible; what I am aware of is:

    On 1 May 2024 during a parliamentary debate on roading projects,
    Genter walked over to from her seat and yelled "Read the report!" at
    National MP and Minister Matt Doocey. Genter returned to her seat then
    rose and apologised. The Speaker later said he would refer Genter to Parliament's privileges committee.

    On 1 August 2024, Genter was found in contempt of Parliament, censured
    and ordered to apologise after shouting at Doocey in May 2024. The
    Green Party described her actions as unacceptable and in breach of
    standards expected of MPs.
    _________

    So it bears some similarity to the other incidents raised in the
    original article, but no more relevant than the others.

    The biggest difference from the Haka incident appears to be that she
    was not docked 21 days pay, and she was not excluded from the House
    and her party not permitted to vote on her behalf through the normal
    proxy vote system.
    __________

    Are there any other incidents that should be considered in this effort
    to cover all bases? Perhaps someone could work out how much money it
    is saving the government to not be paying the three MPs while they are suspended . . . (gotta pay for the handout to landlords . . .)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 9 05:40:31 2025
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:29:59 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    The biggest difference from the Haka incident appears to be that she
    was not docked 21 days pay, and she was not excluded from the House
    and her party not permitted to vote on her behalf through the normal
    proxy vote system.

    Also she didn’t loudly proclaim that the process was inherently biased against her, and refuse to turn up for hearings.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 9 17:53:30 2025
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:57:20 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>
    wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:35:31 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    On 9 Jun 2025 04:26:27 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 2025-06-08, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360714790/analysis-was-maori-party-haka-suspension-justified-or-racist-mischaracterisation?


    and from Facebook:
    In 2007 MP Trevor Mallard threw a punch at fellow MP Tau Henare in the >>>> lobby, just off the Chamber, after challenging him in the Chamber, "to >>>> step outside". No referral to the Privileges Committee then.
    Similarly blathering on about ?finger guns? by an Act MP while
    defending the right for people to have access to semi-automatic guns.
    There is a litany of unparliamentary behaviour that has passed without >>>> the sanctions visited upon those MPs who performed a haka. For
    example:
    In 2006 Mallard hit National's Bob Clarkson with a manila folder.
    Earlier still then MP the late Dr Cullen got out of his seat and
    approached Mr Banks, shaking his fist in Mr Banks' face.
    In 1998 then leader Mr Bolger of the opposition, threw a ballpoint pen >>>> across the chamber after Minister of Justice Geoffrey Palmer
    questioned his intelligence.
    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    And from Tonys favourite blog:
    https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/06/a-parliamentary-lynching.html >>>> https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/05/outrageous-and-antidemocratic.html

    In all of those examples it was a single MP behaving badly. The TPM was >>>orchestrated, with no provication. It was a willful act of trying to arrest >>>the MP doing their lawful business.

    An attempt to arrest an MP was involved? How did we all miss that?
    Which MP was the target?

    Cripes Rich - more grandstanding from you if you truly did not
    understand what Gordon was referring to. While the word 'arrest' is
    most commonly used in references to Police actions, it has other
    meanings. Do a little bit of Google searching - 5 minutes should
    suffice.
    The haka took far less than 5 minutes - it was not stopping any MP
    from doing anything - just delaying the next step by a short time -
    the fuss over it has probably taken at least ten times the time of
    that original incident.

    It is my hope that if anyone ever performs a haka as the Maori Party
    MPs did, they should be treated in the same way as convicted criminals >causing a disturbance of the peace in a public place.

    Similar arguments have been made previously - the gratuitous
    imposition of a haka before All Black games was seen as both unduly
    holding up the competition, as well as being either too exhausting to
    the All Black team members, or alternatively unfair to their
    opposition because it was intimidating. Still we have in recent years
    seen cultural recognition encouraged in parliament on the occasion of celebrating agreements on compensation following Treaty negotiations -
    they have certainly interrupted the proceedings of the house, and I
    believe on at least one occasion that was not restricted to those in
    the gallery, but included one or more Members of Parliament.
    Traditions do of course change, I believe the opening prayer has
    changed from the days of the first Parliament in New Zealand. Perhaps
    that has something to do with the last census showing that a majority
    of New Zealanders have no religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 22:43:01 2025
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 05:40:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:29:59 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    The biggest difference from the Haka incident appears to be that she
    was not docked 21 days pay, and she was not excluded from the House
    and her party not permitted to vote on her behalf through the normal
    proxy vote system.

    Also she didn�t loudly proclaim that the process was inherently biased >against her, and refuse to turn up for hearings.

    They scheduled a meeting without checking they were available, and the
    inherent bias came from decisions being made by the Government
    majority rather than as had previously happened by consensus. The
    process did not comply with Human Rights Legislation, and there is no compulsion to attend.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From BR@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 10 04:55:30 2025
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 17:53:30 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
    wrote:


    The haka took far less than 5 minutes

    What time limit on a such a useless interruption of parliamentary
    proceedings should be imposed before it becomes a disciplinary matter?

    Similar arguments have been made previously - the gratuitous
    imposition of a haka before All Black games was seen as both unduly
    holding up the competition, as well as being either too exhausting to
    the All Black team members,

    How about the fact that it is also an over-used, bloviating, primitive
    and pointless waste of time? It is about time that argument was added
    to all the others.

    or alternatively unfair to their
    opposition because it was intimidating.

    I don't think so.

    Bill.

    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Jun 9 20:14:17 2025
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 05:40:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:29:59 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    The biggest difference from the Haka incident appears to be that she
    was not docked 21 days pay, and she was not excluded from the House
    and her party not permitted to vote on her behalf through the normal
    proxy vote system.

    Also she didn�t loudly proclaim that the process was inherently biased >>against her, and refuse to turn up for hearings.

    They scheduled a meeting without checking they were available, and the >inherent bias came from decisions being made by the Government
    majority rather than as had previously happened by consensus. The
    process did not comply with Human Rights Legislation, and there is no >compulsion to attend.
    Probably untrue but irrelevant anyway.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mutley@21:1/5 to Tony on Tue Jun 10 08:45:22 2025
    Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn’t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter.
    Of course not, Rich posted the comment and he doesn't do balance.

    I think It's time to killfile Rich or maybe time to kill off my
    usenet time as Rich is nothing but a left loving Marxist. Him and
    Jabcider must have hit it off great.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 10 10:06:15 2025
    On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:45:22 +1200, Mutley <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn’t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter.
    Of course not, Rich posted the comment and he doesn't do balance.

    I think It's time to killfile Rich or maybe time to kill off my
    usenet time as Rich is nothing but a left loving Marxist. Him and >Jabcider must have hit it off great.

    Your decision, Mutley. I do not see myself as Marxist, but you may
    mean something different from my views.

    I recently did the test at https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
    and my results were close to :
    Left / Right: +3
    Authoritarian / Libertarian +3
    So yes I am to the left of the average of Labour on the economic
    scale, but slightly more libertarian than Labour.

    This is probably well within the range of Labour voters.
    Some years ago there was an exchange of personal results on nz.general
    that included David Farrar - from memory he was almost exactly where
    ACT is on the chart - +10 on the left / right scale, and -2 towards libertarian. I have previously said that I believe ACT is in fact
    much more authoritarian - more towards where they were placed in 2017.

    However you probably have different results and rationale - but each
    of us is only entitled to one vote - don't feel threatened by people
    that have different views.

    To go back to the subject of the thread, I have been surprised that
    the Taxpayers Union have not objected to the stupidity of the decision
    by the overtly authoritarian Judith Collins - Parliament wasted at
    least a day on the haka incident and the deliberations of the
    government members - at a cost which is quite high - see https://fyi.org.nz/request/2429/response/7887/attach/2/Response.pdf

    At $310 per minute of sitting time (and that was back in 2014), what a
    waste of money it has been.

    As for Jabcider, please don't inject yourself with cider - it would
    not be healthy. I suspect you may not have meant that though - the far
    right are often deliberately obtuse - but you may just not have
    explained what you mean very well . . .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 9 22:26:33 2025
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:43:01 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 05:40:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:29:59 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    The biggest difference from the Haka incident appears to be that
    she was not docked 21 days pay, and she was not excluded from the
    House and her party not permitted to vote on her behalf through
    the normal proxy vote system.

    Also she didn’t loudly proclaim that the process was inherently
    biased against her, and refuse to turn up for hearings.

    They scheduled a meeting without checking they were available ...

    Did they really? Because they had plenty of time beforehand to tell TV
    news crews that they weren’t going to attend.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Jun 10 13:29:53 2025
    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:26:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:43:01 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 05:40:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:29:59 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    The biggest difference from the Haka incident appears to be that
    she was not docked 21 days pay, and she was not excluded from the
    House and her party not permitted to vote on her behalf through
    the normal proxy vote system.

    Also she didn�t loudly proclaim that the process was inherently
    biased against her, and refuse to turn up for hearings.

    They scheduled a meeting without checking they were available ...

    Did they really? Because they had plenty of time beforehand to tell TV
    news crews that they weren�t going to attend.

    Sometimes Google is your friend . . .

    And the process was we are told for the first time a weaponisation of
    the process - a change from unanimous agreement to the Government
    Majority imposing their will over Opposition members.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 10 01:43:25 2025
    On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:29:53 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:26:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:43:01 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    They scheduled a meeting without checking they were available ...

    Did they really? Because they had plenty of time beforehand to tell TV
    news crews that they weren’t going to attend.

    Sometimes Google is your friend . . .

    And the process was we are told for the first time a weaponisation of
    the process - a change from unanimous agreement to the Government
    Majority imposing their will over Opposition members.

    Did you forget the news reports of the time? The trio made it quite clear
    from the beginning they were not going to attend the hearings. There was
    no issue mentioned of scheduling conflicts: they simply pulled a Gaurav
    Sharma.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Jun 10 14:06:36 2025
    On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 01:43:25 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:29:53 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:26:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:43:01 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    They scheduled a meeting without checking they were available ...

    Did they really? Because they had plenty of time beforehand to tell TV
    news crews that they weren?t going to attend.

    Sometimes Google is your friend . . .

    And the process was we are told for the first time a weaponisation of
    the process - a change from unanimous agreement to the Government
    Majority imposing their will over Opposition members.

    Did you forget the news reports of the time? The trio made it quite clear >from the beginning they were not going to attend the hearings. There was
    no issue mentioned of scheduling conflicts: they simply pulled a Gaurav >Sharma.

    Perhaps we are both doing a Tony and making statements without
    evidence. My recall is that the Committee refused to hear them
    together, and made appointments without consultation, but that it was
    only after this that the TPM MPs decided they did not wish to meet
    with the Committee. Some actions on both sides were unwise, but while
    I know that evidence is desirable, I do not have time to find it at
    present.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Jun 10 04:11:52 2025
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:45:22 +1200, Mutley <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:36:35 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    It all seems like there are two sets of standards at play here.

    Bit of a selective list, isn’t it? No mention of Julie-Anne Genter.
    Of course not, Rich posted the comment and he doesn't do balance.

    I think It's time to killfile Rich or maybe time to kill off my
    usenet time as Rich is nothing but a left loving Marxist. Him and >>Jabcider must have hit it off great.

    Your decision, Mutley. I do not see myself as Marxist
    You are an obvious apparatchik
    , but you may
    mean something different from my views.

    I recently did the test at https://www.politicalcompass.org/test
    You would be better off leaving one of your teeth under your pillow and praying to the tooth fairy. That website is trash, as evidenced many times.
    and my results were close to :
    Left / Right: +3
    Authoritarian / Libertarian +3
    So yes I am to the left of the average of Labour on the economic
    scale, but slightly more libertarian than Labour.

    This is probably well within the range of Labour voters.
    Some years ago there was an exchange of personal results on nz.general
    that included David Farrar - from memory he was almost exactly where
    ACT is on the chart - +10 on the left / right scale, and -2 towards >libertarian. I have previously said that I believe ACT is in fact
    much more authoritarian - more towards where they were placed in 2017.

    However you probably have different results and rationale - but each
    of us is only entitled to one vote - don't feel threatened by people
    that have different views.

    To go back to the subject of the thread, I have been surprised that
    the Taxpayers Union have not objected to the stupidity of the decision
    by the overtly authoritarian Judith Collins
    STop lying, Collins did not make the decision - it was a democratic vote.
    - Parliament wasted at
    least a day on the haka incident and the deliberations of the
    government members - at a cost which is quite high - see >https://fyi.org.nz/request/2429/response/7887/attach/2/Response.pdf

    At $310 per minute of sitting time (and that was back in 2014), what a
    waste of money it has been.
    So were the lockdowsn, and they cost Billions of dolklars.

    As for Jabcider, please don't inject yourself with cider - it would
    not be healthy. I suspect you may not have meant that though - the far
    right are often deliberately obtuse - but you may just not have
    explained what you mean very well . . .
    Your foul sarcasm once more - no debating skills, just abuse that's the Rich we love to detest.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tony@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Jun 10 04:15:43 2025
    Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 01:43:25 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:29:53 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 22:26:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:43:01 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    They scheduled a meeting without checking they were available ...

    Did they really? Because they had plenty of time beforehand to tell TV >>>> news crews that they weren?t going to attend.

    Sometimes Google is your friend . . .

    And the process was we are told for the first time a weaponisation of
    the process - a change from unanimous agreement to the Government
    Majority imposing their will over Opposition members.

    Did you forget the news reports of the time? The trio made it quite clear >>from the beginning they were not going to attend the hearings. There was
    no issue mentioned of scheduling conflicts: they simply pulled a Gaurav >>Sharma.

    Perhaps we are both doing a Tony and making statements without
    evidence.
    You certainly are and doing so several times a day.
    Do tell why it is OK for you and not for me? Eh, dogbreath?

    . My recall is that the Committee refused to hear them
    together, and made appointments without consultation, but that it was
    only after this that the TPM MPs decided they did not wish to meet
    with the Committee. Some actions on both sides were unwise, but while
    I know that evidence is desirable, I do not have time to find it at
    present.
    They said within hours of the announcement that there would be an enguiry that they would not attend - fact, not supposition (like you) but fact - we all saw that. They repeated that more than once.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)