Linky Love - Volume 17

Sorry this is so late - I've hardly been at a computer all week.

Standard intro - Linky Love is basically a cobbling together of posts I've noticed around the traps that have set off little tiny sparkles inside my head, and which I would possibly write about or comment on if I didn't need to sleep, eat, work, that kind of stuff. I usually put Linky Love volumes up weekly, on Friday mornings, although sometimes I sneak them in on Thursday for various reasons. I hope you like it.

As always if you have a post of your own, or some else's, that you'd like to highlight please feel free to add it in comments, or to discuss the above posts, or indeed most anything else.

Capitalism Bad - Eating disorders are about more than hating your appearance - Maia responds to a post by Hugo Schwyzer comparing eating disorders and veganism, and looks at the role that control and self-denial plays.

Feministe - Teen Girl Sex Scandal!! OhmiGod!! - Flea examines the annoying moral panics that frequently seem to spring up around the possibility of young women having sex.

Feministing - Hero of the Day: Erin Davies and her "fag bug" - Jessica reports on a homophobic vandalism that has had rather the opposite effect from what the tagger would have intended.

Ghetsuhm - Moooooo - Ghet posts about the cow-chicken-grass test, which I didn't just like cos I studied anthro.

LeftAlign - Terrorists I am scared of - LA writes about some scary scary people and the regular folks who support their views.

The Legal Soapbox - All's fair in love and law - Legal Eagle shares why she loves being a lawyer, and why the structure of legal work makes it hard for her to maintain that affection.

The Legal Soapbox - Managing up and down - LE gets a second nod for an insightful piece on managing that she wrote ages ago (before she shifted to wordpress) but I only just got around to finishing it.

Pandagon - Quality of whose life, again? - Chris Clarke has a fantastic post on the "patriarchal blindspot" some seem to have when advocating for change such as the Slow Movement. zuzu, also of Feministe, has written about her family's experiences in response.

Red in Roskill - Lessons for Labour - Michael Wood extrapolates a few things for Helen Clark and friends to take heed of, from the recent UK elections.

Salon - Tinky Winky says bye-bye to Jerry Falwell - The former teletubby breaks his silence on the death of the tele-evangelist who outted him.

WebWeaver's World - Smack no more! - ww shares her thoughts on the successful final vote on s59's repeal, and also has Sue Bradford's full Third Reading speech.

Previous volumes of Linky Love (1 - 16) can be found over here.

And finally, this week's Heart Pic is provided by Tze Ming Mok, of Yellow Peril fame, and was snapped at an art gallery in Shanghai recently. Thanks tm :-)

Transgressing

After writing up my thoughts for Take Back the Blog Day, I've been thinking about how much worse it seems to be online for those who were XY and are now XX. Specifically I've been astounded with the abuse and bile spewed whenever Georgina Beyer is mentioned on some blogs.

Beyond her contribution to the Civil Union debate, which I think was at times courageous and also of strategic importance to the Forces for Good, I don't know that Beyer has achieved much in the way of legislation passed, statutory change made. But what she has done by having the guts to run, first for the mayoralty chains and later for the House, has been of wider social importance. She has stood up and shown that transsexuals are people too, in one of the hardest and most publicly scrutinised working environments around.

But some people just don't seem to be able to deal with it. They make really Not Funny jibes about her gender, and quickly descend into a sewer lined with dick jokes. A few even harp on and on claiming she is a he and refuse to accept Beyer's own decision about her gender.

What's so threatening about a woman who used to be a man? Sure, argue her competence as a politician (a job she's no longer doing), or criticise the policies she has espoused, but let's keep it all above the belt shall we?

(Pic Via)

Caution: side effects ahead

Feministing has the buzz on the 11th Annual Abstinence Leadership Conference. This year they have the snazzy theme:

Abstinence: It's a Black and White Issue -Purity vs Promiscuity

They even kind of have a blog, and there's a post up there where the writer responds to a feminist criticism of Purity Balls and the like. The Abstainer includes this gem in their brief critique:

...a person might choose sexual abstinence because of its obvious benefits, including freedom from STDs, unwed pregnancy, emotional scarring, suicidal ideation (especially in teens), and so on.

So all of these negative side effects are likely to befall you if you have sex. Oh, before marriage, I always forget that bit. After marriage you can bring sexy back, no probs. Except you gays. You can't get married, which means no sex for you FOREVER, 'cos sex without marriage could result in unwed pregnancy.

But I digress.

All of the possible Bad Things Sex Causes listed in the post are actually preventable by other measures too, not just abstinence. In fact I argue that they are better prevented by sex education that focuses on liking your body, not hating and denying it's sexual nature, because then you can continue making healthy choices once you start having sex, rather than having no clue because everything was focused on stopping you from having your first orgasm.

• Freedom from STDs: I know what you're thinking - haven't these people heard of condoms? Yes they have but they think they are Evil and have some faux-science that says they don't work. (Sadly they are still unaware that STIs are the new STDs.)


• Unwed pregnancy*: How about we educate people about how you get pregnant, and what the birth control options are to stop that process? I'm thinking maybe we could also make birth control widely and freely available, along with abortion, and stop attaching a stigma to these measures.


• Emotional scarring: Let's encourage teh kids to have sex when they want to, rather than when they feel pressured to. We could even chuck in a little bit of respect, for yourself and others, and add a culture that doesn't tolerate rape and sexual abuse. Our churches and other institutions could stop hiding rapists and abusers, and we could give people options to get out of abusive situations without high social and economic repercussions.


• Suicidal ideation: See above, and consider ditching the heavy judgement and coming down on the side of loving support.

Funny how the post doesn't mention the positive outcomes of sex; intimacy, pleasure, fun, and getting your rocks off, to name a few. It's as if sex is only a Bad Thing That No Good Comes Of. Do these people know where babies come from?

I've ranted before (and not just here) about how this agenda seems to me to be fundamentally anti-woman. It tells girls, and their older sisters, that their sexual desires and experiences are wrong and dirty. It sends the clear message that their intact hymen is synonymous with their worth as a person - and that they must remain an unsullied china doll until their father hands them over to their husband. Any sex with someone other than your hubby is promiscuous, and promiscuous equals Evil.

Yes there are times when sex is not a good idea. But telling people, persistently and from a position of power, that sex is Never Good unless it is with only one person, ever, and then only after you have a mystical magic ring on your finger, is just wrong. It doesn't encourage women to feel ownership of their bodies, it doesn't encourage them to say no when they aren't into it (and yes when they are) and it certainly doesn't encourage men to view hetero sex as something that must be consensual.

* Actually I don't see the problem with "unwed" pregnancy. The issue is actually unwanted pregnancy, marital status has nothing to do with it.

Linky Love - Volume 9

It's Friday morning (already!), so it must be time for the next volume of Linky Love.

Standard intro - if you have a post of your own, or some else's, that you'd like to highlight please feel free to add it in comments, or to discuss the above posts, or indeed most anything else.

Celsias - Supermarket Secrets - Craig Mackintosh has the BBC documentaries which cover the supermarket supply chain practices that are questionable for not only the environment but also human health.

Columbia Journalism Review - The Opt-Out Myth - EJ Graff writes powerfully dis-proving the idea that smart, educated women are choosing not to pursue corporate careers. And here's further comment on this article, and the opt-out myth, from Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon. Plus, Make Tea Not War posts briefly on this article at What We Said, and gets some interesting comments out of the bargain.

DagCentral - John Howard: Patriot. Statesman. Dumbass - dagcentral takes on John Howard's ridiculousness about Obama, Al Qaeda and the 2008 US presidential race.

Feministe - Legal Abortion = Lives Saved - Jill (I so heart Jill!) looks at the drop in deaths from illegal abortions, and the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church.

Frogblog - Welfare for Australian Banks - Russel Norman looks critically at the Government proposal to cut company tax, through the example of what could happen for Australian banks operating in NZ.

Joe Hendren - Iraq can be a St Paddy's Day issue - Joe examines the parallels between English imperialism in Ireland and US imperialism in Iraq.

Just Left - Four years of blood on their hands - Jordan Carter gives his thoughts about the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War.

The Legal Soapbox - Follow the leader - Legal Eagle examines our lack of tolerance for dissent, and what we will do to avoid being in the ostracised minority.

Mainly Politics - Measuring public sector performance - Chris Hipkins writes about Phil "ex-National staffer" Rennie's "independent" report on where all the money has gone under recent Labour-led Governments.

No Right Turn - Misplaced priorities - Idiot/Savant has the skinny on where our research funds have been directed in regards to energy. And it's not where Al Gore would like.

Pandagon - The cost of the system - Sheelzebub eloquently expands on the theme that sweating (as happens in sweatshops) is an intrinsic part of our economic system.

And don't forget, previous volumes of Linky Love can be found in their own shiny category.

Linky Love - Volume 7

Standard intro - if you have a post of your own, or some else's, that you'd like to highlight please feel free to add it in comments, or to discuss the above posts, or indeed most anything else.


Alas (a blog) - Workplace deaths are overwhelmingly male - Ampersand looks at the reasons why US workplace deaths are mainly amongst men, in particular occupational segregation. My perception is that NZ stats would be similar.

Auckland's Burning - Workers fired because of union membership - John has text and pics about a group of Unite members who had jobs at the Ascott Metropolis in Auckland, until they were fired for having the gall to be union members.

Contradiction - Recanting - George Darroch changes his mind about the post featured in an earlier Linky Love about banning gang patches. Good on him for doing so publicly.

Feministe - File Under: Get pregnant, lose your civil liberties - Jill shines a much needed light on yet another example of discrimination against pregnant women.

Feministe - The New Feminism - Another great post from Jill, this time about how a new reality TV show based on the Pussycat Dolls is apparently empowering to women. That would be why high heels are so uncomfortable to wear then - the pain is empowering me!

Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty - Expecting More - Maia rips apart the post by Russel Norman, Greens co-leader, about the trials of Rickards, Shipton and Schollum. She has written some amazing stuff on the trial and its outcome, including this, this, and this.

The Fundy Post - Listener now to be available as soothing Gel - Paul Litterick flexs his satire muscles in response to news of a declining Listener readership.

Hard News - Bad men - Russell Brown on the police rape trials, resulting in a multi-faceted comment thread which dips into trollville before being redeemed by D&D veterans. A thread to make you cry a lot, and, eventually, laugh a little.

The Legal Soapbox - The Old School Tie - Legal Eagle explores the issues lefties face when choosing between public and private schooling for their progeny.

The Legal Soapbox - Barefoot and pregnant with a gavel - Legal Eagle gets a second nod for a post on some really quite ludicrous reasons why women shouldn't be judges according to Shariah law.

A Long Time Ago and Not True Anyway - With these bombs democracy - Terence expands on a debate on Public Address System about imposing democracy, comparing Germany and Japan with Iraq.

Make Tea Not War - Know Your Rights - MTNW has a handy explanation of a basic consumer right; being able to return things wot don't work good. Includes a dandy letter you can use for your own broken stuff crisis.

Pandagon - Marriage's downward spiral - gay folks didn't do it - Pam Spaulding writes about the socioeconomic reasons why less Americans are marrying and concludes that it has little to do with homosexual marriage.

Single Malt Social Democrat - Charity begins in Parnell - Carl points out that it doesn't have to be private charity or government funding, and argues that the idea of citizens being totally reliant on charity is abhorrent.

stanselen - Ageism and Sexism - jo writes about her experiences within activist groups as an "older" (32!) radical feminist.

Tales from the Reading Room - Fantasy Podcasts - litlove muses on which great dead literary types she would love to interview, and what she would ask if only she could.

Previous volumes of Linky Love can be found in their own shiny category.

Linky Love - Volume 4

The now standard intro - if you have a post of your own, or some else's, that you'd like to highlight please feel free to add it in comments, or to discuss the above posts, or indeed most anything else.

Also, if you want to suggest some new blogs to widen my reading please leave a message after the beep.

...the gossip - Well you can't please everyone - The unofficial Finsec (Financial Sector Union) blog has a pithy post on the political positions unions take.

Contradiction - Bio-terror George posts on the SPCA surprise inspection of a battery farm ALF had previously raided and reported. Despite the ALF raid, the farmers appeared to have improved little, but the SPCA may still not prosecute.

Feministe - Who are the extremists? Jill points out the extreme politics, including advocating for the assasination of scientists and political leaders, espoused by leading lights on the right of the US blogosphere.

Fighting Talk - Lyndon Hood writes wittily about literary references and NZ politics.

From the morgue - What's the matter with W Cres? morgue shares his experiences of Wilkie Cres in Naenae, which seems to have more than its fair share of murderous crimes.

The Fundy Post - Ash Wednesday Paul writes about the privileges complaint recently upheld against naughty Matt Robson, who had the temerity to make a comment about United Future's links with Big Tobacco in his email newsletter.

Hard News - The Report Card Russell Brown delves into some of the stats and reportage on the Unicef report on child well-being, and also links to a photo that very nearly made me cry. The ensuing discussion in PASystem is also of interest.

Left reckoner - a game of numbers Rob Davies has a humourous and interesting post inspired by some of the 2006 census results (more interesting than I am making it sound!)

The Legal Soapbox - Yet more thoughts on Anti-Semitism - Legal Eagle points out that Jews and Arabs are both Semites, and muses on the impact of white supremacy on the prejudices against these groups.

Natalia Anatova - Beauty and the B-list - Natalia channels her Gerard Butler obsession into a post on celebrity. I think she's really trying to pose the question we all want answered - is Butler the new Christian Bale?

Paper, Scissors, Rock - Male Pattern Stupidity - Ms Klake posts about her observation that men may just get more stupid as they age. I couldn't possibly comment ;-)

Women of Color Blog - Tim Hardaway hates Gays and plotting Queer liberation through sports brownfemipower covers the controversy that has erupted in the US sports world after former NBA basketballer John Amaeci came out of the closet.

Former Linky Loves (vols 1 through 3) can be found in the Linky Love category.

BEEEEEEP

Inconceivable

Over at Red in Roskill I've been having a little argument with my old foe AJ Chesswas.* What started out as a post by Michael Wood about progressive christianity has ended up with AJ and I slugging it out in the comments, arguing about sex.

AJ's position as he puts it himself:

Sex = pleasure, intimacy, commitment and procreation. We dissect this at our
peril.

What he means is that sex should always be about conceiving.** AJ further holds that there is an obligation on the married to reproduce, and:

A world that considers a union that is unable to result in the miracle of
life as equal to one that does cannot be seriously considered to be just.

When I pointed out that there is no such commandment about sprogging on the marriage licence AJ counters with the authority of the Anglican prayerbook.

Not surprisingly, I find this ridiculous. To me it seems to be a point of view that not only fails to reflect the reality of sexual practice throughout human history, it is also a sneakily sexist position to hold.

Consider the consequences of a view of sex that sees it as always about conceiving:

1. Should only have sex when you intend to conceive.
2. Should only have sex when both partners are provably fertile (depending on the woman and how you would measure, maybe up to a week a month).
3. No sex (or legal commitments) between partners of the same sex (as can't possibly conceive).
4. No use of contraception allowed, ever.
5. Infertile people never allowed to have sex.
6. Infertile people not allowed to marry.
7. Masturbation assumedly a no-go also?

We know what a world without contraception is like. Many people still live in that world. It is a place where women's roles are limited by frequent pregnancies and obligations to put childcare and home-making above any other ambitions. I am lucky I don't have to live in that world, and I wish no one did.

I'd really like to know what is actually sinful or wrong about having sex for pleasure alone?

Whether you are heterosexual or not, sex seems to me to be about the four things AJ lists above ("pleasure, intimacy, commitment, procreation" to remind the reader and save you scrolling) but it doesn't have to be about all four all the time.

Update, 19th Feb. 1.41pm: Ok, if you have read this far then you also ought to go read this over at Feministe. It's Jill's response to a Christian man who feels contraception is a sin, but is now in an invidious situation himself, where the only solution seems to be to go down that path.


* Yes he's real.
**I don't think he would disagree with this, but I couldn't find a short quote in comments that reflected this, please AJ do let me know if I've got the wrong end of the stick and I will correct it.

Under pressure - the flipside

In my post Under pressure I wrote about the pressures I face to have a child, asap. That pressure hasn't really lifted.*

But anyway this post is not about that. This post is about the flipside of the pressure I face to have children. It's about the judgement many women face when they do get pregnant and some people judge it to be a Bad Thing.**

Cactus Kate has blogged in defence of Keisha Castle-Hughes who has announced she is pregnant and has been attacked from various quarters for daring to get with child. Notable with her criticism, in the article linked to above, is National MP Paula Bennett, who goes around the country telling teens not to get pregnant.

I have also been thinking about what happened around the tragic deaths of the Kahui twins. There were many comments swirling around calling for restrictions on beneficiaries fertility (to put it nicely), not to mention thinly veiled claims that Maori are genetically programmed to abuse their children.

I wonder if there isn't a race element to some of this. I note that in both of the above cases I mention the women are not white.

What also bugs me is the ownership this shows. Ownership of women's bodies by Other People (including other women). I've noticed that there are many situations in which women are judged as Wrong for getting pregnant, including:

• when under an arbitrary age (I can't work out what the current moral number is - 20?)
• when over an arbitrary age (40?)
• when they already have Too Many kids (again, no specific number identified, and there does appear to be a racial aspect to this too imho)
• when they are single
• when they are not married
• when they are lesbian, whether they are in a relationship or not
• when they are intending to be a working mum (or this is assumed)
• when they are poor
• when they are a beneficiary
• when there is a chance the child could have a genetic disease

She's pregnant, let's get over it and get on with supporting her. Yes it will be hard, becoming a parent is always hard and there are often other factors operating in a person's life that make impending parenthood harder for that individual or family. Rather than lamenting the pregnancy itself, how about focusing on making it a positive experience and thus helping the parent(s) to feel supported and loved?

Update, same day 8.49pm: And gosh, I'm stunned, there are commenters judging Castle-Hughes at Kiwiblog within hours of the announcement! Who would ever have thought?

Update, Oct 10th 4.02pm: Maia has also posted on this over at Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty, writing about the element of "choice" and the impact the capitalist structure of our society has on it.

*In particular I have a friend who every time we interact raises it. She always asks "if" I am going to have children, almost as if we haven't had this conversation before (many many times). Although I like her very much I dread those words coming out of her mouth, but they do every time we are together, if not to me directly then to my partner. I haven't yet found a polite way to say "actually this is not really any of your business", and I'm worried that I'll find an impolite way instead...
**I'm struck by the impression that many of those who make these pronouncements are also people who would similarly judge harshly if a woman chose an abortion instead.

Disbelief

Yesterday I heard a man on National Radio who outraged me (and no it wasn't Matthew Hooton). I only caught the end of the interview, but he was on part of Jim Mora's show in the afternoon, The Panel, and he was from what sounded like a very Stone Age organisation, Family First. I think the man in question was Steven Tetley-Jones, but the only person mentioned on their website is someone called Bob McCoskrie, so if any reader can enlighten me I'd appreciate it.

Anyway, The Man From Family First was talking about gay and lesbian adoption. He trotted out the tired old "unnatural" label, and went on and on about two heterosexual parents being best. (Never mind that the traditional nuclear family is in fact not the exclusive group that raise a child - extended whanau, family friends, members of the community, teachers, Plunket nurses, many many people raise every single child in our society. It is often when these other people are absent that a family, however it is composed, ends up under incredible stress and the child's upbringing starts to swing off course.)

Then The Man From Family First used a line that sent a shiver down my spine. He said (I paraphrase)

We don't want people have children for the wrong reason, for their own
ends... We don't want anyone to have a child wanting to raise it to
be just like them.

The implication being that homosexual parents would want to have a child for one of two reasons (or possibly both):

1. To raise homosexual children and thus perpetuate the homosexual master race that will soon outnumber heterosexuals (and no doubt outlaw the missionary position or somesuch)
2. To have access to a child to sexually abuse.

Mora, to his credit, seemed highly uncomfortable with all this, pointing out that the rates of sexual abuse by gay or lesbian people are actually very low. He didn't actually say that most sexual violence and abuse is carried out by heterosexual men, but I was yelling this at the radio so loudly I wouldn't be surprised if they could hear that point in the studio.

What chilled me though was the way this Man From Family First was discussing it all in such a jovial manner. At points he laughed and treated some of Mora's questions as if they were just having a jolly old jape down at their local. How could he reel off these outrageous accusations so lightly, as if they were accepted wisdom and beyond challenge? How can anyone expound such things on a radio station, so casually, and be completely oblivious to their effect?

Later on I slightly balanced up my disbelief by listening to the excellent 20 Years Out documentary that Maia recommended a few days ago. I'm too young to remember what happened and I didn't realise how much I take for granted until I heard that doco. It was startling, the hatred, and over what? If you don't want to have sex with a fellow XXer or XYer just don't. If you don't want to even think about it, then don't. John Banks certainly took the award for worst speaker, at one point denouncing it all as "very very very very bad." How about very very very very lame, John?

Some days I think we've come a long way - yesterday I didn't.

Update: Idiot/Savant has a good post on the anniversary with some very interesting links.

kiss kiss ban ban

Did anyone else notice the Central Leader article last week (sadly not online, but it was on the front page on Friday) regarding the same sex kiss issue? It revolved around Eden Park's management confirming that they would have taken the same action as Westpac Stadium did, saying:

"It's not a human rights issue and it is reviewed on a case-by-case basis," said Mr Reade [Eden Park general manager]. "But any incident that is causing a disturbance, a problem or bad crowd behaviour, is judged on that."

Perhaps Reade is not aware of what happened when Westpac Bank's management talked to Westpace Stadium's management, as revealed by Tony Milne of I See Red? (Aside: Eden Park also has a bank as one of it's primary sponsors - ASB)

Bruce Kilmister, who is a member of the Western Bays Community Board and is described in the Central Leader article as "gay and an HIV-AIDS health campaigner", is also quoted, labelling the response from Eden Park "pathetic" and going on to say:

"It's a sad day when the culture of boozy blokines pervade liberal idealism... The last bastion of that Kiwi prehistoric behaviour is rugby and cricket game attenders."

Further to this, there is an interesting conversation about whether this particular situation is a good example of a threat to human rights, over in the comments to a post on Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty. While I agree that there are many supporting the right of these women to kiss because they were straight, I believe they were probably targetted because it is perceived that same sex kissing isn't appropriate at a "family" event. Nevermind all the boozing and swearing, Valhalla forbid that there should be any non-heterosexual showing of affection.

Wouldn't it be great to live in a world where two women kissing wasn't instantly interpreted by most viewers as either a turn-on or a disgusting and perverted act?

imagine

I know I'm a bit slow off the boat on this one, but better late than never.

I want to make it clear from the start that Don Brash has never said this, to the best of my knowledge. The words I have inserted are in italics, and the rest are quotes from Brash's now infamous "Mainstream" interview on NatRad in June.

But let's just imagine he had said the following:

Interviewer: No, I just want to pick up on something else here. You talked about the legal recognition of Jewish marriages. Does that mean you do not regard Jewish people as mainstream New Zealanders?

Brash: Well they're clearly not, they're a small minority of people, but let me be clear. I made it very clear in the debate on that issue that I thought this should be dealt with by referendum because it's a big change in the civil institutions of society. I also said that in the referendum I would vote for it because I have no problem with Jewish couples committing to live together faithfully as Chrisitan couples do.

Interviewer: You simply don't regard Jews as part of mainstream New Zealand?

Brash: Well they are clearly, by definition, a small minority of New Zealanders...

If Brash had said that, would it be up there with Tamihere's comments? So why is it different just because the group of people he slagged are identified on the basis of sexuality rather than religion?

Are people who marginalise others mainstream?

Good posts on this:
- Gay's Aren't Mainstream - Just Left
- Don Brash and the politics of division - No Right Turn

Kiwi Carnival #2 - right here, right now!

Richard, who hosted the last Kiwi Carnvial, has submitted his post UBI, Freedom, and Reciprocity, which argues in favour of an unconditional basic income (something quite close to my heart as well).

Berlin Bear has written an open letter to Helen Clark, Phil Goff and Marian Hobbs, highlighting the current situation in Zimbabwe, particularly Operation Murambatsvina. He applauds the action taken by the New Zealand government so far but calls for a tougher stance. The post makes specific suggestions for further action, based on the recommendations of the Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE).

Stephen Judd, of spleen, has submitted What Winston has woken, which he says is "an abortive attempt at fisking NZ First's immigration policy, before I got too annoyed to continue."

Kakariki delves into the potential ways of reducing our national abortion rates in Stuff, abortions and a bit more stuff.

Aboutown asks Don if they can please please see his tax cut, in Show us your tax cut!, which is not nearly as smutty as it might have been.

I am offering up my post about women taking the bulk of responsibility for contraception, postulating that due to biology the only way to get men to take more of the burden is to give our sons a moral obligation.

Stephen Cooper from Philosophically Made has some interesting predictions to make about the way things could fall out politically in the next few months.

Jarrod from First Against The Wall has contributed his latest incisive political commentary, of the witty variety, in Revolution in progress.

DPF got to take part in a debate on TV One about tax. He blogs about the debate in a post imaginatively titled "The Debate". David advocated that there will never be a better time for tax cuts, and also that he thinks it is silly he pays taxes which are passed on to families who earn more than him. (And he forced me to write that!)

Idiot/Savant, of No Right Turn fame, has submitted Zaoui judgement: it's enough, an analysis of the Supreme Court's judgement in the Ahmed Zaoui case.

Mellie, from Strikewatch, has offered Worker collectives and multi-agent jobs. He says "there are a number of conditions necessary for workers inmulti-agent jobs to have a reasonable chance of improving their terms and conditions in an individual contract environment. Factors include the size of the employer, training costs and complexity of the job, number of other agents employed in the same position and also the supply of skilled labour. Small busines owners are susceptible to manipulation by employees withregards to fears over productivity or losing trained staff, howeverconditions can both mitigate and aggravate these fears."

Meanwhile I've forcibly submitted Jordan Carter's refutation of Brash's statements about gays not being mainstream, and Apathy Jack's Waiting for the dreams, which is all about the art.

The Kiwi Carnvial is a collaborative effort that any kiwi bloggers (including ex-pats) are invited to take part in, by merely submitting their favourite post of the last fortnight to the carnival host. Each fortnight it will be located at a different blog, and you can offer your own fair online domicile at the Kiwi Carnival homepage, where you can also find out about future and past hosts, and how to submit (which is easy peasy folks!).

This is the second fortnight of the Kiwi Carnival - you can read the first Kiwi Carnival post here.

just when you thought this debate was in hiatus...

United Future MP Larry Baldock's Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill was drawn from the Private Members' Ballot on Wednesday, and will be voted on this week. Word is that it will be in the House on Wednesday the 11th.

The Bill seeks to clarify that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, obviously intending to ban future amendments to the Marriage Act which would allow same sex marriage. It would also mean NZ would not recognise gay marriages or civil unions entered into overseas.

At this stage it looks as if neither National nor Labour have ruled out voting for the Bill, both parties saying they will make a decision in their respective caucuses on Tuesday. Assumedly this is only the First Reading and thus the vote is over whether to send it to Select Committee or not.

Urgh.

Baldock wants to move in the future to repeal the Civil Unions Act and the Human Rights Act. But apparently it's nothing to do with UF being a Christian party - where's a Tui ad when you need one?

GayNZ articles:
- NZ gay marriage ban vote next week
- Govt considers gay marriage ban
- UF: Future antigay bills not ruled out

time to party!

Off to the Auckland Campaign for Civil Unions party tonight - wohoooooooo!

No matter what I wear I can be assured that there will be a man there, in drag, who does it better. Sigh.

notice anything interesting about this group of people?

Taito Philip Field, John Tamihere, Clayton Cosgrove, Damien O'Connor, Ross Robertson, Harry Duynhoven

All Labour MPs,

all in safe electorates (maybe not Tamihere),

all voted against the CUB,

all moral conservatives,

and

all men.

I know there are women who voted against the CUB too, but it is quite telling that in Labour it is only men who have tried to vote it down.

It's a generalisation I know, but in my experience women seem to be more able to empathise with the situation of minorities, whether they are in that minority or not.

when MPs surprise you

The CUB vote, due tomorrow, has thrown up some odd results - MPs voting in ways strange and divers. Of particular note:

Don Brash - he said he would vote for it "on principle" but now his principles have either changed or gone on holiday. As Jordan has pointed out, this is the second flip-flop in quick succession, and doesn't bode well for leadership skills and aspirations (unless you are Bill English). No Right Turn is also disappointed, whilst DPF has been silent so far...

Ashraf Choudray - wohooo he's in favour! I'm stoked, and I emailed to tell him so.

Some of the Act MPs (Coddington in particular) - individual freedom anyone? Nigel has an interesting insight into the thinking of Muriel Newman in particular, and confirms that Heather Roy is in fact voting in favour and the Herald was wrong.

Tariana Turia - but then I already blogged about that.

Pansy Wong - wasn't she seen boogeying on down at that (probably vain) attempt to get some pink votes that the Nats held earlier this year in Auckers?

Lockwood Smith - the rumours about Lockwood are as old as the hills. I really thought he might have made the leap, since 1986, but it appears he hasn't. Very sad indeed.

Anyway I'm hoping to be surprised back again by some of them, which may be asking a bit much but I guess I've always been into lost causes ;-)

PS not that I think the CUB is a lost cause, just some (all even?) of the individuals named above

end of an era

back in a previous incarnation i helped to organise student marriages. not designed to be death do us part, these unions of convenience took advantage of a loophole in the student allowances legislation, to avoid parental means testing for the under 25. if you were married your spouse's means were tested instead, and if you were both students you were basically bound to qualify for an allowance.

and i see that the Govt is now moving to end this - those students who are under 25 and married will now be tested on parental income, just like their single friends.

while this does end the discrimination on the basis of sexuality inherent in the old marriage scheme, it is kind of sad to see it go. (i did wonder how it would operate under the Civil Unions legislation) of course i wouldn't be sad at all if it was going because they were bringing in a universal student allowance like they ought to...

it just shows again how ridiculous the 25 age limit is - how many students, or young people in general, are really still reliant on their parents at that age? and how many parents want to still support their kids once they are over 20?? i was pretty late moving out of home, but even i was out of the fold by 22 and supporting myself (without an allowance).

i think of all those couples i brought together - i was witness at the wedding of one friend (mr red), whose wife had a long term relationship with another of our friends, then cheated on him with the wife of a third friend. of course they're all divorced now. que sera sera.

media reports of the marches and that ol' chesnut - march numbers

here are a posse of media reports on the marches in Welly today around the CUB issue:

TVNZ online report - says up to 6000 EIEers and up to 2000 pro-CUB marchers

Newstalk ZB - says police estimate around 9000 in total (ie both sides added together, how ironic)

Herald and Stuff seem to have used the same report, assumedly NZPA generated - says 5000 against CUB, no number for the pro-CUB marchers

TV3 don't seem to have their news on the internet these days but I heard them say 8000 EIEers and a few hundred pro-CUBers, on the telly

Scoop has two photo essays - Dylan Packman's and Kevin List's - neither give numbers

Prime News (first at 5.30 and all that) reckoned 9000 against the CUB

on Indymedia Rev Puss Puss Sherboune has posted several pics - click the arrow that points to the left to see the others

And in the blogosphere:

Just Left's very personal experience as one of the pro CUB marchers - estimates 5000 EIEers and 500 - 600 pro-CUBers - "Nobody who was there can ever forget the contrast: the hate and anger and black and red; versus the colour and diversity and humanity of our crowd."

Chinasoup's story of her feelings before, during and after the march - "I don't understand why a culture of love and tolerance and diversity doesn't benefit everyone."

DPF's recollection and pics - he estimates 3000 - 4000 EIEers, 500 - 1000 pro-CUBers - "I find it interesting that christian fundamentalists are in fact similar to muslim fundamentalists - they want a country governed by their version of God's law, rather a country based on tolerance for diversity."

Phil Rennie's tale from the end of the event - "If anything I felt sorry for the Destiny crowd; most of them seemed to be just following the leader."

My favourite blogged bit on this so far is Chinasoup's list of placards that she spotted - in particular the classic:

Brian's not the Messiah; he's just a very naughty boy.

seemed strange to laugh in the midst of reading such a sad post.

recklessness and murder

further to my comment on Just Left's good post about the 'homosexual panic' defence (aka the 'killing a queer isn't murder, it's just manslaughter' crock imho)

The Crimes Act 1961 defines murder in s167:

Culpable homicide is murder in each of the following cases:
...
b)
if the offender means to cause to the person killed any bodily
injury that is known to the offender to be likely to cause death, and is reckless
whether death ensues or not...

by this definition i would have thought Edwards had committed the necessary elements:
1. meaning to cause McNee a bodily injury
2. that he knew was likely to cause death (ie the 40 something stabs) (i think, but am not sure, that the "reasonable person" test applies here)
3. and being reckless about it (ie taking the risk that it would result in death)

so then we go to the defence to this - provocation - which reduces culpable homicide that would otherwise be murder to manslaughter, if proven.

The Crimes Act 1961 defines provocation in s169 as:

(2) Anything done or said may be provocation if -
(a) In the circumstances of the case it was sufficient to deprive a person
having the power of self-control of an ordinary person, but otherwise
having the characteristics of the offender, of the power of self-control; and
(b) It did in fact deprive the offender of the power of self-control and
thereby induced him (sic) to commit the act of homicide...

While i'll be the first to admit i don't share many of the characteristics of
the offender, i really fail to see how what McNee did (and we only have Edwards' word for that) would cause someone with the power of self-control of an ordinary person to lose it in such a manner.

I am aware, having sat on a jury, of how easy it is for us to sit in judgement out here, without all the information that the jury saw and heard, including being able to watch the demeanour and behaviour of the accused in court.

But I strongly hope the Crown appeal this - i imagine they have grounds based on a possible misdirection by the judge in regard to the provocation issue.

Enough of Enough is Enough

theme music: i'm coming out (i want the world to know, i want to let it show)

pretty sad that the feedback from the anti-submissions on the CUB seems to be an argument-free zone. if they don't at least have some spurious claims to base their hate on then what's it all about?

well i guess it's about prejudice, plain and simple.

i have seen several letters to the herald recently along the lines of "think of the children!" i have a colleague who is fostering two young boys, with her partner (also a woman) and they are fantastic parents. i also have three friends who have watched their parents' relationships break up as one of them realised their true sexuality and had the courage to be honest about it - in all three cases the homosexual parent is the better, more well adjusted parent imho!

i still don't understand exactly how the fact that both the parents are the same sex is actually bad for children - can anyone explain???