VSM bill to pass today

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

If there's adequate mechanisms for exemptions then their rights aren't being limited.

Fixed_shit says so, so it must be true. Assertion isn't an argument, fucking imbecile. Are you so fucking arrogant that you think you can just assert something and pretend it's all true?

I've already shown to you that the NZBORA guarantees that INDIVIDUALS have a right to freely associate. Now if you have an "opt in by default but you can opt out" system then what the law is saying is that by default we will force you to associate with a group of people unless you make moves to opt out. There is no other reasonable interpretation -- you're a member of (depening on which institute you are at) the AUSA or [insert name of useless student union] unless you opt out. This is massively infringing of the idea that someone has a right to choose to associate or not with other people/groups, if not having the effect of prima facie extinguishing it. The right of freedom of association here has actually been taken away from the individual and the individual only gets it back by having to spend time and money (time is money, after all) to exercise an opt out. All this for what gain?

And you still haven't answered why we should ignore the spirit that the NZBORA acts as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Face it, your side lost and you're just having a cry.

[cyc]

BTW, making you a member of an organisation by default unless you opt out doesn't limit your freedom of association in any way. Fixed_truth just created a new meaning for the word "limited", everyone.

Fixed_truth, do you actually have a job that requires you to confront reality occasionally? Next time you feel like asking others if they can read, try looking at the dictionary for definition of simple words. As for whether you can read, obviously you can't, since you can't even understand that I had shown beyond any doubt that CSM with opt-out mechanisms still limited people's right to freedom of association AND athat such a scheme still ignores the underlying intent behind the NZBORA. Thus effectively CSM is a kind of tyranny of the majority and forced association unless one opted out.

[Ab]

cyc, why do you hate freedom so much?

[cyc]

Look, I am a secret Tory who hates the fact that the unions won't be free to force someone in by default. I hate students, hate the poor, love trickle-down economics, and all the rest of it.

Anyone who hates CSM just hates students and freedom and we are enemies of freedom.*

* enemies of the hard left and dribbling imbeciles like fixed_truth

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Fixed_shit says so, so it must be true. Assertion isn't an argument, fucking imbecile. Are you so fucking arrogant that you think you can just assert something and pretend it's all true?

Various legal opinions, including one from The Human Rights Commission and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, happen to disagree with you. As I said, it's debatable whether the compulsory membership provisions of the Act can be demonstratively justified in terms of s5 of NZBORA.

But you keep up you're usual frustrated life-venting and we can all laugh at the rage-clown

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Various legal opinions, including one from The Human Rights Commission and Sir Geoffrey Palmer, happen to disagree with you. As I said, it's debatable whether the compulsory membership provisions of the Act can be demonstratively justified in terms of s5 of NZBORA.

Nice backtracking from:

If there's adequate mechanisms for exemptions then their rights aren't being limited.

You've been caught redhanded and humiliated. The least you can do is admit it -- you asserted something that's patently indefensible, i.e. that compulsory student union membership ISN'T a limit on some people's freedom of association. The least you can do is admit that you were being an unreasonable fuckwit.

As for whether it's a JUSTIFIABLE limitation under s 5, in my view some that have argued that it is, including idiot Barton whose article you quoted without adding a shred of argument of your own as "proof", haven't made a very good case. But that's not what we are debating, was it?

So are you going to apologise for falsely accusing me of failing to comprehend your shitty argument from which you have now backtracked? Look, we all know the answer. You'd be too spineless to.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

But you keep up you're usual frustrated life-venting and we can all laugh at the rage-clown

You do realise that just about everyone here is actually laughing at you and the sort of idiotic arguments that you are so keen on in support of compulsory union membership? Well, I suppose I am being a bit harsh -- you just plagiarised someone else's "article" (I am using that term loosely to describe Barton's garbage) as part of your usual useless contribution on here.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

So are you going to apologise for falsely accusing me of failing to comprehend your shitty argument from which you have now backtracked? Look, we all know the answer. You'd be too spineless to.

Probably not. Better sue him.

[cyc]

Lightspeed, go and sue God for making you.

[Lightspeed]

I'd lose the case, God would just need to point to all the fun I have pushing your buttons as evidence of how I enjoy my existence.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I'd lose the case, God would just need to point to all the fun I have pushing your buttons as evidence of how I enjoy my existence.

Hahahahah your existence is this meaningless? How tragic.

[Lightspeed]

Mmm, that's a gratifying feeling isn't it, telling someone their life is meaningless and tragic. It makes your life feel less so, doesn't it?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

you asserted something that's patently indefensible, i.e. that compulsory student union membership ISN'T a limit on some people's freedom of association.

Because this IS the position defended by The HRC and Palmer ie, "students' freedom to not associate is protected sufficiently under the current Act". The 'justifiable' argument is the corresponding pro CM position.

anyway . . . nice article from Keith Ng

Hey students’ associations. You are not democracies.

5-10% turnout is not a mandate. Year after year after year, students have ignored you resoundingly. This could be a result of the lack of a social conscience in your neoliberal degree factory, it could be because they think student politics is an irredeemable theatre of muppetery, but it doesn’t matter – it is a cold hard fact that the majority of students don’t care about student politics.

Nor, dear VSM supporters, is this silent majority begging to be liberated from the tyranny of their student association. If they were, they’d have voted for it. They give as much a fraction of a shit about VSM as they do about the associations themselves.

So please, can we just all STFU with the hyperbole? It is not some epic battle over the soul and conscience of society. It is a few dozen student politicians and their grown-up counterparts trying to claim that students are on their side.

They are not.

[Ab]

So, again, why did Labour devote so much time and energy to fighting it?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Because this IS the position defended by The HRC and Palmer ie, "students' freedom to not associate is protected sufficiently under the current Act".

That's just a stupid argument. Something can be sufficiently protected (i.e. a justifiable limit under the NZBORA which otherwise in the opinions of those people contain sufficient safeguards for the enshrined right) without it NOT being a factual limit upon freedom of association.

BTW, here's a fun little tidbit about the Palmer opinion from a submission against this Bill by the National Council of Women of New Zealand:

The New Zealand Universities‟ Association and the Aotearoa Polytechnic Students‟ Union obtained a legal opinion in 1997 from Sir Geoffrey Palmer which concluded that “the right to freedom of association, recognised in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is not breached by the existing system of universal membership of students‟ associations.”

Oh so a group of people with an agenda put up a favourable opinion that it paid for from its lawyer. Boy that's never happened before.

Meanwhile, what do some presumably more independent civil servants say?

The Public law Group and the Office of Legal Counsel have also prepared advice on the new section 229 (1) of Clause 6 of the amended Bill to the Attorney-General. This states that “the new section does not unduly restrict the freedom of expression as affirmed in section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act.”

These comments apparently refer to a proposed amendment to the so called VSM Bill that retain the status quo of putting VSM to a referendum if 10% of the student body support a petitition to this effect. Thus the people from Crown Law's Public Law Group and the Ministry of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel were effectively commenting on whether an otherwise compulsory student union membership limits/restricts people's freedom of association. And, surprise, they conclude that there was a limit.

That conclusion comports with reality and quite simply what normal, non-idiotic people understand the word "limit" and relevant permutations of such to mean. The fact that you insist on arguing about this says a lot more about you than anything else.

[cyc]

For anyone who's disinclined to be an intellectual fraud and would actually like to read what someone ACTUALLY wrote, rather than just taking snippets of it which favours one's views of the world, here's link to a copy of the HRC's submission in relation to this former Bill.

http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyre...anRightsCo.pdf

At the top of p.2 the HRC goes into the various provisions of the then Education Act to show that students' right to freedom of association was adequately protected under the previous regime in its opinion. Unless you're Fixed_Fraud, it's pretty hard to leap from the former to a view that the HRC supports the position that the previous regime does not LIMIT students' rights of association. The proper legal inquiry required under any proper analysis of any claimed/possible breach of any enshrined right under the NZBORA is as follows:

1. You first establish whether an enshrined right has been limited;

2. You then ask whether the limitation is justifiable in a free and democratic society (s 5 NZBORA). To do this you bear in mind the purported objects of the limitation and whether the limitation is proportionate to the objects which Parliament supposedly intended to achieve; and

3. If (2) is answered in an affirmative fashion, you then go to this step. If (2) is not answered in the affirmative a lawyer is simply compelled to conclude that the limitation upon the enshrined right is unjustifiable. If a party takes things to court and the court agrees with the party, it may then declare an inconsistency exists between a particular law and the NZBORA.

At step 3, the lawyer asks whether the limitation upon the enshrined right is the least restrictive possible. If it is, then there has been no unjustifiable breach of an enshrined right under the NZBORA.

Let's now look at what the HRC concluded at p.4:

Given the effectiveness of the Act in protecting and promoting students' human rights, the Commission considers that any remaining limitations on the freedom to not associate [under the previous regime] would be justifiable under section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act

Notice how this conclusion fits perfectly with the analytical framework I described above. F_T exposed as a fraud yet again? What a surprise.

Now for the uninitiated, the contention in favour of the old regime that it promoted cohesiveness and assisted in the orderly/efficient provision of services to students and these matters justifying a limitation upon students' freedom to associate can be argued for. I just don't agree with it personally. But this isn't what Fixed_Fraud was trying to say.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

So, again, why did Labour devote so much time and energy to fighting it?

Probably the same reason why the Govt. don't want the Bill.

Originally Posted by pxpx

Student unions are nurturing grounds for career polititians. Horrible.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Probably the same reason why the Govt. don't want the Bill.

Huh?

[TD]

I'm guessing it was a typo.


Plain and simple:

1. Labour wants strong student unions because they generally support Labour causes.
2. National wants weak student unions because they generally appose National causes.

That's it.

[fixed_truth]

^^Yeah pretty much.

Originally Posted by cyc

Now for the uninitiated, the contention in favour of the old regime that it promoted cohesiveness and assisted in the orderly/efficient provision of services to students and these matters justifying a limitation upon students' freedom to associate can be argued for. I just don't agree with it personally. But this isn't what Fixed_Fraud was trying to say.

Actually I did advocate this as MY position:

it's debatable whether the compulsory membership provisions of the Act can be demonstratively justified in terms of s5 of NZBORA.

I would liked to perhaps have seen changes to the exemption mechanisms in order to reinforce someones right not to be compelled to join an association.

But yep, the HRC does match my position ie protected sufficiently = acceptable limit.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

But yep, the HRC does match my position ie protected sufficiently = [i

acceptable[/i] limit.

Err, nice dodge. You think no one else saw this?

If there's adequate mechanisms for exemptions then their rights aren't being limited.

You went from that to suddenly changing the issue to whether compulsory union membership is a JUSTIFIABLE limitation of an enshrined NZBORA right. Look, just admit it, you were being a fuckwit by trying to deny the obvious. When caught out, you dishonestly tried to shift the goalposts.

Fraud.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

Err, nice dodge. You think no one else saw this?
If there's adequate mechanisms for exemptions then their rights aren't being limited.

Err, I clarified yesterday that here I was talking about the my take on the HRCs position. The justifiable limit argument is not the same argument ie

The 'justifiable' argument is the corresponding pro CM position.

My position from the start was that freedom of association may already be protected, but let's protect it further ie.

Obviously there's debate about whether the mechanisms for someone to apply for exemption are adequate. . . I would liked to perhaps have seen changes to the exemption mechanisms in order to reinforce someones right not to be compelled to join an association.

Luckily for you, we are only playing a little game at your invitation and I basically don't make a point of really hurting bums like you by, you know, suing you.

[cyc]

You actually need to "clarify" that something which obviously limited people's freedom of association did, after all, limit their freedom of association but might be justifiable in a free and democratic society? Okay, so you're obviously stupid.

Don't try and pull the wool over anyone's eyes. You've been caught being an obstinate idiot who tried to deny the obvious. The HRC's position DOES NOT support your nonsensical original position. Stop lying.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

My position from the start was that freedom of association may already be protected, but let's protect it further ie.

"[M]ay already be protected" according to the HRC submissions, when read in context, clearly does NOT in any way lend support to your original nonsensical insistence that freedom of association was not limited by the previous regime. People are entitled to give what you write a plain meaning interpretation -- what you wrote clearly suggested to anyone who knows English that you were contending what I described.

In the unlikely case that you actually weren't subjectively seeking to convey what I described, what ought to be apparent to you is that it's time to take some remedial writing classes and learn the common meaning of a word as simple as "limited". But gosh, how can Fixed_shit be wrong?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

The HRC's position DOES NOT support your nonsensical original position.

Originally Posted by HRC

Given the effectiveness of the Act in protecting and promoting students' human rights, the Commission considers that any remaining limitations on the freedom to not associate [under the previous regime] would be justifiable under section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act

Um yes it does. It argues that the limits on the freedom of association are justified. I stated that it's arguable that this is true, while adding that if people think it's not, then let's add more protection.

Originally Posted by cyc

does NOT in any way lend support to your original nonsensical insistence that freedom of association was not limited by the previous regime.

Again, that was not MY argument, that was my misinterpretation of the HRC's position as read from the Burton article.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

.

Again, that was not MY argument, that was my misinterpretation of the HRC's position as read from the Burton article.

Oh another backtrack. Next time if you are going to claim reliance on a source directly (remember you cited the HRC's submissions directly), at least have the intellectual honesty to READ the source first.