# StephenR Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

> in moderation?

when a post to Frogblog goes into moderation, it does not appear on the blog to begin with. These were appearing immediately, then disappearing later.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

in moderation?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

# StephenR Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

> “I got banned from Kiwiblog for posting it.”

> How do you know?

On second thoughts, I think it’s my particular post that got banned – when I send it, it appears for a while, then disappears, as if the computer allows it, but then a person removes it. I can’t be bothered trying posting other messages, to see if they also get taken down.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Denis Welch, my favourite NZ blogger and fellow ex Mastertonian also comments on the kiwiblog post.

http://oppthumb.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-whom.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“I got banned from Kiwiblog for posting it.”

How do you know?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“I got banned from Kiwiblog for posting it.”

Oh the irony.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Shock horror!

Sue B’s bill does not seem to be working does it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10539942

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Blue Peter – do me a favour and read my explanation again then tell me what you think about encouraging the kinds of the things listed in the list. Please.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I did think it was rather strange that Kiwiblog should actually want most of these things! Or imagine that most people wanted them. What was their point exactly?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>it takes a really cynical person to see the negative side of ‘encourage’

It’s a very self-conscious, political use of the term. Are you suggesting there is no such thing as the politicisation of language?

“Encourage”, the way politicians often use the term, often doesn’t mean help, or support. It means “choose one over the other”. The method to “encourage” something usually involves taxing or banning something else.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Blue Peter – it takes a really cynical person to see the negative side of ‘encourage’ Well done!
You do however, misunderstand my purpose in encouraging people to insert ‘encourage’ into the list. Here’s an example of what I meant:

Encourage fuel inneficient vehicles
encourage feeding antibiotics to animals that are not sick
encourage the sale of chips and lollies on school property

etc.
Do you see now what I was meaning? The Greens are working against the various agencies that do just that; encourage harmful activities.
Like to look throught the list again

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

dbuckley: I can find 488 documents on the Green website with the word “ban” in them.

But some of them are in a context like:

Keith Locke has warned the Labour Government against any ban on gangs.

or

Greens once again urge Parliament to drop satire ban.

Of course there won’t be many references to that word or any other on the Family Party’s website because they’ve only been around 5 minutes. But things spring to mind that they actually do want to ban – like civil unions, prostitution, sexually explicit television programming – things that in themselves don’t do anyone any harm.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Perhaps they’re switching to “encourage”? It still means ban, but it sounds more positive.

937 returns for “encourage”….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Is this true:

How often the word “ban” appears on a few websites:
Green Party – 1010
Contrast that with:
Libertarianz – 76
Family Party – 3 (with each one speaking against a ban).

If so there is a disconnect somewhere, as 1010 “ban”s is a lot of bans…

And it seems that a simple google search on the core GP website does indeed return 1010 pages of a google population of 19K pages, so about 5% of all GP website pages use the word “ban”.

The Ranter in Chief may be wrong on the detail but you can apply the “no smoke without fire” argument based on simple stats…

Using the same search criteria, labour 61 hits, national 41…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

nice work kahikatea – to be rejected by the Ministry for Disinformation is a bagde of honour for you I guess

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Frog said: Of course it’s helpful to remember every party wants to ban things.

Many right-wing libertarians like to argue that they’re opposed to banning things because it gets in the way of business. But taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean they would have to legalise murder, because clearly a prohibition on murder is also cutting off business opportunities.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

kahikatea Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 10:58 am

> I was working on the same list, then I got here to post it, and found someone else had beaten me to it.
> so here’s my, more limited response, focussing on the errors and misrepresentations:

by the way, my list started as a more limited list which I sent to kiwiblog, because some people on Kiwiblog seemed to be under the impression that the list they were commenting on was an actual list of Green Party policy.

I got banned from Kiwiblog for posting it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Ban nothing – Question everything”.

That was the slogan of the now-defunct British magazine Living Marxism. I can’t imagine that slogan taking off here – especially on what goes by the name of the Left in New Zealand. And that’s part of the problem of the left in this country – it’s ditched any sort of libertarianism that it used to stand for and has replaced it with a very strong statist approach, unfortunately leaving the right to take up a more attractive stance on many of these issues.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I was working on the same list, then I got here to post it, and found someone else had beaten me to it.
so here’s my, more limited response, focussing on the errors and misrepresentations:

Ban fuel inefficient vehicles – the policy is to set a maximum average fuel consumption for the cars brought in by one importer, so any high-consumption vehicle can be brought in if balanced out by other low-consumption vehicles.

Ban feeding of antibiotics to animals that are not sick – true, but the only reason anyone wants to feed antibiotics to animals that are not sick is so that they can be kept in hideously unsanitary conditions that would be sure to make them sick otherwise, and the way farmers give antibiotics to animals that are not sick breeds antibiotic-resistant bacteria which make the antibiotics less likely to be effective for animals or humans who are sick.

Ban further corporate farming – the policy is one of incentives to keep farms in family ownership, not to prohibit any consolidation into corporate units.

Ban crates for sows – true, with the exception of sows during farrowing who may be temporarily confined for up to 72 hours.

Ban the use of mechanically recovered meat in the food chain – true, to prevent the spread of mad cow disease

Ban the use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed – true, we do want to ban forced cannibalism by naturally-herbivorous animals (also to prevent the spread of mad cow disease)

Ban smacking – you can claim that that was the purpose of repealing section 59, but bear in mind that Labour, National, United Future and the Maori Party all agree with our interpretation.

Ban coal mining – almost true. Policy is to ultimately phase out mining of coal for burning, but not coal for chemical processes.

Ban new exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves – true. Isn’t that the point of conservation reserves?

Ban fixed electricity charges – actually ban them for homes, but not commercial buildings or holiday homes

Ban nuclear power – actually support continuing the existing ban

Ban further thermal generation – not strictly true. Policy is to remove loopholes in Labour’s law allowing new thermal peaking plants so that it really is only for peaking plants, not base-load

Ban the disposal of recyclable materials at landfills – The policy is for landfill and recycling operators to find alternatives to burying recyclables where possible, not to say they can’t be taken to the landfill or that they won’t be buried if no alternative is found.

Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food- actually a prohibition on advertising the most unhealthy types of food before 8:30 pm.

Ban NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defence – slippery wording. It is a policy of withdrawing from certain military treaties which list that as one of their aims, not an opposition to the principle.

Ban cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes – not true.

Ban new buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles – it’s a ban on the building materials. So yes, it will lead to buildings being built out of more sustainable materials, but to suggest it would be enforced as a ban on the buildings is just silly.

Ban migrants who do not undertake Treaty of Waitangi education programmes – the policy is to include the Treaty of Waitangi as one of the issues covered in the education programme migrants go through before obtaining citizenship or permanent residency.

Ban new prisons – sort-of. The Green Party only supports building new prison facilities to replace current ones, not to increase capacity.

Ban genetic mixing between species – true, but note that two plants or animals that can be mated together and produce fertile offspring are counted as the same species. That is the scientific definition of species. So this only applies to genetic engineering using recombinant DNA technology.

Ban ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ – not true. Policy says: “Ensure no mineral extraction, drilling, prospecting, or other industrial activity occurs in the EEZ outside the 12 mile limit until a process for environmental impact assessment and approval is in place which puts the burden of proof of safety on the applicant.”

Ban limited liability companies –not true. We’re proposing a small change to the limits on liability, not an abolition of the concept.

Ban landfills – the Green Party aims to move towards a situation where landfills will no longer be necessary, but by developing alternatives rather than by banning them.

Ban new houses without water saving measures – not true. The only thing that is compulsory with respect to water-saving is for houses put up for sale to be given a water-efficiency rating so that buyers can see how it compares with other houses.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)