3rd Annual New Zealand Human Rights Film Festival
“The theme of the 2007 festival is ‘Identity’. From films in which people attempt to assert their right to be recognized as a state, to situations where expressions of identity are taken to the extreme with disastrous results for others. Identity politics is an issue that underpins many of the debates that take place in public forums about the kind of society that we as a nation are striving to build.
The HRFF encourages dialogue. After each screening a speakers’ forums will take place. The Forums are hosted by a panel of between 1 and 3 people who are able to speak about the film and the issues raised from an informed perspective. They are also able to respond to questions from the audience.”
It’s all good, check it out at: http://www.humanrightsfilmfest.net.nz/
2 - 9 May, Academy Theatre, Auckland
9 - 16 May, Paramount Theatre, Wellington
2 - 19 May, Regent on Worcester, Christchurch
April 19th, 2007 at 9:30 am
So the Greens are concerned about human rights, does that extend to freedom of speech rights for the Exclusive Brethren?
Or is that one group it is OK to persecute?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:45 am
do you know what big bruv..?
i reckon you are a rightwing mp..with too much time on your hands..
what leads me to this conclusion..is your mindless repitition of what you know is factually incorrect…
(in this case..the problem..as you well know..wasn’t about freedom of speech…
it was about ‘doing things on the sneak’..eh..?..)
but..that you know that fact dosen’t stop you..eh..?
and this is what opposition politicians do in parliament..
that mindless lying/misrepresentation to-ing and fro-ing…
and this is totally the tone and texture of your (troll) commenting here…
and seeing as there are only two act mp’s..
i’m picking you’re a low/non-ranking national party backbench m.p…
riven with the feelings of impotence such a position/ranking must bring…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 19th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Of course the EB should have freedom of speech, as should any other religious or political group.
The issue with the EB (or the Secret Seven EBers, if we are to believe the latest story that the EB church does not condone their actions) is not one of freedom of speech, it is one of whether an organisation should be able to attempt to anonymously influence an election by spending vast amounts of money without revealing who they actually are. Elections need a level playing field to be fair. For the Greens to have effectively countered the anti-Green EB leaflets at the last election they would have had to break the law by exceeding their spending cap (and borrow a lot of money to do it).
The EBers should be free to say what they believe, but in the context of an election capaign, they should be restricted as to how much they can spend and/or their spending should be incorporated in the spending cap of the Parties they are effectively supporting.
If there are spending restrictions on Parties (which I support, in the interests of the level playing field) then there should also be spending restrictions on non-Party electioneering.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Although the fact that they felt a need to be covert about their activity was disturbing I was more disturbed by their amazing disrespect for the truth - hardly a moral or a christian attitude.
More hypocrisy from the right.
Blatant lies - and I mean real and significant ones, not the drivel that BB regularly bleats about.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Phil
The only lies I am aware of are the ones peddled in the name of Global Warming and Sue Bradford’s social engineering bill.
————————————————————————————–
Toad
That is exactly what I mean by the EB being persecuted, because they dared attack the Greens and Labour you feel it is alright to make snide little comments about the latest actions of one member of that religion.
Where are your snide little remarks attacking the Catholic religion and the actions of various high ranking officials in that organisation?..where are the snide remarks about Maori or other minorities?
I assume it is politically correct to attack the EB but not anybody else.
On the issue of the spending limit, if I want to spend my money telling the people of NZ something then I should be able to do so, no govt or central committee (a more popular term among those from the left) should be able to tell me what I can and cannot say.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Kiwi
How about this for blatant lies?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjBKFKc2igU
April 19th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
q.e.d…..eh b.b..?
so..are you a national backbencher..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 19th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
phil
no
Bruv (no ego.co.nz)
April 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
BB - my “snide remarks” are based on the fact that an almost identical pamphlet earlier appeared in a Tasmanian State election and was also sourced to EB members - that does raise the suspicion that it is not just individuals, but at least an organised faction within the EB church, if not the church itself, that is responsible.
I’m not singling out the EB - get the topic onto homophobia and mysogyny and I can be just as critical of some of the actions of adherents to Catholicism and some other Christian religions, and Islamic religions for that matter, I can assure you.
I’ll never criticise the EB or any other religion for their religion itself, but I will criticise their adherents for actions and pronouncements that attempt to subvert democracy or fundamental human rights.
As someone who has already been told I am going to hell by certain Catholic fundamentalists for my support of the right of prostitutes to lawfully and safely practice their profession, I think I’m also entitled to be critical.
If youwant to see something really bigoted in the name of Christianity, check out this sick little gem from a Pastor Garnet Milne of the Wanganui Reformed Church.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Toad
Like you I have no interest at all in middle eastern superstition, I could not care what some bigoted religious fanatic has to say in support of any cause at all.
My point is (and surely you must have noticed this) is that there is a nasty element in our political system that thinks the EB are fair game, they would NEVER dare to attack any other group.
The EB have every right in the world to say what ever they want to say, the actions of those from the left amount to censorship and that is (at the moment anyway) not acceptable in New Zealand.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I’m not sure you understand the meaning of the word “censorship”, bro. There’s a logical disconnect there… if Greens say unkind things about the Brethren, the Cistern or the Mamas and the Papas, how does that restrict anybody’s free speech?
When you call Sue B a liar, is that censorship too? I guess so, according to you. “Censorship” seems to be a buzz-word for you, meaning “disagreeing with”.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Speaking of the EB, BB, check out this breaking news: Brethren molestation claims.
I’m the first to admit it’s just allegations at this stage though, before you suggest again that I’m persecuting the EBs.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Alistair
Calling Comrade Bradford a liar is a statement of fact.
————————————————————————————–
Toad
All child molester deserve to be strung up by their private parts, it is the extra special joy the Greens and Labour take in making comments about the EB that concerns me.
Can i expect you to post a similar link next time we see a Catholic priest accused of the same thing?..I would wager that you will not bother.
Persecution it is and Persecution it remains, why not be really brave and have a crack as a larger section of our community, pick on a group that votes, why not attack all Rugby fans as i am sure they are not really concerned about Green issues?………..are you brave enough?
April 20th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
A love of rugby and the enviroment aren’t mutually exclusive in this country
April 20th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
OB
Never said they were, my point is that the EB are an easy target and one that the left enjoy hammering.
There is no justification for this persecution other than they said some nasty things about Labour and the Greens.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Toad :
What I find deeply disturbing in that article on the Brethren, is the insistence by their religious hierarchy that they want the names, so that they can deal with the matter internally. (This smacks of the Catholic church’s approach, until quite recently. Any suspicions or complaints about a priest would result in his being shuffled off to another parish.) That is of course the VERY LAST thing that should be done. It’s a police matter. If that means busting into their secretive, closed society of an authoritarian, patriarchal nature to get to the bottom of the allegations, then it’s high time!
I have no hesitation in taking on the Brethren frontally. They are the very definition of a sect : their leaders expect to mediate all interaction between members and the outside world. That is simply unacceptable in a liberal democracy, because you can be absolutely sure (and there are plenty of EB refugees that can confirm it) that individuals are having their rights and freedoms infringed.
I’ll go further : In my opinion, paedophilia is the logical extension of the authoritarian, patriarchal closed society. Absolute power of the dominant males, code of silence, no recourse to outside society. If this paedophilia business gives an opportunity to break the EB, then that will probably put an end to current and future abuses.
It’s a fine line to determine the balance between freedom of association and individual liberties. The EB are over the line, in my opinion.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
BB
Free speech is different from advertising. Advertising is NOT free, and its use both in elections and in general commerce is not ever entirely without restriction. There are “truth in advertising” laws that ostensibly protect us from lies… are they “censorship”?
It is extremely important in any democracy that the influence of the group that controls the wealth is not amplified by their ability to use great wads of it to publicise their version of a debate. This applies to all and sundry and it is the reason I favor government funding of the election “campaigns” and stringent restrictions on all privately funded electioneering. Each party should have exactly the same voice, column-inches and TV debate time (actually that’d be difficult, how many parties do we have here now? Have to have won at least enough votes to get one seat in parliament perhaps…)something that would likely save a hell of a lot of money were it restrictive enough. I think the improvement in the campaign demeanor of the various parties would improve and the quality of debate would improve and the country would benefit.
Sometimes PEOPLE should talk louder than money.
respectfully
BJ
April 21st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Alistair
“I’ll go further : In my opinion, paedophilia is the logical extension of the authoritarian, patriarchal closed society”
Either you have some seriously repressed sexual issues or you are an idiot.
April 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I agree with Alistair, as do many thinking, observant or knowledgeable-in the-field people, that:
“… paedophilia is the logical extension of the authoritarian, patriarchal closed society. Absolute power of the dominant males, code of silence, no recourse to outside society.”
(Personally, I have heard, first hand, the experiences of a young woman who left the EB, and have had had relayed to me, the experiences of other victims from groups with similar power structures.)
big bruv, you seem to have missed the evidence for this which is reported from time to time in the Media … from within the Catholic Church, the Exclusive Bretheren, and (historically now, I hope) from witin the Police … (to name but three.)
April 21st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
eredwen..eredwen..eredwen..
have you forgotten who you are talking to..?
ol’ red-herring/gratuitous-insult big bruv..?
providing him with rational/reasoned answers to his blatant trolling..
is affording him far more respect than he is due..
(respect he sure as hell won’t show back to you..eh..?..)
and for you..is about as useful as attempting urinary discharge into a stiff southerly..
it’ll just end in tears…
now we can wait for his next blatant-lie/troll..
whereby he will prove my case..
(tho’ he usually ducks and weaves from me…
he’ll quite likely do his hands-over-ears..’i-don’t-understand!’..routine..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 21st, 2007 at 11:26 pm
phil,
Of course you are right !
e
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 am
Eredwen & Phil
“big bruv, you seem to have missed the evidence for this which is reported from time to time in the Media … from within the Catholic Church, the Exclusive Bretheren, and (historically now, I hope) from witin the Police … (to name but three.)”
Of course, silly me, the evidence is overwhelming.
Given that is the level of proof required I guess it would it be safe to say that all Green party members are communist, they are all drug pushers, their sexual preference is either homosexual or Lesbian, they are all unemployed dole or DPB bludgers and their ultimate goal is to destroy New Zealand.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 am
Bro, did you ever hear the saying : “Power corrupts… Absolute power corrupts absolutely”?
Do you understand what it means?
Do you disagree with it?
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 am
eredwen…q.e.d…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 am
Alistair,
I would think that could be applied to the current government. The Greens have to be careful not to get tarred with same brush that Labour is is being painted with and who may be going to get feathered very shortly.
Just a reminder coming up to Anzac day that he freedoms we all enjoy was paid for by our grandparents and parents generation. Lets not waste it.
Alistair, by implication then and using your power corrupts reasoning, all governments are corrupt to some degree. And the Greens being in relationship with the government is corrupt to some extent?
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:16 am
I would think that could be applied to the current government.
Ha! I’d agree on that point Gerrit!
Regular alternation between governments of left and right is the only means I know of keeping governments relatively honest.
Although the opportunity cost of the Greens being out of government this term are high, the danger of being tarred with the same brush would have been high too. (the current “relationship” with the Labour government is not a serious one. No ministers. No budgets. What’s to corrupt?)
That puts us in a real bind with respect to the next election, and is one of the reasons why I’d favour giving careful consideration to a coalition with National rather than propping up a crumbling last-term Labour government.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:27 am
BB said: it be safe to say that all Green party members are communist, they are all drug pushers, their sexual preference is either homosexual or Lesbian, they are all unemployed dole or DPB bludgers
BB, you miss the point. Of the list you cite, only drug pushing is, like paedophilia, an exploitative or oppressive activity. Incidentally, I think it would be safe to say that the biggest drug pushers actually support the National and United Future Parties, rather than the Greens - wasn’t it just recently that National MP Jonathan Coleman got the bash for blowing smoke in someone’s face while a “guest” of British American Tobacco at a concert?
The point, though, is that the Catholic Church has a track record of covering up paedophilia within its ranks, rather than exposing it and making those responsible accountable. Seems from the recent reports that the EB may be doing similar. And the Bazley report shows the Police certainly have a track record of covering up rape and other exploitative sexual activities by police officers.
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
You must be getting a bit hot under the collar there bb.
jh
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Exclusive Brethern Most Persecuted Religious Group:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10424769
eredwen Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I agree with Alistair, as do many thinking, observant or knowledgeable-in the-field people, that:
“… paedophilia is the logical extension of the authoritarian, patriarchal closed society. Absolute power of the dominant males, code of silence, no recourse to outside society.â€? [does that mean that “many thinking, observant or knowledgeable-in the-field people” don’t agree?]
[ok so what percentage of the EB’s are paedophiles???]
jh
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
EB claim themselves to be most persecuted religious group.
Did you see this little snippet jh:
Clark forced to increase security because of EB harassment
Their heavy-handed behavior opens them up to scrutiny. They are indeed a weird cult, it’s accurate to compare them to the Taleban. Nothing diffamatory about that.
I would be interested to know what percentage of the EBs are paedophiles. They are a very hierarchical and secretive bunch, so I don’t think they would co-operate with a sociological study. I call for a police investigation to find out.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10435164
Thrilllling…. Yaaaawn.
“They are indeed a weird cult, it’s accurate to compare them to the Taleban. Nothing diffamatory about that.”
You can indeed compare, but I doubt they are in the same league.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taleban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Brethren
jh
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
jh: Even if only ONE man practices paedophilia, that is enough to possibly ruin the life of any vulnerable child/adolescent, and if, in addition, the victim faces disbelief and/or a “conspiracy of silence” (or blame) …
Unfortunately groups that are dogmatic, hierarchical, sexist and secretive are more likely to enable sexual perversion to occur or even thrive… (NOT necessarily all the time.) Add a bit of sexual repression into the mix …
Some may use the Old Testament of the Bible to justify their behaviour … where the occasionall powerful old guy was not averse to “lying with” various (powerless) very young women! (”Jehovah” or “God” or “an Angel” occasionally suggested he/they do it if I remember rightly!)
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
This is the sort of rationalisation that condems male teachers.
jh
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:34 pm
jh retorts:
“This is the sort of rationalisation that condems male teachers.”
A quick glib reply!
Anyone reading my earlier posts might have worked out that they were based on inside information from a female, former member of the Sect …
(but let’s not let knowledge get in the way of a chance for a “put down”!)
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 am
jh : you’re a sick puppy. Have a lie down.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
jh Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
You must be getting a bit hot under the collar there bb.
jh
Not really, Although I do find it rather sad that the Greens have this thing about western religion.
As far as religions goes I could not care less but I do respect the right of man to worship whoever or whatever he likes, the Greens seem to be determined to outlaw all western religions, actually that is the norm in a communist state anyway so I suppose I should not be surprised.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
alistair Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:06 am
Bro, did you ever hear the saying : “Power corrupts… Absolute power corrupts absolutely�?
Do you understand what it means?
Do you disagree with it?
Yes I do understand what it means, better still I only have to turn on my TV to see it in action.
When you are corrupt you steal $880 from the tax payer and are shocked when the public say that they want their money back.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I agree with that sentiment Bro. So why don’t you go post on a Labour blog to complain about it?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Alistair
Because I have no interest in Labour policy, I do have some interest in Green policy.
Or is it compulsory to tow the party line if you have Green leanings?, I know Eredwen thinks so but I was rather hoping that she was just an extremist who was incapable of thinking for herself.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
no it is not compulsary to toe the party line to be Green, green or greenish. We are very diverse and we tend to make our own minds up and base our decisions on the evidence.
It is also very green to be polite to people and to try and work constructively with other parties and organisations, and to try and accurately describe the situation, so I think you’re not even greenish BB, no matter how often you claim to have green tendencies or former green tendencies.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Bro, I was just wondering why you so often change the subject by saying “Helen should pay it back”, as if it were relevant to the Greens somehow. It just makes you look silly.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
stuey..
(how to say this..?..)
y’know..i really get the feeling..that..
if you were any wetter..
you’d need navigation buoys..eh..?
do you need to get ‘wrung out’ on a regular basis..?
(and careful..!..we can see your ‘pursed’ lips from here..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:56 pm
C’mon BB, they tolerate me, and it has to be clear by now that the “party line” and my line aren’t always parallel.
respectfully
BJ
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
JH said: the Greens seem to be determined to outlaw all western religions
Not at all, jh, but think I’m quite entitled to be sceptical about them. After all, by definition, religion can’t be proven by science, because it relies on superstitious faith, rather than empirical evidence. Guess I have my own superstitious faith too, it’s called Gaia - the collective consciousness of all living and non-living parts of the universe. I can’t prove it, but I’m entitled to believe in it.
But I don’t use it as an excuse to oppress other people, even if they are acting detrimentally to what I believe. Fundamentalist Christianity and Islam would do that to me though, because they believe the non-believer in their particular faith is an infidel who deserves to be persecuted for his or her abandonment of God.
I’ve got no problem with people believing what they cannot prove. The problem I have is when they rely on the reported teachings of someone historical person (be it Mohammad or Jesus or John Nelson Darby) to oppress other people.
But outlaw them, no!. Greens don’t go there. That’s actually what fundamentalist religions want to do to infidels like me. Greens, whether we agree or disagree with religion, should be tolerant of religion itself, but critical of oppressive acts perpetrated in the name of religion.