Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » World Events » New Zealand

Category Archives: New Zealand

Some thoughts about mooted changes to Media ownership law in Australia



People are creatures of habit and it is only that so many people are habituated to buying the news papers that any are still being sold at all. Just take any kind of commute on public transport and consider how many people are reading a paper and how many are staring at a screen instead. Some certainly may be playing games or even watching video but I expect that they will be out numbering those who are still reading dead tree editions of the MSM.

Then there is the things in the paper that people buy them for, most papers are not exclusively about politics and current affairs anyway, so some readers will be buying the paper for its coverage of sport, lifestyle or even just for the crossword puzzles.  My point is that the political classes (in particular those from the left ) just look at the raw sales figured and they think that every reader of the Herald Sun is in the thrall of Rupert Murdoch and that the owners dictate to their readers directing their opinions. The reality is that all media entities write to their audience. If they don’t their audience wither away quite quickly.  With the coming of the internet this is even more how things work Online entities are even more in an endless quest for readers so you have to play to what your readers want rather than thinking that you can manipulate their thinking. I have been writing a blog for nearly a decade now and I have noticed just how quickly particular readers flit in and out its the same now with the way that people read things online from the likes of Murdoch, Fairfax or even the Guardian People don’t just get their news from one source any more no matter what the subject is they will read what several sources say about it and then make up their mind. This behaviour is the same when it comes to broadcast TV people flit form one channel to another seeking different perspectives. My argument is simple, if the media  consumers have changed their habits then perhaps there is something in the notion that media diversity laws from the last century should perhaps reflect those changes as well.

Cheers Comrades


Kiwi anti-sodomites buggered?

(by Ray Dixon – an equal opprortunity holiday accommodation provider)

The message is clear!

The message is clear!

“We don’t want sodomy in our home. That’s not the same thing as saying we are anti-gay,”

On the surface this sounds like straight-out discrimination against same-sex couples (being lesbians, in this case).

But I smell a bit of a set-up:

les-be-friendsThe owners of a New Zealand guesthouse who refused to let a lesbian couple share a bed are standing firm despite threats.

Karen and Michael Ruskin, of Pilgrim Planet Lodge, in central Whangarei, say they have received death threats and verbal abuse over their stance on homosexuality.

… Lesbian couple Jane Collison, 30, and Paula Knight, 45, decided not to stay at the lodge on May 7 after being told they could only have a room with single beds.

They had booked online a room with a king-sized bed but Mrs Ruskin said that when the couple arrived they were told the lodge’s policy was for same-sex couples to be put into a room with two king-single beds.

The engaged couple decided not to stay but could not find other accommodation until they got to Waipu.

Mrs Ruskin said she was sorry for the couple’s inconvenience but was standing firm on her morals and the sanctity of her home.

The Ruskins live in the bed and breakfast-style lodge, where guests share lounge, kitchen and living areas.

“It’s our home – it’s not a motel.”

The lesbians have since filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission claiming discrimination due to their sexual orientation but the owners claim they have a legal right (and indeed a precedent) to say who will share their residential accommodation:

She said that in 2010 a gay couple also complained to the commission after being asked to sleep apart, but that complaint was withdrawn when the exception for shared accommodation came to light.

Hmm, I’m starting to wonder if this incident was a case of gay activists deliberately targeting the Pilgrim Planet in a sort-of payback or even a re-test of the exemption, now that gay marriage has been legalised in New Zealand.

I wonder why they chose this place, which already has ‘form’ for rejecting gay couples, and which also states right upfront on its website’s home page that they, err, cater to only certain people:

Pilgrim Planet: B&B guesthouse in central Whangarei, modern accommodation with old fashioned values*

*Our nation’s moral code has been based on generally accepted values which have guided legislation. Essentially parliament’s concern is matters legal and the peoples’ concern is matters moral. When these line up we have peace and harmony but when politicians legislate against morality, a disconnect occurs. Unjust laws need to be questioned for if we fail to do this we will become corrupted by the law instead of edified and protected by it. You are welcome to stay in our home, whatever your beliefs, so long as you respect and understand ours.

And just in case the lesbian couple missed that bit when they booked online, they surely must have seen this on the bookings page:

Pilgrim Planet – modern accommodation with old fashioned values! …….. We reserve the right to change any rooms that have been booked on-line at our discretion.

I’m in the accommodation business too, but I wouldn’t go imposing any ‘moral values’ on our guests. We’ve had gays & lesbians stay here at GG and it doesn’t bother us in the slightest. All we ask is that guests don’t disturb others and don’t leave the place in a mess. Quite frankly (and I don’t mean to stereotype here), our homosexual guests are generally much tidier than most others, especially those guests with little kids. As for what they do in the beds, well our linen is hired in for each stay so we don’t have to wash it anyway!

Then again, our units are completely separate and fully self-contained, whereas the Pilgrim Planet is actually an oversized house that merely lets out bedrooms and allows its guests to share most of the house, it seems. It’s not the sort of accommodation I’d choose to supply – to anyone – because the only people I like sleeping in my house are my own direct family. Yeah, we even put our relatives in the units when they visit (at no charge of course!)

I sort of think the Ruskins, if homosexuality offends them so much, are simply in the wrong business. But I also think the lesbian couple would (or should) have known in advance that they would be discriminated against – I mean, just the name Pilgrim Planet should have been a dead giveaway that mein host was a little bit on the churchie side, don’t you think?

Anyway … they’re just bloody Kiwis, who cares?

I think I might ban all New Zealanders from GG full stop – I wonder if that’s discrimination?


Will Gay Marriage be put to the people?

I have been saying for years that if the proponents of Gay marriage are so sure of the community’s support then they should be advocating for a plebiscite to truly measure the real amount of public support for the the concept of  same sex “marriage”. Well it seems that it might even happen  if the report in today’s Fairfax press is to be believed:

click for source

click for source

Personally I doubt that the plebiscite will get up or even be debated in the parliament because neither Labor nor the Coalition are that keen on the “gay marriage” , then again Labor might go for it on the basis that they may get some small amount of positive PR from suggesting that they are putting the question to the people.  Its no surprise to me that the Gay marriage advocates like Rodney Croome are less than enthusiastic about the idea because the experience of votes like the one held in California on proposition 8 showed a substantially lower level of public support for Gay marriage than the often claimed 80+% that he and his fellow travellers are so often citing on the issue.

It could be  bit more spice into the pot for September 14  but I suspect that when it comes down to it that we won’t be having a plebiscite and that the only reason that this idea is being floated now is that the bit players  want an issue to campaign on that will differentiate them from both Labor and the Coalition, the former  because Australia’s oldest party has such a stench of death all around them and the later because they have so much momentum that independents will otherwise  be consigned to the dustbin of history…

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Cheers Comrades

wedding rings animated


Air travel, the blessing of modernity if you ask the general population who dream of exotic places to spend their holidays, tools for terror to those who take the Islamists at their word but this morning I am trying to be an optimist about air safety because I have to for the sake of my children.

Cheers Comrades


Trying to define “war” for the benefit of “JM”

In the previous thread JM keeps trying to convince me that the colonial experience in this country was a “war” and I keep resisting that suggestion because I just don’t think that it qualifies as such by any meaningful definition.

War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties[1][2] typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.[1][3] The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war, (and other violence) is usually called peace.


By way of contrast just look at the way that the Maori actaully fought for their territory against the British, now that was a real war:

The first British action of the Flagstaff War was the capture and destruction of Pomare’s Pa near Kororareka. This was a substantial Māori settlement, so to the British it was a victory, but the Māori warriors escaped with their arms, so they did not see it as defeat.

The British then set out to do the same to Kawiti’s Pa at Puketapu. But this was a purpose-built strong point with only one objective; to invite attack by the British. It was several kilometres inland, across very difficult country—steep gullies, dense, bush-clad hills and thick, sticky mud. The British troops were already exhausted when they arrived in front of the pa. The next day, they made a frontal attack and discovered that the bush and gullies they were advancing through were full of warriors. Some British troops reached the palisade and discovered that attacking thick wooden walls with muskets was not effective. After several hours of costly but indecisive skirmishing, the British withdrew. Their Māori kupapa allies were able to feed them and they were not attacked by their Māori enemies on the retreat back to the coast.

The attack on Puketapu Pa was typical of Māori-British warfare. Māori would build a fortified pa, sometimes provocatively close to a British fort or redoubt, and the British would attack it. Their aim was always to bring Māori to battle to inflict a decisive defeat. In European warfare, besieging an enemy fortress usually provoked a battle. However, Māori also knew that they would probably lose heavily in open conflict; this had been the result on the few times that it happened. Generally, they were successful in avoiding it.

Notice the difference between the New Zealand experience and that in this country? There the Maori actively made efforts to resist with a clear leadership structure, and the built and used the techniques of war, had a warrior culture and the social disciple to use it. Is it any wonder that even though they did not succeed in excluding the British form their territory they did end up with far more favourable terms for peace and reconciliation because they actually fought for it?

Cheers Comrades


And this is news?

What are the Wallabies?

Apparently, over there in the country the world forgot – aka The Shaky Isles – the Australian Rugby Union team lost 20 – 6 to the New Zealand All Blacks in the semi final of the World Cup.

Now, this might be a big deal to the Kiwis.

And it might even be a big deal to Aussies living in NSW & Queensland (although, as I understand it, Rugby Union is only the minor code of the game and they’re more into something called Rugby League up there).

But, to those of us in the rest of the country and particularly in Victoria, it’s like this:



Sucked in

click for source

This just sent a shiver down my spine, such a horrible way top go.
Cheers Comrades

Anzac Day and natural selection

You just can’t dispute the concept of natural selection when you read stories Like this one:

click for source

It serves as a rather stark reminder of just how fragile life is and on this Anzac day it also reminds us that young lives lost for something more important should be remembered with pride.

Cheers Comrades

%d bloggers like this: