The Dim-Post

December 9, 2011

Questions on banning the burqua

Filed under: too fucking crazy to count as politics — danylmc @ 9:09 am

Moving on from the human rights issues, I’d quite like someone to ask Richard Prosser:

  • How many people in New Zealand wear a burqua? Is it more than say, twenty?
  • What would be the regulatory impact in dollar terms of the implementation and enforcement of a nationwide burqua ban? Would he borrow, raise taxes or cut spending to fund it?

It would also be interesting to hear how he’d fund his compulsory military training policy; providing the most isolated nation on earth with a large conscript army being his other grand idea.

 

69 Comments »

  1. I thought Mr Prosser was a fellow member of the centre left, Danyl. Shouldn’t you bear part of the explanatory burden?

    Comment by Tinakori — December 9, 2011 @ 9:20 am

  2. 36,000 people identify as Muslims in 2006 census (up from 23K in 2001). Compulsary military training for Burqua wearers too?

    Comment by andy (the other one) — December 9, 2011 @ 9:24 am

  3. It would also be interesting to hear if his party cares about what he says.

    Winston won’t say if he backs burqa-ban MP

    Comment by Pete George — December 9, 2011 @ 9:32 am

  4. @Tinakori “I thought Mr Prosser was a fellow member of the centre left”

    ….why?

    Comment by kimshepherd — December 9, 2011 @ 9:35 am

  5. Would that ban include balaclavas on cold days and while on the sky fields. They look like burqua.

    Comment by hellonearthis — December 9, 2011 @ 9:36 am

  6. “….why?”

    People on the right think that NZ1st is left because it is economically protectionist. People on the left think NZ1st is on the right because it is racist and xenophobic. The truth is that NZ1st is based on Muldoon-style reactionary politics that are out of place in New Zealand’s contemporary left/right spectrum, hence the confusion.

    Comment by Jake — December 9, 2011 @ 9:47 am

  7. “large conscript army”

    Not necessarily. Imagine a large consript navy, paddling kayaks off 90 Mile Beach. Or a similar air force.

    Comment by Phil Lyth — December 9, 2011 @ 9:48 am

  8. Danyl, while not wanting to detract from the point of your post, I would suggest that 20 is a bit of an understatement. I can’t speak for anywhere else in the country but I would suggest that it is possible to see 20 burquas at once any week day morning at the Owairaka Primary School gate. Presumably other clusters also exist.

    Comment by Fremma — December 9, 2011 @ 9:56 am

  9. Trust a pinko P.C. bloody lefty like you, a member of the U.N. bloody human rights crowd to question Prosser’s common sense prescriptions with logic Danyl. In dynamic times like these the money will come from somewhere. Just think how much it’s costing the economy to allow these women to continue to wear burkas. It’s an issue we can’t afford to ignore. And what about my Rights as a xenophobic bigot? Did you ever think about my rights Danyl? What about my Freedom of Speech?

    Comment by NN — December 9, 2011 @ 10:05 am

  10. I support CMT – I mean, look at Fiji. Settling the account with the jumped little colonels of the Fiji military probably would have happened some time ago if we’d possessed the means.

    And once we’d wiped out the Fijian army and restored that place to the light of democracy where else would we send our huge army? Ohhh! We could privatise the lot in a shared ownership model with the government retaining 51% ownership and the rest going to mum and dad investors… then… hmmm… Kuwait! They’ve got lots of oil and they couldn’t even hold off the rag-tag outfit that was Iraq’s army. They’d have no chance against our battle hardened hordes of western soldiers!Talk about an export led recovery.

    But seriously – CMT is a complete waste of time, but I wonder if as a way of addressing our increasingly divided society some form of compulsory youth civil service scheme wouldn’t be a good idea. 18 months where all kids from all backgrounds are put in camps, fed regularly and gotten fit as fiddles (imagine all the scandals the HoS could report on with all those well fed and healthy teens cheek and jowel in camps together! “TEEN PREGNANCY CAMP SHOCKER!!!”), taught stuff like civics and then sent out to destroy the pesky small mammals and marsupials that infest our forests, or cleaning up rubbish from our streets and countryside, or help little old ladies across the street, there are all sorts of useful tasks 75,000 young hands could be put to after a bit of training and the chance for Pakeha (privately educated) young Charles of Fendalton to meet and get to know Afenga from Manakau whilst slogging through a bitterly cold possum trap line in the Ruahines would do the country a lot of good.

    Or if they put service off until after uni they could spend 18 months working for free in their area of specialisation in deprived areas (Youth Corps dentists!) with the bonus of a significant student loan right-off. Anyway, yeah – some sort of civil youth service corps? An idea worth exploring. CMT – straight into the bin with ya!

    Comment by Sanctuary — December 9, 2011 @ 10:13 am

  11. What would be the regulatory impact in dollar terms of the implementation and enforcement of a nationwide burqua ban?

    There would be no active enforcement. Police would wait for complaints, or upon seeing a burqua, react, just as they do with most other offending. The expense involved in police and court action would come from within existing baselines.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — December 9, 2011 @ 10:14 am

  12. I would suggest that 20 is a bit of an understatement

    The French government estimated that fewer than 2000 of the country’s 5-million-strong Muslim population wore burqas or niqabs. Using this to make a crude estimate gives a New Zealand population of about 14 face-covering-wearers. Certainly I would say that the most common form of hijab I see (in and around central Auckland) is the headscarf. I’ve seen exactly one burqa, and zero niqabs.

    Comment by derp de derp — December 9, 2011 @ 10:21 am

  13. @derp de derp – using my kiwiblog logic hat, once we ban it police prosecution figures should provide us with more solid data on the enormity of the threat.

    Comment by Sanctuary — December 9, 2011 @ 10:27 am

  14. “Police would wait for complaints, or upon seeing a burqua, react, just as they do with most other offending. The expense involved in police and court action would come from within existing baselines.”

    So, then, the more appropriate question for Mr Prosser is: “what existing criminal behaviour should the police ignore in order to spend time investigating and processing breaches of the burqua ban; and what prosecutions should be abandoned/delayed in order to achieve convictions?” Unless, of course, we’re with the PM in believing the police have “a bit of spare time” to run after issues like this … .

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — December 9, 2011 @ 10:30 am

  15. Grahame, that’s a boring answer.

    I like to imagine a new branch of the force being set up specifically to patrol the more cosmopolitan urban centres for people breaching the ban. Along with new case law examples of the differences between burquas, balaclavas, and bike helmets.

    Comment by Bed Rater — December 9, 2011 @ 10:31 am

  16. Graeme, sorry.

    Comment by Bed Rater — December 9, 2011 @ 10:32 am

  17. You do see a fair number of women in full cover around different parts of Auckland, Owairaka being a case in point, so I suspect it’s more than 20, but I’d argue that most Muslim women opt for just a hair-covering here.

    Comment by Michael Stevens — December 9, 2011 @ 10:38 am

  18. Did he actually specify CMT for young people? Maybe he’d be just as happy to apply it to pensioners.
    We’re already paying them and it won’t interrupt anyone’s study or career launch.
    Tramping along possum trap lines in the Ruahines (as Sanctuary suggests) would keep them out of hospital longer saving us heaps of taxpayer’s money.
    Surely this is a real vote winner.

    Comment by Roger Parkinson (@RogerParkinson) — December 9, 2011 @ 10:51 am

  19. How many people in New Zealand wear a burqua? Is it more than say, twenty?

    You miss the point, Danyl.
    It’s about deterring potential niqab wearers. It’s a gateway to even more insidious and damaging fashion choices.
    Think of the children.

    Comment by Gregor W — December 9, 2011 @ 10:59 am

  20. Having been recently in an Arab Muslim country I was fascinated by the full burka with niqab. Certainly an air of mystique. When eating in public the women somehow manage to eat under the niqab which is quite a feat! The headscarf as part of just the burqa is interesting because it frames the face and leaves really the eyes to freely communicate. In NZ we are drawn to the baubles that dangle on NZers which is not so much fun for imagination.

    If Prosser wants to express such an opinion I say let him. Freedom of Expression in a Democracy.

    Comment by ianmac — December 9, 2011 @ 10:59 am

  21. @Andrew: So, then, the more appropriate question for Mr Prosser is: “what existing criminal behaviour should the police ignore in order to spend time investigating and processing breaches of the burqua ban; and what prosecutions should be abandoned/delayed in order to achieve convictions?”

    Surely from Mr Prosser’s perspective it’s also relevant to discuss all the crime and distress that would be prevented as a consequence of having less people wearing burquas.

    Comment by MikeM — December 9, 2011 @ 11:07 am

  22. “If Prosser wants to express such an opinion I say let him. Freedom of Expression in a Democracy.”

    Not sure anyone is saying Prosser should be prohibited by law from saying this. But freedom of expression is not the same as having your views taken seriously, or escaping merciless mocking for saying stupid things. If it were, then the comment threads of blogs would be awfully dull places.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — December 9, 2011 @ 11:08 am

  23. “I like to imagine a new branch of the force being set up specifically to patrol the more cosmopolitan urban centres for people breaching the ban.”

    They could do gang patches too. I’d like to call them…. the Fashion Police.

    Comment by Thomas Beagle — December 9, 2011 @ 11:16 am

  24. “Surely from Mr Prosser’s perspective it’s also relevant to discuss all the crime and distress that would be prevented as a consequence of having less people wearing burquas.”

    It would be. If there were any such crime connected to burqua wearing. And “preventing distress” isn’t a very good reason to restrain people’s clothing choices … unless we want to go down this route: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6751777.stm

    Actually – threadjack … if King/Queen of the World, what item(s) of clothing would you outlaw? For me it’s over-sized sunglasses with white/fluoro rims.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — December 9, 2011 @ 11:16 am

  25. This is not the first time an MP has enlightened us with his “thoughts” about the burqa.

    Previously it was Bob Clarkson, then National MP for Tauranga, and now ACT supporter.

    Chris Finlayson, who has since become our Attorney-General, responded robustly to Clarkson’s burqa comments, thus:

    “I agree with everything he says”.

    Comment by sammy — December 9, 2011 @ 11:27 am

  26. “People on the right think that NZ1st is left because it is economically protectionist. People on the left think NZ1st is on the right because it is racist and xenophobic.”

    Perhaps National Socialist would be a better description🙂

    Comment by Bill Bennett — December 9, 2011 @ 11:31 am

  27. I would support requiring a heavy vehicles licence to wear a trucker hat.

    Comment by bradluen — December 9, 2011 @ 11:40 am

  28. Behind his “ban the burqua” comments really lies racism and Islamophobia. He’s just using the burqua tro cover that up.

    Comment by Michael Stevens — December 9, 2011 @ 11:43 am

  29. I’ve been living in Auckland for the last six years. In all that time I’ve seen, what, two or three burquas?

    Even for someone racist enough to want to ban them, it shows an amazing lack of perspective. Can’t he find a more productive way of persecuting minorities? And there are all those books still to burn.

    Comment by Bill Bennett — December 9, 2011 @ 11:48 am

  30. On a slightly more concerning note, I did a vox-pop around my office about this and the only people who thought banning burquas was an outright bad idea were the two Indians (India Indians, not FBI). All the native born NZer’s and the two Chinese enthusiastically embraced the idea of a ban and the two from the U.K. the Englishman ummmed and ahhhed a lot before offering luke warm support and the Scots laddy was totally and vehemently opposed to a ban.

    Unrepresentative and anecdotal, but the anti-Burqua theme seems to have a lot more support than one might think.

    Comment by Sanctuary — December 9, 2011 @ 11:55 am

  31. Given that the main pretext deployed by right-wing fuckwits to support the burqa-ban is to protect teh pooor Islamic wimmins from persecution by their evil uncivilised menfolk, the ironclad civil liberty argument against the ban is as follows: If Muslim women are being forced by men to wear the burqa in public, banning it will simply limit their ability to appear in public, forcing them to remain indoors and thereby constraining their liberty. If they choose to wear the burqa, banning it impinges on their own right to dress as they choose.

    What happens when you run this argument in actual real life (and I have done it) is that the would-be burqa-banners fall back to other, less defensible reasons, like “the Kiwi Way” and “but how do we know who they are?” and eventually they just get angry and give up. It’s worth doing if you don’t mind burning the odd bridge in the name of argumentative research.

    L

    Comment by Lew — December 9, 2011 @ 11:56 am

  32. right up there with crushing the cars of boy racers I guess!

    Comment by boganjosh this year rocks — December 9, 2011 @ 11:58 am

  33. the anti-Burqua theme seems to have a lot more support than one might think.

    The recent story about the Auckland bus driver and the Saudi woman brought all that to the surface.

    There’s always been a “Talkback Tribe” waiting for a leader/party to vote for. We’ve been lucky in NZ that the bigot vote has been splintered into many different parties and so a Brash-Winston-Kyle Chapman coalition hasn’t cashed in.

    Comment by sammy — December 9, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

  34. This policy needn’t cost anything, indeed it could be fiscally positive if the fines are levied appropriately and enforcement is devolved to a private security firm operating a bonus scheme.

    Comment by Adrian — December 9, 2011 @ 12:24 pm

  35. I think a burqa is the ankle to head covering and the niqab is the total face covering. Hope that the discussion about the burqa is the right one? Ban the burqa and ban the ball gowns. Ha!

    Comment by ianmac — December 9, 2011 @ 12:42 pm

  36. The proposal to ban the burqa isn’t to ban an actual thing; most of those wanting to ban it wouldn’t know one if they saw one. It’s a symbolic ban, an expression of social control. Which is why nobody suggests banning balaclavas or ball gowns.

    L

    Comment by Lew — December 9, 2011 @ 12:52 pm

  37. Yep, having done a Shelley and consulted wiki, burqa does not cover face (niqab does that). So our new fashion police could be also rounding up nuns…

    Comment by Leopold — December 9, 2011 @ 1:18 pm

  38. Not to diminish the fuckwititude of Prosser, but a greater concern for me is that National doesn’t seem to be getting any more socially liberal, because you’re almost always going to need *some* support from National to get social legislation passed. Hardline conservative is scary, but more often it’s soft conservatism that prevents progress. National’s (relatively) liberal MPs just don’t seem to last — Katherine Rich is the canonical example, but this applies to Simon Power and to some extent even Pansy Wong (not saying National should have gone to the wall for her, only that they showed zero inclination to do so). Hope Nikki Kaye has someone watching her back.

    Comment by bradluen — December 9, 2011 @ 1:42 pm

  39. It’s worth doing if you don’t mind burning the odd bridge in the name of argumentative research.
    😀 love it

    Comment by StephenR — December 9, 2011 @ 1:43 pm

  40. if King/Queen of the World, what item(s) of clothing would you outlaw? For me it’s over-sized sunglasses with white/fluoro rims.

    Skinny jeans on any bloke/bird who is fat.
    Winklepickers.
    Cowboy shirts unless the wearer is homosexual.

    I’m with you on the Raybans, AG.

    Wipe them out……all of them.

    Comment by Gregor W — December 9, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

  41. ps – if the cowboy shirt wearer is a cowboy, they get a pass also.

    Comment by Gregor W — December 9, 2011 @ 2:00 pm

  42. “Actually – threadjack … if King/Queen of the World, what item(s) of clothing would you outlaw? For me it’s over-sized sunglasses with white/fluoro rims.”
    Those pants that women often wear that end half-way down the calf. No matter how svelte the wearer, it makes her calves look chunky. And mean who wear black socks with shorts. Mostly a continental phenomenon. I saw it on a trip to Venice once.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — December 9, 2011 @ 2:05 pm

  43. “Men” not “mean”, althought those men are mean on the eye.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — December 9, 2011 @ 2:05 pm

  44. Builder’s cracks

    Comment by Leopold — December 9, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

  45. “some form of compulsory youth civil service scheme”

    A friend is fond of pointing out that strangely, the advocates of CMT are generally too old to participate, which is a shame as presumably the alleged benefits of discpline and forced mingling of disparate social groups apply at any age.

    Like Sanctuary, I think that the M in CMT is superfluous, but why not extend the compulsory civil service scheme to all age groups? We could do it by lot. I think it would be very salutary for members of all social classes and age groups to be forced to entertain at old people’s homes, pull weeds on council reserves and collect plastic off the beach while living in barracks.

    Comment by Stephen Judd — December 9, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

  46. Winklepickers.
    Try to take my shoes off me, and I’ll fucking KILL you.
    Matched with the right Jeans, or a crisp shirt and suit combo – fantastic.

    Those pants that women often wear that end half-way down the calf
    They’re ostensibly designed to be worn with Boots – so you avoid a thick layer of clothing fabric getting in the way and ruining the whole look.

    Seeing as we’re jacking the thread, you might all be interested in this:
    http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201

    Comment by Phil — December 9, 2011 @ 2:44 pm

  47. Is it government policy? NZF can espouse lots of things in the knowledge that it will never be law.

    Comment by Ross — December 9, 2011 @ 2:45 pm

  48. Matched with the right Jeans, or a crisp shirt and suit combo – fantastic.

    Phil – you work in finance.
    History would tell us, Sir, that your ilk cannot be trusted with specie, let alone – I would submit – anything relating to sartorial elegance beyond the bowler hat.

    Comment by Gregor W — December 9, 2011 @ 2:58 pm

  49. Bowler hats … now there’s something due for a comeback! Screw ’80s nostalgia … gimme a good dose of late Victoriana.

    Although the fact that wikipedia tells me; “The bowler, not the cowboy hat or sombrero, was the most popular hat in the American West, prompting Lucius Beebe to call it “the hat that won the West.” Both cowboys and railroad workers preferred the hat because it wouldn’t blow off easily in strong wind, or when sticking one’s head out the window of a speeding train” gives rise to concerns about conflict with Gregor W’s prohibition on cowboy shirts.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — December 9, 2011 @ 3:08 pm

  50. “I’m with you on the Raybans”
    Actually Raybans will probably be the next big thing (again). Tom Cruise is about to do a Top Gun sequel.

    Comment by gn — December 9, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

  51. Ross: it’s not even NZF policy, or at least that hasn’t been confirmed. According to The Herald Winston Peters is interested in far more important things.

    Party leader Winston Peters this morning refused to answer questions on whether he endorsed Mr Prosser’s views.
    He would not say whether the Mr Prosser’s ideas had been vetted before he was placed on the party’s list.

    “I’m not interested in everything he wrote over a 10 year journalistic period. I’m more interested in Maggie Barry’s performance on TV.”

    Comment by Pete George — December 9, 2011 @ 3:13 pm

  52. Hmmm…I should clarify my Rayban comment.

    Mirrored Aviators – Not allowed unless you bombed Germany or starred in CHiPs.
    Wayfarers – Not allowed unless you are a middle aged man-child (specifically Matthew Broderick or John Cusack) or one of the Blues Brothers.

    Comment by Gregor W — December 9, 2011 @ 3:30 pm

  53. … gimme a good dose of late Victoriana.
    Do you also want the Cholera and Scurvy with that?

    anything relating to sartorial elegance beyond the bowler hat
    Seeing as I’m among political-tragic friends, I confess that Michael Cullen was/is a sartorial role-model of mine. He’s sucessfully blended the ruthless efficiency of the Lawyer-suit with the bold colour choices of the Banker-suit in a way that, say, Tony Ryall hasn’t quite worked out.

    I’m [Winston Peters] more interested in Maggie Barry’s performance on TV.”
    Seems about right. Maggie’s just the kind of classy older bird that Winston would be hot for.

    Comment by Phil — December 9, 2011 @ 3:34 pm

  54. “interesting to hear how he’d fund his compulsory military training policy”

    How about a burqua tax.

    Comment by Simon — December 9, 2011 @ 3:41 pm

  55. ianmac: A burqa is a full-body garment that covers the head. A niqab just covers the face, and is usually worn with an abaya (which covers the rest).

    Comment by derp de derp — December 9, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

  56. “Behind his “ban the burqua” comments really lies racism and Islamophobia. He’s just using the burqua tro cover that up.”

    That’s the point of a burqa, after all.

    Comment by The Moz Guy — December 9, 2011 @ 8:03 pm

  57. Okay, this is like totally bizarre. I guess you read Jane Clifton, along with the media and picked up on this. Given everything else that’s happening, maybe “ooh, this new MP wants to ban the burkha” scaremongering is to take our focus away from the real stuff that’s happening… like the total bad management and passing the buck on ALL fronts (management and workers alike) that I hear every morning about Pike River.

    Comment by Tippy — December 9, 2011 @ 10:07 pm

  58. @Fremma, Michael Stevens, et al: new rule: try not commenting on Islamic/Middle Eastern cultural dress till you know WTF you’re talking about. Because I’ve lived and attended school (at an intermediate with a good-sized North African/Middle Eastern population) in Owairaka and never seen a burqa. Plenty of niqab though.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b

    @too many others including mine host: it’s spelled “burqa” and insisting on imposing an English u-after-q rule on the word puts you on a par with US fundies who type “Al Quaeda”.

    Comment by QoT — December 9, 2011 @ 10:35 pm

  59. See what I mean.

    NZ First *could* be forceful, holding the government to account on asset sales etc, but instead silly stories about Peters’ silly hangers-on will suck all the available oxygen. Parliament hasn’t even been sworn in…

    Comment by MeToo — December 9, 2011 @ 10:35 pm

  60. QoT @ 56. Really? Plenty of niqab though. I would have thought they would be very rare in NZ. Full face cover? Well there you go then.

    Comment by ianmac — December 9, 2011 @ 11:24 pm

  61. It goes to show the burqa is just one example of the so-called anti-PC brigade itself being more PC than it likes to admit. Marijuana seems to be another issue that brings them out. As are tape recorders and Anders Breivik,

    A classical libertarian, Jim Peron, had some interesting stuff to write about the “new anti-PC problem” a few years back.

    Comment by DeepRed — December 9, 2011 @ 11:35 pm

  62. To be fair Danyl – Bob Clarkson had interesting views on relations between the genders, but it wasn’t National policy; Damien O’Connor had refreshing attitude to gays which I doubt made the cut as Labour policy, and Sue Bradford had all kind of ideas that the Greens shrank away from. And that’s before we start on Hone, whose policy platform may differ from that advertised by the Maori Party, hence Mana….

    Which is a long way of saying that Prosser’s views don’t appear to be NZ First policy, so who cares what he thinks? (unless he proposes it as a Members Bill).

    You appear to have fallen into the trap of tabloiding another NZ blog – won’t somebody think of the journalistic standards?😉

    Seriously though – freedom of speech means little if we ‘mercilessly mock’ those who say something we consider ridiculous or unpleasant.
    “But freedom of expression is not the same as having your views taken seriously, or escaping merciless mocking for saying stupid things.”
    There is a distinction between not taking another person’s views seriously, and mocking them to the point they don’t state their views in public, thereby removing their freedom. The latter sounds like bullying.

    Comment by bob — December 10, 2011 @ 12:15 am

  63. Agree with bob.

    Comment by ianmac — December 10, 2011 @ 10:17 am

  64. bob: freedom of speech really means that the government doesn’t stop you from saying stuff. It doesn’t normally mean anything more than that.
    For example it doesn’t mean Danyl isn’t allowed to moderate comments (though as far as I know he doesn’t).
    As long as it isn’t the government doing the mocking (and especially not banning) then we are okay…. well if there were some kind of media monopoly doing it that would be a problem too.
    It doesn’t mean mocking is nice, even when it is fun, but it is not the same as suppression of freedom of speech IMHO.
    I do agree that we don’t actually need to care what Prosser says unless he does more than just say it.

    Andrew Geddis: “gimme a good dose of late Victoriana.” try Oamaru in November, seriously (though aren’t you in Dunedin? You probably already know this)

    Comment by Roger Parkinson (@RogerParkinson) — December 10, 2011 @ 11:09 am

  65. “There is a distinction between not taking another person’s views seriously, and mocking them to the point they don’t state their views in public, thereby removing their freedom. The latter sounds like bullying.”

    If Richard Prosser is such a shy and retiring character that a bunch of people making fun of him on an obscure blog site causes him to self-censor his views, then he’s no business seeking to be in Parliament. I’d like to think our elected representatives are made of somewhat sterner stuff. So look on this as a character test … can he take the heat, or should he stop trying to work in a kitchen.

    Also, aren’t you seeking to curb my (and others) freedom of expression by telling me that I shouldn’t mercilessly mock Prosser (to the point of “bullying” him)? Will we have a list of approved comments one may make about things you find foolish, complete with a “courtesy czar” to enforce the norms of proper discussion? How far down this particular rabbit hole do you want to climb?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — December 10, 2011 @ 3:05 pm

  66. @Roger: “try Oamaru in November, seriously”

    I refuse to seriously try Oamaru at any time of the year. And I’m not after a nostalgia festival. I want full-on three piece suits with bowler hats all day, every day.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — December 10, 2011 @ 3:07 pm

  67. “courtesy czar”, don’t be preposerous Andrew, what we need is a ministry of blogging to crack down on cyber crackpots, tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and dimpost naval gazers, that last one is the most dangerous, almost like commies only less edgy.

    Comment by will — December 10, 2011 @ 5:13 pm

  68. preposterous…thats it, I’m complaining to the MoB, an edit function is a basic human right…

    Comment by will — December 10, 2011 @ 5:14 pm

  69. Ha, when you said Adrew was preposerous, me thought you hd misspelt poseur: with a bowler hat, Andrew would be FULLY poseur-ous. If Andrew takes his bowler off, he would be postposeurous.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — December 12, 2011 @ 1:18 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: