In the past I've called them and their ilk the "hang 'em high" brigade, but I didn't think it was actually true.So does this explain what he means when he argues the Electoral Finance Bill will bring "free, fair, and democratic" elections, when he must know it bears about the same relationship to "free, fair and democratic" as does the imprisonment of Tim Selwyn for sedition?
In other words, he just calls it "free, fair, and democratic," but he doesn't think it is actually true...
6 comments:
Quote from I/S: "The SST has a press release here, in which they go on to say that the call to end the death penalty is "an insult to families of murder victims". These people really are creeps."
What the PR from SST actually says:
"To call the death penalty the ultimate form of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment is an absolute insult to these victims; Helen Clark should spend the night with a murder victim's family to understand what cruelty and inhumane treatment is all about."
So as you can clearly see, I/S has reported that entirely incorrectly. Not once has SST said the call to end the death penalty is an insult to victims and their families. That statement said that Helen Clark's description of the death penalty as the 'ultimate form of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment' was the insult.
Perhaps I/S would consider a retraction. Deliberate lie or lack of reading comprehension do you think?
Tandoori Footsocz has made the same error as I/S
Greens PR
"Calling for the worldwide end of the death penalty is not insulting victims, and to say that it is, is manipulative and disrespectful."
Now who's being manipulative?
Lance, the SST press release begins with,
Helen Clarks [sic] announcement that New Zealand is joining with Amnesty International to have the death penalty abolished world wide is an insult to families of murder victims says a victims watchdog organization.
So as you can clearly see, I/S has reported the SST's press release correctly. As has Nandor Tanczos.
I look forward to your retraction.
On the contrary, they are still calling her announcement insulting, not the news.
Putting the opening statement in context of the rest of the PR makes that clearer:
"The victims I have spoken to since this dumb announcement can't believe the Prime Minister can be so unfeeling toward them, obviously Helen Clark is unable to comprehend the fact that the families of murder victims are forced to suffer the ultimate form of degradation every day. Unlike the offender they have no choice."
They still have not said that ending the death penalty is insulting. It was Helen Clark's announcement that was insulting.
We have three separate things here.
(1) Helen Clark's announcement of the call to end the death penalty.
(2) The call to end the death penalty.
(3) The death penalty itself.
While any sight or sound of our PM is distasteful to many, I took the SST to mean that it is the call to end the death penalty (2) that is insulting, not Helen Clark's announcement that that is what NZ is doing (1). That's also I/S's interpretation, according to your quote. And Nandor's, too.
The Prime Minister made the announcement while speaking to representatives of Amnesty International in Parliament; Helen Clark went on to say that the death penalty was the ultimate form of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
So perhaps we should also distinguish between the announcement itself (an "insult") and what she went on to say (an "absolute insult").
Feel free to call me a pedant. :-)
If SST would outright say "Banning the death penalty would be an insult to victims and their families", I would be in agreement with Nandor and I/S. Claiming to speak for the victims for furthering your own agenda... barf.
I don't think that press release calls the end of the death penalty an insult to victims and their families.
I will admit to some egg on face, in that SST's press release is ambiguous for the reasons you pointed out.
P.S. You're a pedant. ;)
Post a Comment