Just for the record, folks, it’s not a ban if the public boycotts another work of fiction by a blowhard. But it would be a ban if the govt decided to outlaw it. Alright? Great. Just wanted to clear that up.
Because while the whole country gets itself all in a lather about a non-ban on a boorish book, the government continues to pass laws, without opposition, that will impose an actual ban on economic activity around or anywhere near a sporting event.
Latest result of them over-reaching themselves: no-fly zones, no-sign zones, a battalion of jackbooted clipboard wielders warming up to fan out around the country to say “No!” … and now a New Plymouth school offside with the govt's Rugby World Cup laws because they want to do the same thing they’ve done for every major rugby event at Yarrow Stadium since time began, which is park a few cars on its sports field to raise a bit of dosh for the school.
I loved this quote by friend Daniel Bell on a Facebook thread discussing this:
It's quite silly really. The tournament is running at a loss, pretty much everyone has admitted this now, but the original reason the Government decided to do this was apparently because of the economic benefits it would provide, yet now they're passing laws saying you can't benefit economically from the Rugby World Cup.
We really are a pathetic authoritarian backwater.
In fact (with that first paragraph in mind) make that a pathetic and confused authoritarian backwater.
UPDATE: See, it’s not difficult to understand: A boycott is not a ban.