Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

25 Comments

  1. Kidman’s a bit of a nut, but not that bad by comparison to her fellow director of this ‘Institute’ Paul Spoonley, who was responsible for the insane 2021 ‘antisemitism’ survey funded by the NZJC to attack critics of Israel that defined any New Zealanders who recognized that Israel was “committing mass murder” as “antisemitic”.

    1. I’ve been surprised by Paul Spoonley’s approach to everything from his eminent position in Humanities at Massey University, connected to Victoria (Wellington) University I think.
      Pass his utterances by the Kindness plus Practicality analyser and it doesn’t come up with a high score.

      Which one of our universities shows up well on a measure of passing on worthy universal knowledge reflecting a civilised enlightened culture? The Auckland ones are skewed for business efficiency and profit aren’t they? I don’t really know how our unis would score on old-fashioned? considerations.

  2. Even if she perhaps doesn’t come up with the smartest of ideas or is the smartest choice for the role academic freedom means the university ought to protect her from the prime ministers dept and Seymour and the TDB.

    Meanwhile no matter what you think of Jordan Peterson on economic, theology and psychology his warning to the US Congress on Surveillance is good. https://youtu.be/KdhHO9HBZvc?feature=shared

      1. Maybe MK you should, neither side holds a monopoly on wisdom. Unless you experience the thinking of your opponents there is nothing to test your thinking against.

      2. We are all addicted here to finding out what is happening politically and socially MK, and everyone is a bit addicted to something, so one can’t get too precious about how pure you are! I myself find I listen and watch and read less of available public media because their addiction to shock, horror, and choosing individual targets either to honour, or deface like talibans, is specious. But I come here for thoughtful honesty and concern, with the knowledge that everyone is under the influence of some leading behest which they know and rise above. Drug addicts find it difficult to rise above their addiction and are known as more devious in pursuit of their substances so more unreliable than the rest of us.

  3. This strikes me as a classic example of the Peter Principle – someone promoted to their level of incompetence. Yes, there definitely was a need for a watchdog to scrutinize the obvious incompetence of the intelligence agencies in this country and their abysmal failure over the right wing mosque attack. Yes, there is definitely a need for ongoing scrutiny over the same agencies for their failure to infiltrate and document the growth of right wing extremism and its infiltration of the National, ACT and MZF parties. But the person appointed was not up to the task.
    Trouble is now that the infiltrators of those parties, will do all in their power to ensure this initiative withers on the vine

    1. I think Joanna Kidman is doing a pretty good job of doing everything to ensure this initiative withers on the vines.

  4. No I suggest the parliament protestors were always radicalized. It wasn’t anyone else’s fault that they decided to march on parliament and set up home there. This group of protesters were anti everything. David Seymour is now getting away with murder because Luxon can’t control him both Peters and Luxon are running rings around him. How long will this last . David Seymour is nothing but an opportunistic shill, he has become the minister for everything and master of nothing. Remember his explosive words about the ministry of pacific affairs Its only free speech when David Seymour says it is

  5. I agree that Joanna Kidman often goes over the top in ways that don’t sit well with academia. However her comments were phrased as a question to which we should be giving measured answers, and it should also be recognised that it was her intention to provoke. Perhaps she hoped that she would provoke a discussion about government policies rather than a discussion about whether she is a fit person to occupy her present position. If that was the case she clearly does not understand how the Realm of New Zealand works. New Zealand’s political elite will choose to crucify its critics rather than allow them to initiate important discussions.
    “Kidman tweeted that there was “so much evidence that military-style youth boot camps don’t work and are expensive, that I can only assume that this government hates children”.
    “Is this a government or a death-cult?” she asked online.”
    We can answer that simply. The government does not hate children. Neither does it have a love for children.
    It has no compassion for the tens of thousands of children that have been killed and injured by bombing, shelling and small arms fire in Gaza. Carnage that it has implicitly supported by repeating the mantra of “Israel’s right to defend itself” and practically assisted by its military contribution towards clearing the Yemeni blockade on Israeli and allied shipping. It has no compassion for the thousands of children now starving in Gaza. Starvation which has been exacerbated by the New Zealand government’s deliberate suspension of funding for emergency aid to UNRWA.
    Here in Aotearoa the colonialist government has the same cold-hearted attitude towards the suffering of our own children. Its main concern is for the financial well-being of multinational corporations that are destroying our environment and impoverishing our people.
    Yes, our communities are stepping up to feed and otherwise care for those of our children in great need, the homeless and the hungry. They are doing what they can to end the suffering in Gaza. But they are getting no help from the fake Christians at the head of the colonialist regime.
    It would make no practical difference if the government was being led by a death cult rather than the acolytes of prosperity theology. It would make no practical difference if the government hated children rather than just being profoundly indifferent to their fate. So Kidman was justified in asking her questions.

    1. Oh how measured you are. It’s a pity that everyone isn’t as sane and careful as you are. But some of us can get a bit stirred up and ignore all that adult stuff can’t we. The angry child or scheming devil pops out of the lamp; an evil genie that resists being tamed. So, no Kidman in her position was Not Justified in The Way she chose to ask her questions. And further, the fact that she did choose, as of right using her platform of responsibility, is a disgrace more to the person who chose her, (who?) than to herself.

      1. I am more concerned about men who have a callous disregard for the lives of children than I am about women who are overly passionate in their defence. The way Ms Kidman chose to ask her questions should not be the principle consideration. I also wonder whether the media and the politicians would have taken the slightest bit of notice if Kidman had used more moderate language in relation to the plight of children from Otara to Gaza as a consequence of this government’s policies. I suspect not, because if they would have, they would be addressing the substantive issue right now.

    2. There is a difference between asking question and gas lighting. With position comes responsibility, but appears to be someone promoted beyond her capabilities.

  6. Kidman’s trashing Auckland Uni for allegedly naming a cat after a murderous colonialist, while remaining mute about a local family swimming complex called after murderous pillaging cannibal Te Rauparaha, was racist hypocrisy at its worst, IMO.

    She upset Nth American Indians by meanly and unnecessarily suggesting that Trelise Coopers’s pretty ethereal frock was designed to diminish them, whereas she herself being dubbed a Professor of anything at all, diminishes academia, IMO, but the show’s not over ‘til the xxx lady sings.

    1. Got to be careful when acting on known histories. Who wrote that story and from whose viewpoint? At least put ‘said to be’.

  7. stephen, dare you to ask Kai Tahu if Te Rauparaha indulged in cannibalism.
    Plenty of that on plenty of occasions, how was he able to claim any of the South Island is my question back at you.

    1. Isn’t there a name for someone who enters a discussion and brings up off-point matters that increase confusion and uncertainty rather than explaining earlier matters?

  8. The person must keep her appointment as a professor at Victoria. It would be wrong if extreme but lawful views lost the person a job. However for the other role, the person is not open minded and needs to go forthwith.

  9. Who in there right mind would go to a woman to get rights granted and or protected?

Comments are closed.