Embarrassing Advocacy
The syndrome of the embarrassing advocate is well known. It is manifest when a public advocate for a cause or principle is so embarrassing the issue ends up tainted by the follies and stupidities of the advocate.
Dr Darren Powell is a lecturer in health education at the faculty of education and social work at the University of Auckland. He is a member of the "food police". The very use of that term--which is now common coinage--indicates the way embarrassing advocates have damaged the cause.
When it comes to food and diet there are plenty of sane advocates. They will talk about balance in diet, rather than removing foods. They will reason with their audience to be self-disciplined and prudent when it comes to diet. "Moderation in all things" is their mantra. Such advocates do not get plastered with the "food police" label.
Dr Powell has written a piece in the NZ Herald which truly casts him as an embarrassing advocate. Confusion, misdirection, and suppressed ideologies infuse his written opinions. He risks defaming the cause of responsible dietitians. He is all in a lather over advertising junk food which appeals to children. Sadly, his language is confused, to say the least.
Showing posts with label Big Brother. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Brother. Show all posts
Monday, 16 January 2017
Thursday, 8 January 2015
The Glories of Post-Christian Britain
Multi-culturalism, Orwellianism, Censorship and Neo-Criminalism
At some point saying “offensive” things online stopped being a social faux pas and became a potentially criminal act.
Dare to be rude about the wrong person or group and, in a bad parody of Erich Honecker’s East Germany, you could hear the knock on the door in the middle of the night and be dragged off to some dreary police cell for questioning.
I exaggerate of course, but not much: around 20,000 people in Britain have been investigated in the past three years for comments made online, with around 20 people a day being looked into by the forces of the law, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The overused Orwellian cliché has finally become the reality: Big Brother in the form of an overzealous and under regulated police force really is watching you. As Police Scotland terrifyingly informed us this week, “Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media and any offensive comments will be investigated.”
At some point saying “offensive” things online stopped being a social faux pas and became a potentially criminal act.
Dare to be rude about the wrong person or group and, in a bad parody of Erich Honecker’s East Germany, you could hear the knock on the door in the middle of the night and be dragged off to some dreary police cell for questioning.
I exaggerate of course, but not much: around 20,000 people in Britain have been investigated in the past three years for comments made online, with around 20 people a day being looked into by the forces of the law, according to figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The overused Orwellian cliché has finally become the reality: Big Brother in the form of an overzealous and under regulated police force really is watching you. As Police Scotland terrifyingly informed us this week, “Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media and any offensive comments will be investigated.”
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
Government Spying Bill
Much Better
The NZ Government has put out a press release documenting amendments to its new spying bill. These were agreed to as a result of consultation with the government's minority party (ACT) and with Peter Dunne (Independent). The Bill now has enough votes to pass the House. The Prime Minister has said that he still prefers a wider political consensus, and is continuing talks with the NZ First party.
Have the amendments made a difference? We believe so. In fact, we are heaving a sigh of relief. Here they are:
The NZ Government has put out a press release documenting amendments to its new spying bill. These were agreed to as a result of consultation with the government's minority party (ACT) and with Peter Dunne (Independent). The Bill now has enough votes to pass the House. The Prime Minister has said that he still prefers a wider political consensus, and is continuing talks with the NZ First party.
Have the amendments made a difference? We believe so. In fact, we are heaving a sigh of relief. Here they are:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)