Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Suffer the children

If you do not read the comments to these posts (and you really should: they are very good), you will not have seen this link , posted by PW who doesn't like the Mint Chicks, about yet another custody case involving the Exclusive Brethren. The court has decided that the estranged father (a backslider who has joined the Open Brethren) has access rights to his children but must not expose them to the modern world. This includes television, radio and people who are not Exclusive Brethren. Both parents are also "banned from discussing or denigrating each other's faith in front of the children."

The case is another example (if any more are needed) of how far this ghastly little sect will go to hang on to its membership. Justice Benjamin's decision may seem peculiar but it is interesting that he should tell the Exclusive Brethren that it is time for them (in the words of The Australian ) "to give up their fight, through a series of well-funded custody battles over the past 30 years, to stop defecting members getting access to their children."

He also told them, "It must surely not be beyond your intellect and wit to find a dimension in your beliefs so that they may reconcile with the law of this country and the need for children to know both of their parents." I think he is optimistic: such charity is not beyond their intellect but far beyond their generosity.

Looking on the bright side, the next time the children pester their father to take them to McDonalds, all he needs to say is "sorry, the Judge won't let me."

Meanwhile, the Brethren's new champion has thought up, all on his own, a name for me; I haven't heard that one since school. I suppose Mr Whaleoil is just trying to say that, even if he could find me, he would not know what to do with me.

He also needs to ask a grown-up what 'erstwhile' means; but he would much rather tell us about the contents of his toybox.

Vroom, Vroom. Enough of this schoolboy stuff; lets go to Red Confectionery for some girl-on-girl action.


harvestbird said...

I've never understood why altering someone's name to make it sound more genital should be construed as an insult.

To me it seems more like an acknowledgement of prowess, even if the intention was to cause offence.

Anonymous said...

One also should condsider just how seriously the 'offense' caused someone who goes by a non de plume of 'Whaleoil' actually is. He shoots...he misses.

Lyndon said...

I suppose Mr Whaleoil is just trying to say that, even if he could find me, he would not know what to do with me.

Actually, he was boasting the other day about deliberately avoiding places where you might be.

Anonymous said...

If you have downloaded the letter from the Human Rights Commission to "WH Aleoil, PO Box 51116, Pakuranga" then a number of questions may occur to you:

(1) Why would the Human Rights Commission respond to anyone by the name of WH Aleoil? I don't think anyone by that name would be published in Letters to the Editor for the NZH. Why then waste a govt lawyer's precious time on someone who does not have enough confidence in their own case to be up front. I suppose Whaleoil learned the value of anonymity from the Exclusive Brethren themselves.

(2) Whaleoil also seems confused by the letter from the HRC yet to me it seems clear. Has Whaleoil never heard of Parliamentary Privilege?

(3) It continues to irritate me that right-wingers call the very existence of Human Rights Commission (and even the concept of human rights!) political correctness. Yet they will not hesitate to use and abuse its machinery.

(4) Even more irritating is that religious groups such as the Exclusive Brethren are not generally subject to the Human Rights Act. Yet if they are offended, they make use of it. This is an anomaly that needs to be addressed.

I think 2007 promises to be the Year of the Atheist. Bishop Randerson has got it off to a good start by making a strong case for Agnosticism. Read today's column by Jim Hopkins in the NZ Herald if you need further inspiration - one of his best (although rather harsh on Randerson one might say)


If you kick a thread off about it Paul, will comment further.


i.e. PW

Anonymous said...

Speaking of "PO Box 51116 Pakuranga", on a letter marked confidential to the oily one (but now in public domain)........

a Google search refers to the following:

Vehicle Importing Company Limited
PO Box 51116, Pakuranga, Auckland 0800 554 422

Is this Whaleoil's business or what? And the classic question .. if so .. would you buy a used car from this person?

Ha Ha.

(Pakuranga Watchdog)

Paul said...


1) The HRC is obliged to respond to any complaint. Whaleoil is Cameron Slater, son of former National Party President John Slater. Why he cannot use his own name on his complaint is a mystery; perhaps he is just showing his contempt for the HRC.

2)Amazing isn't it?

3) Yup

4) Yup

I will write about Randerson and co next week.