Should the Crusaders change their name?
-
@SammyC said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:
Got a bunch of Facebook friends sharing the petition online.
Funny how they care so much about this, but don’t care enough to ever attend an actual game.
Because this looks like an actual contest
.
.
.
.
.
.
.Mine is the red and black jacket with no name on it.
-
Fuck this guy:
"The name-change pressure emerged because of the centuries-old sensitivity over the history of the Crusades, which were bloody medieval conflicts between Muslims and Christians.
"So these are really striking figures and what they tell us is that a very small proportion of New Zealanders understand the deep history of conflict between Muslims and Christians that the word Crusade means," historian Peter Lineham told TVNZ."
I don't think this result means Kiwis are uneducated; simply that many don't see the need to extend historical events to a rugby team. Treating the overwhelming majority as - I think they are trying to say - redneck racists (especially Cantabs & National voters) doesn't help at all.
-
@Mokey said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:
If they are going to go down the path of no ancient conflict or death, then what Super team names do hold up? Not Highlanders, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Rebels, Sharks, Stormers, Lions, Bulls, Jaguares, Sunwolves...
There’s a history of depression in my family, I’m triggered by the Blues . They should change their name too .
-
@gt12 said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:
Fuck this guy:
"The name-change pressure emerged because of the centuries-old sensitivity over the history of the Crusades, which were bloody medieval conflicts between Muslims and Christians.
"So these are really striking figures and what they tell us is that a very small proportion of New Zealanders understand the deep history of conflict between Muslims and Christians that the word Crusade means," historian Peter Lineham told TVNZ."
I don't think this result means Kiwis are uneducated; simply that many don't see the need to extend historical events to a rugby team. Treating the overwhelming majority as - I think they are trying to say - redneck racists (especially Cantabs & National voters) doesn't help at all.
We're all a basket of deplorables.
Maybe there's a sizeable majority of NZers who understand that a word does not define a community attitude.
-
@booboo or maybe the majority of people realise the Crusaders are a rugby team, with zero correlation to the Crusades 800 odd years back?
Am sure if we start thinking about it hard enough, there are links to all sorts of atrocities in our every day lives...
-
I just think that if the Canterbury Muslim community finds the name offensive/divisive, let them put out a joint statement and say so and go from there. I'm getting sick of all these non-Muslims taking it upon themselves to decide what Muslims do/do not find offensive and what should/should not be changed.
-
@Mokey said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:
I just think that if the Canterbury Muslim community finds the name offensive/divisive, let them put out a joint statement and say so and go from there. I'm getting sick of all these non-Muslims taking it upon themselves to decide what Muslims do/do not find offensive and what should/should not be changed.
In fact quite the opposite, the only Muslim that went on record in a MSM article said he had no problem with the name
-
@Paekakboyz said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:
and I get that of course they would deny any pressure etc. But this does come across as bullshit - and it flies in the face of how things have been handled by all involved to date imo.
"How things have been handled", eh?
Like the immediate disappearing of media reports from a couple of years ago about one of the Christchurch targets being the last port of call for a couple of blokes en route to take up arms in the Middle East; placing an immediate embargo on distributing the murderer's writings, treating the populace as being as immature and unworldly as the opportunist in chief in her new headgear; saying and doing nothing about some representative loon preaching hatred of the Evil Juice in the streets of Auckland; the same fool welcoming one of Australia's best known apologists to visit, give her a hug and do a bit more marketing to nongs with soft heads; having the lackeys work the phones to have the media run a campaign to change the name of a rugby team which had nothing to do with what happened; and hijacking of the Aotea Square peace rally by activists asserting the murders were "a tragic consequence of New Zealand's failure to address racism", without speaking out to defend ordinary New Zealanders against the lie?
-
@Mick-Gold-Coast-QLD coming in hot eh?
- There has been a lot more written about the brothers in the main thread about the attack. One of wasn't radicalized at all. The other was via web connections. The mosque itself rejected leadership/funding from some hardliner group. Worth digging a bit more on that imo.
- I'm somewhat on the fence about the suppression of his writing. I get that they don't want to give it airtime and probably had advice that was an appropriate approach and outweighed free and open access. I think that many (maybe most) folks could read it and take it for the bullshit it is, without risk of that popularizing his thinking or actions.
- Some for, some against re headgear. But you've obviously got your position on the intent, authenticity, etc, etc of Ardern.
- Aotea square stuff was absolutely distasteful. But you want to shut up their free speech? Doesn't that fly in the face of your position above? Or was it the fact it wasn't called out by the powers that be?
- Have you evidence about the lackeys influencing the name change campaign? If so I'd certainly join you in condemning that.
-
“Coming in hot eh?”
That’s good, I’ll pay that.As much as anything I am reacting to a meme that has been floated over there that Arden has done a splendid job handling the Christchurch murders. She has done no more or less than could be expected. When she hugged Squalid Ali, a divisive character here, and heard his wise counsel I was reminded she is merely a politician who will turn any opportunity to advantage no matter how cynical or hypocritical the action, and that is what she did.
Quick, bung on the headwear for the cameras notwithstanding it is well known that women, who are subject to the medieval death cult, campaign against the symbols of their suppression at great personal risk – some progressive initiatives are more equal than others, evidently.
We had a sheila here like that who was acutely aware the punters have a short concentration span and, if the cunning move doesn’t quite make the desired impact the down side risk is minimal. Within a couple of days people will have swiped it from their favorites and moved onto Bonce’s analysis of the Mueller report.
These amateurs are as intellectually and morally shallow as the puddle left by a passing summer shower and they put them in charge!
On suppression of the mad ramblings of the murderer and nuking media reports on the activities of the centre attacked – let the facts be known, don’t leave it up to a police chief with an agenda (essential that he now have a bigger budget … and a salary review to recognise the added responsibility of overseeing a bigger budget) or a public servant to decide what is and isn’t appropriate for the public to know. That is no substitute for police and other agencies doing their job properly.
I watched in disbelief as the NSW police commissioner and his deputies who took charge of the Lindt Café siege (of one madman, surrounded by hundreds of police busily scribbling on clipboards for 18 hours – 18 hours until a courageous young man was murdered, sacrificed to their incompetence) mount legal action for months, seeking to avoid having to front a coronial enquiry so that they could send in their subordinates and conceal their failures. These palookas should be brought to account, not protected under national secrecy imperatives as we saw with the Stasi and the KGB, and more recently the FBI, Department of Justice, NSA, Homeland Security, CIA, NSA, GTHO, GTRXU1, Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick & Titch. Come to think of it, governments employ an awful lot of blokes in dark glasses with Glocks, looking stern and doing not much to help.
Year by year the police take on the appearance of Navy Seals – you had some girlses in burkhas guarding local libraries over there a few weeks ago (for days after the big gang of murderers had all been locked up) cradling rocket launcher look-alikes which would blow them off their feet if they accidentally found the trigger! – to no good purpose. Get them into computer analysis school and have them track the loons who respond to other loons on the internet, identify the activity centres / forward posts (I daren’t use the other name) and build a case for entry and seizure. Have them stand over the judges to issue warrants, not the general public who trust them to do their job.
There is no reason to hide a couple of media reports on the activities of one of the Christchurch targets from three or four years before, other than political inconvenience which is not a sound reason. I read an ABC report relying on the evidence of the parents of a young fellow who attended finishing school there and then headed off to serve in the Middle East. If it happened or did not happen it is up to the place itself to convince people, or to employ taqiya. It is not for government to decide what the public should read or hear.
The Aotea Square barrage should be heard, as distasteful as it was, and allowed to stand or fall on its merits. A government with a fair dinkum concern for its responsibilities, and a clear position on the fundamental issues, ought to criticise what it was about and be done with that, not shut it down. They have other much more important work to do in economic management, resources policy, cost containment, health and so on, don’t they?
Let the people decide and comment freely. If it is hurty hurt hurtful to some then they can get a wriggle on and grow up rather than turn to government to declare what is horrid, what is simply appalling, what is outrageous and what is giggle worthy.
I regard the Israel Folau matter in similar terms.
Finally, I have no doubt someone from government has planted the seed of an idea about the Crusaders name change with their favourite journalist / camp follower, or vice versa, they have kicked it around and decided to give it a run. It has distraction value at least; offers a reading on the degree of difficulty likely when they attempt much more restrictive gun laws; and it could be helpful in signalling to the other mob that the country has a genuine intention to enter the peaceful surrender phase eventually. Of course I have no evidence of this, other than a lifetime of paying attention to how stuff gets done.
Steve Tew should have told them don’t be stupid, bugger off and come back after they have tried it on renaming Christchurch.
-
Here we go again you complete utter fukwit Simon Arkwright link text](link url)https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/112293188/crusaders-missed-a-chance-to-take-the-lead-after-christchurch-shootings
-
@Chris said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:
Here we go again you complete utter fukwit Simon Arkwright link text](link url)https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/112293188/crusaders-missed-a-chance-to-take-the-lead-after-christchurch-shootings
Marketing expert Simon Arkwright didn’t miss a chance to exploit the massacre to gain profile though .