A response to IDIOT

Some of you may know that I'm a contributor to Getfrank, an online mens lifestyle magazine. Some of you may know that occasionally I write about political issues. One opponent of mine actually happens to be a contributor who calls himself IDIOT/Savant. A self professed liberal, he spouts out tirades of scorn towards anyone who does not agree with him. Even on his blog, he says he's irreversibly liberal. In other words, closed minded. Something which was rather unsettling to see was how much he claims to enjoy liberty but is completely in favour of forceful totalitarian measures.

"Speaking of amendments, in addition to the expected referendum clauses (two versions each from Winston Peters and Brendon Horan), Louisa WallSu'a William Sio is also trying to expand the scope of her bigot amendment to give religious institutions the right to discriminate in the provision of services. That is unacceptable, and MPs should vote it down. The whole purpose of human rights law is to remove bigotry from the public sphere. If religious organisations don't want their buildings "polluted" by same-sex marriages, they have a solution: don't offer them to the public, and keep them solely for the use of their members"

As some may now see, newswithmorenews has ceased using the word "human rights" unless its in quote marks. This is borne out of a disgust in the measures it places on the liberty of free speech. Governments already have impeded our private lives enough. Nobody needs more of it. If a religious institution does not want to conduct a homosexual marriage, they must have the liberty to make the choice, rather than be bullied by the state into conducting it against their will. Sound familiar to East Germany, the Soviet Union and North Korea?

A little bait and switch here. Does IDIOT want to be told what clothes he can wear? If he says no and persists with this "human rights" view, why does he continue to buy clothes which are made in China? Isn't that bigotry against New Zealand clothes producers?