Colin Craig wants help with his legal costs …

Written By: - Date published: 11:47 am, March 7th, 2014 - 112 comments
Categories: conservative party, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Conservative billboard contribution to legal costsIf you want to donate money to someone extraordinarily wealthy who wants to suppress freedom of speech and bully opposition MPs into silence here is your chance.

What else can I say …

Update:

It has been pointed out to me that the wording on the Conservative donations page, the amount sought ($70,000) and the design of the page is extraordinarily similar to the Greens’ donation page.  Even the group photo resembles the group photo used by the Greens.

Maybe they should include copyright breach in the issues to be explored.

Update:  Toby Manhire has theorised that Craig is a local version of Ali G.  And this is the only rational explanation there is for the phenomenon that is Colin Craig.

112 comments on “Colin Craig wants help with his legal costs … ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. The Real Matthew 1
    7 March 2014 at 11:58 am

    It’s hard to know which is worse.

    The Green’s, whose members of parliament earn substantially more than their supporter base trying to scrounge funds from them or this mob.

    Whose the rent a crowd in the photo?

    • felix 1.1
      7 March 2014 at 3:34 pm

      “The Green’s, whose members of parliament earn substantially more than their supporter base “

      lolz.

      Oh hang on, you’re serious? You really think a handful of mps have more spare cash than the entire support base of the party?

      Wow.

      • Populuxe1 1.1.1
        7 March 2014 at 5:40 pm

        Would you say the same thing about the blessed Brian Tamaki and his flock fleecing? There are quite a few beneficiaries supprting the Greens – is it fair to ask them for donations?

        • Puddleglum 1.1.1.1
          7 March 2014 at 6:24 pm

          Would you rather the Greens add “If you are a beneficiary, don’t donate.”? Wouldn’t that be condescending?

          Also, last time I looked, the Green Party had quite a lot of support in the wealthier electorates.

          Given that Russel Norman is being sued as a result of his actions in his role as Green Party co-leader then it makes sense that Green Party members – and their support base – be asked (not required) to help fund the defence?

          After all, the supporters and members are partly responsible for making Norman their representative.

        • weka 1.1.1.2
          7 March 2014 at 6:35 pm

          “Would you say the same thing about the blessed Brian Tamaki and his flock fleecing? There are quite a few beneficiaries supprting the Greens – is it fair to ask them for donations?”

          That’s quite a stretch. The GP are not placing pressure on people to donate. As a beneficiary I have no problem at all with the GP asking the public to donate, or even asking me (I’m on the email list). I know that the GP will have no problem with me not donating if I can’t afford it.

        • xtasy 1.1.1.3
          7 March 2014 at 9:02 pm

          I am a beneficiary, and I am now asking for “donations”, thanks!

    • Draco T Bastard 1.2
      7 March 2014 at 4:00 pm

      Just another RWNJ trying to take power away from the many by telling them that they’re paying too much for their representatives.

  2. shorts 2
    7 March 2014 at 11:59 am

    you could say just like Russel Norman he has the right to seek donations to cover his costs

    And I’m sure there are a few suckers out there who will

  3. risildowgtn 3
    7 March 2014 at 11:59 am

    Windowlickers

  4. Populuxe1 4
    7 March 2014 at 12:09 pm

    And my answer to Craig’s tin rattling is the same as to Norman’s tin rattling: No. You both earn significantly more than the average New Zealander, if you are going to play sillybuggers you can pay for it yourselves.

    • Puckish Rogue 4.1
      7 March 2014 at 12:28 pm

      Agreed

    • MaxFletcher 4.2
      7 March 2014 at 12:37 pm

      +1

    • Lanthanide 4.3
      7 March 2014 at 1:41 pm

      +1

    • tinfoilhat 4.4
      7 March 2014 at 1:51 pm

      yep

    • Zorr 4.5
      7 March 2014 at 3:11 pm

      Actually, the only person playing silly buggers here is Colin for thinking he can sue for defamation and then rattle the tin. How dare Norman not be bullied!

    • felix 4.6
      7 March 2014 at 3:35 pm

      You do realise neither of them are asking one average new zealander to foot the bill.

      Don’t you?

      • Populuxe1 4.6.1
        7 March 2014 at 5:45 pm

        No, they’re asking a lot of average New Zealanders, and given that low income people and beneficiaries pay tax and are supporters of the Greens, they’re being asked too. It’s especially affronting in the Greens case because it’s effectively asking their supporters – no differentiation whether they’re vulnerable or not – to show their loyalty. In my book that’s not much better than Brian Tamaki asking for tithes.

        • Puddleglum 4.6.1.1
          7 March 2014 at 6:49 pm

          Populuxe1, low income people are routinely asked for donations by charities, causes and organisations. That’s because they are part of society.

          They are also, of course, exposed to advertising which is an attempt to gain what little money they have.

          Like you, I don’t think low income people should be emotionally manipulated to spend their money on things that don’t have any discernible benefit for them. But I really can’t see why you are making a deal out of this particular instance.

          Is this really your main point or are you just irritated that Russel Norman isn’t paying for this out of his own pocket and you’re using that argument as justification for your irritation?

          If that is your view, then think it through. MPs who aren’t independently wealthy will always be potential targets for being sued about very many things that they may say in the course of being an MP. If they re-tell a constituent’s story that may put someone in a bad light; if they accuse a political opponent of lying; if they speak out about, for example, the unhealthy aspects of fast food made by a particular company – all potentially risky statements that could open them up to being sued.

    • weka 4.7
      7 March 2014 at 3:42 pm

      “And my answer to Craig’s tin rattling is the same as to Norman’s tin rattling: No. You both earn significantly more than the average New Zealander, if you are going to play sillybuggers you can pay for it yourselves.”

      GP MPs already donate a portion of their salary to the party. I don’t know if Norman could afford to fork out $70,000 himself, but given he is being sued for doing his day job, not something he did in his personal life, it makes sense that the GP help pay for that. This isn’t just about Norman, it’s about not aquiescing to a wealthy brat behaving like a child, and instead standing up for something of quite a lot of value.

      I can’t see any reason to not ask for help from the public with that. This is how the GP stay solvent and in govt and do the job they were voted in to do. They fundraise publicly. It’s no different than asking for help with any of their other campaigns. Or do you think the GP MPs should pay for all that as well?

      • Populuxe1 4.7.1
        7 March 2014 at 5:55 pm

        Norman could apply for legal aid as well, however if he was doing his day job I don’t see why he couldn’t have used Parliamentary Privilege and saved us all the bother.
        This isn’t campaigning. Campaigning has strict rules and fewer law suits

        • weka 4.7.1.1
          7 March 2014 at 8:08 pm

          Legal aid, lol. You are really off track here.

          What do you mean if it was his day job?

          I thought parliamentary privilege applied to things said in parliament. I doubt that Norman cleverly decided to make the comments outside of parliament knowing that Craig would sue him and then he could use the publicity to… what exactly? You think the GP doesn’t have better things to do?

          • Populuxe1 4.7.1.1.1
            7 March 2014 at 8:30 pm

            “If” is the usual way of doing logic – if, then, therefore.
            And if Norman is so clever I would assume he would realise that Craig is litigious and think skinned, and would have saved us all the bother by making his statement under Parliamentary Privilege.

            • weka 4.7.1.1.1.1
              7 March 2014 at 9:49 pm

              There is no if. Norman was speaking as a GP MP. And he couldn’t have used parliamentary privilege because he was speaking at the Big Gay Out. Unless you are suggesting that the Big Gay Out should have been held as part of parliament. Give it up dude, you’re not making any sense.

              • Populuxe1 …
                8 March 2014 at 5:26 pm

                No, I’m suggesting that if Norman was specifically concerned about Craig, he should have raised the issue in Parliament. It would have been quite sufficient to mock Craig’s whole “homosexuality is a choice” shtick to great effect at the BGO without crossing any potential lines. As it stands it feels more like political point scoring off the struggles of LGBT.

                • felix …
                  8 March 2014 at 6:04 pm

                  Actually Pop, Russel can raise the issue (Key’s low standards in picking teammates) in any forum he likes.

                  And yes, Colin and Key can respond in any way they like, including silly lawsuits.

                  And Russel can fund his defense of those silly lawsuits anyway he likes, including asking like-minded people to contribute.

                  I am genuinely struggling to see what your issue is.

    • MrSmith 4.8
      7 March 2014 at 3:49 pm

      Rogue, Max, Lanth and the tinfoilhat all agree with Pop which = Fuck all.

      • Lanthanide 4.8.1
        7 March 2014 at 4:57 pm

        What’s your point?

        • MrSmith 4.8.1.1
          7 March 2014 at 6:09 pm

          I thought I was pretty clear Lath that I consider yours and the others opinion as hardly a great endorsement of Pop’s statement.

          I will leave it there.

    • David H 4.9
      8 March 2014 at 7:58 am

      Hang on don’t the loser pay the winners costs?? then Colon Craig may need a hand to pay it all.

  5. JK 5
    7 March 2014 at 12:13 pm

    You gotta be joking !
    Unfortunately I don’t think Colin Craig has a sense of humour …

    • Colt 45 5.1
      7 March 2014 at 1:18 pm

      Yeah I don’t know so much….. if liberalism is so great, so progressive, and of course so liberal, then surely true liberals such as Russel would not object to hearing the conservative arguement?

      If liberalism can’t stand the challenge of itself being challenged – by what Russle says is ‘outdated’ – then how suited really is liberalism to democracy and society at large?

      Really when you think about it – why would anyone need to defend ‘liberal democratic society” – by making it less liberal in practise as Russel is trying to do by silencing an arguement?

      Is Russel really a ‘true liberal leader’ behaving like that? He is looking rather stupid to the educated voter.

      Why is Russel so scared of the conservative arguement being expressed by just 5% of voters – if they get elected that is – and with National not willing to ‘roll-over’ in government to a minor party who would surely then ‘tea party’ the national voters and caucus?

      Mr Craig I think, is going to have the last laugh with Russel.

      • MaxFletcher 5.1.1
        7 March 2014 at 1:25 pm

        “Yeah I don’t know so much….. if liberalism is so great, so progressive, and of course so liberal, then surely true liberals such as Russel would not object to hearing the conservative arguement?”

        No objects to Colin saying what ever he wants to say. No cares if conservatives express their arguments. No one is trying to stop Colin Craig expressing himself.

        • Colt 45 5.1.1.1
          7 March 2014 at 1:54 pm

          So why then would Russle make such appalling allegations against him?

          They’re nothing more than outdated, outragous and demeaning slogans.

          I shudder to think what women and gay men thought when hearing those disgusting statements from someone who says ‘I and the Greens represent them.’

          Mr Craig is not on the record anywhere for saying that rubbish – but Russel Norman is.

          Mr Cunliffe would never use the word N***** if Maori’s were the topic of discussion and he wanted to infer something negative!

          Why excuse Russle Norman’s lack of judgement – or are gay men and women less in standing around here than say – Maori?

          Like I said : Mr Craig I think, is going to have the last laugh with Russel.

          • bad12 5.1.1.1.1
            7 March 2014 at 2:03 pm

            Dolt45, provide us a link to the supposed word you accuse Russell of using against Maori, you might think it is really clever to attempt to link Russell to racist slurs here at the Standard knowing the stick anyone who portrays racist attitudes round here gets,

            Making such allegations without providing the proof means your use by date is fast approaching…

          • framu 5.1.1.1.2
            7 March 2014 at 3:14 pm

            “So why then would Russle make such appalling allegations against him?” thats not diminishing colins right to free speech dimwit

            and if colin wants to debate why the fuck isnt he.. you know… debating

            calling the lawyers isnt debating – its using your power to silence that which you dont like

            as for the rest of it – lay of the drink mate – its utter gibberish

      • wtl 5.1.2
        7 March 2014 at 1:27 pm

        What a weird comment, you seem to be living in some kind of alternate reality. Norman said that Craig didn’t believe in equal rights for women or homosexuals. Instead of arguing against Norman, Craig decided to sue Norman. To most sane people, Craig is obviously the one who is afraid of the argument and is trying to silence Norman, not the other way around.

        • Colt 45 5.1.2.1
          7 March 2014 at 1:58 pm

          Of course he would sue him – and gay men and women of dignity would support that!

          Read what I said above.

          ‘standards’ of behaviour at the ‘Standard’ seem to be rather lax it appears.

          • bad12 5.1.2.1.1
            7 March 2014 at 2:04 pm

            Dolt45, what you said above is meaningless bullshit without the provision of proof…

            • framu 5.1.2.1.1.1
              7 March 2014 at 3:16 pm

              i would say its meaningless bullshit because its doesnt make any fucking sense – it hasnt even gotten to – “lets see the proof” yet

          • wtl 5.1.2.1.2
            7 March 2014 at 2:30 pm

            No, the correct response is not to sue Norman but to say that “those views are wrong and I fully support equal rights for women and homosexuals, including marriage equality”.

            Anyway, you still haven’t explain how the whole situation means that Norman is avoiding the argument and silencing Craig, rather than the other way around.

      • felix 5.1.3
        7 March 2014 at 3:39 pm

        Well, Colt 45, there goes my theory about drinking in the daytime making you smarter.

  6. MaxFletcher 6
    7 March 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Keep the Greens honest?

    I’m pretty sure that the greens were being honest. Perhaps the invective used was hyperbolic but the message was right on the money.

  7. McFlock 7
    7 March 2014 at 12:58 pm

    Funny.

    Greens ask for donations to help fight a stupid lawsuit from rich bully-boy.
    Rich bully-boy sees this and asks for donations for said stupid lawsuit.

    Crazy Craig’s been sniffing chemtrails again…

    • Populuxe1 7.1
      7 March 2014 at 1:06 pm

      If it happened in reverse order, it wouldn’t be any less stupid

      • McFlock 7.1.1
        7 March 2014 at 3:40 pm

        Actually, it would be less stupid:

        Rich bully-boy asks for donations for a stupid lawsuit.
        Greens see this and ask for donations to help fight said stupid lawsuit from rich bully-boy.

        Because the greens aren’t the ones taking stupid lawsuits in response to someone criticising them and that someone’s opinions of their beliefs.

        Shit, it’s not like the Greens’ beliefs have ever been disrespectfully described, not least of which by me (bunch of lentil-eating hippies, the lot of them). And as far as I know not one of their officials has sued someone because of it.

      • felix 7.1.2
        7 March 2014 at 3:41 pm

        And if your auntie had balls she’d be your uncle. But she doesn’t, and it didn’t, so so fucking what?

  8. fender 8
    7 March 2014 at 1:17 pm

    Yes Judas tried to hide amongst the Twelve Apostles.

  9. Lanthanide 9
    7 March 2014 at 1:18 pm

    The difference between the photo used by the Greens and the Conservatives, is that the Greens are clearly all in the same room together and not photoshopped.

    Have to wonder why the Conservatives are photoshopped – it’s like they’ve never all been together in the same room. Fairly odd for a political party, I would have thought.

    • Rich 9.1
      7 March 2014 at 1:27 pm

      Might be worth running those photos through a matching engine to see who they are of (and if any are stock). I’d do it, but I’m too busy working to keep my income above the Green MPs (who all give a chunk of their salary to party funds).

      • RJL 9.1.1
        7 March 2014 at 2:25 pm

        The people in the Conservative photo are not from generic stock photos.

        They are the “high profile” Conservative candidates.

    • Colt 45 9.2
      7 March 2014 at 1:29 pm

      Or they’re showing Dot Com tech heads and youth of NZ that they represent them and ‘their future’ and are also senseable with money. The Conservatives arn’t luddites it appears – which is a sensable look given the alegations that Russel is making.

      • mickysavage 9.2.1
        7 March 2014 at 1:35 pm

        Wow a Conservative Party troll who cannot spell sensible …

        How sensible is it to blow $140k in legal fees just so Craig can say “told you so”?

      • Lanthanide 9.2.2
        7 March 2014 at 1:39 pm

        Um, you’re saying they can use photoshop therefore they aren’t luddites?

        Sorry, but the quality of that image is very very bad.

        Realistically your choices are:
        1. Have everyone in person and take a group photo
        2. Do a very good photoshop job so people can’t tell you didn’t do #1

        Conservatives have clearly gone for:
        3. Get someone who “knows computers” to put together a group-shot using whatever random portraits of your members they can find, because you all hate each other too much to be seen together.

        • marty mars 9.2.2.1
          7 March 2014 at 1:52 pm

          lol the photo is a shocker, so terrible it’s embarrassing. ‘Keep the Greens honest” ? I mean only really dim types give free advertising to their opponents – very deep fail on so many levels for those conservative party-ites – not that anyone will care too much apart from the laugh it gives.

          • bad12 9.2.2.1.1
            7 March 2014 at 2:11 pm

            Lolz, the bloke standing behind what looks like an anal retentive Colin gives every impression He has an affliction of an entirely opposite nature,

            He has a face on which every kid would know as ”oops i have just let slide a big one in my pants and have to try like hell to pretend i havn’t”…

      • fender 9.2.3
        7 March 2014 at 1:42 pm

        Yeah the youth will support idiots who can use photoshop and overlook the fact that their gay friends are expected to stay in a closet…

      • framu 9.2.4
        7 March 2014 at 3:20 pm

        “Dot Com tech heads”

        1 – “dot com” is very 80s which kinda points to you not knowing what your talking about
        2 – i would wager that the bulk of IT and digital media specialists dont tend to be the same bent as the call the lawyers party

        dude – just stop, your making a huge fool of yourself

  10. Enough is Enough 10
    7 March 2014 at 1:59 pm

    They could set up a blind trust I suppose…

    But seriously this is pathetic from the gay hating thin skinned lunatic known as Colin Craig. I thought people were giving him air time because of the humour element. Lets all laugh at the clown who doesn’t believe in the moon landing. Butit has gone past that point now. Do we have to hear from him again?

  11. bad12 11
    7 March 2014 at 2:06 pm

    Lolz, didn’t i just walk into KiwiBank this morning and make a deposit in the ”Crazy Colin Craig Fund”…

  12. Hayden 12
    7 March 2014 at 2:19 pm

    What would happen if a few thousand people donated, say $0.05 each?

  13. james 13
    7 March 2014 at 3:17 pm

    Seems like a few people are willing to help ol’ Colin out. his fund has collected $50,000 in under a day.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11215841

    • framu 13.1
      7 March 2014 at 3:22 pm

      “The account had already collected around $50,000 including a one-off donation of more than $25,000.”

      guess who donated that

      and so what – having rich party backers mean diddly in regards to popularity and righteousness

    • Tracey 13.2
      7 March 2014 at 4:08 pm

      If colin craig put 100 bucks into the account of 500 members to enable them to donate to his fighting fund would he have to declare that he donated to himself?

  14. Michael Morris 14
    7 March 2014 at 3:30 pm

    Yes Colin is behaving like a petulent toddler. But I don’t think much more of Russell’s behaviour either. Russel said that:

    Colin believes women should be in the home and gays in the closet.

    When asked to substantiate this he stated that

    Colin believes women are promiscous and being gay is un-natural.

    and

    I find that personally offensive.

    Firstly, even if we accept that statement 2 is true, it does not follow logically that 1 is therefore true

    Secondly, statement 3 is a brain burp not a thought. Colin’s assertions in 2 can be verified or otherwise based on empirical evidence plus defining terms. Their truth or falsehood is totally independent of anyone’s feelings. Why on earth would anyone care what Russell, or anyone else FEELS about it, unless they are lovers or friends of his. Russell is not my friend and his feelings don’t come into it.

    • framu 14.1
      7 March 2014 at 3:45 pm

      russel normans words are just a paraphrasing of colin craigs public statements

      Colin believes women are promiscous = Colin believes women should be in the home
      being gay is un-natural. = gays in the closet.

      its all common vernacular stuff and everythign being said is a fairly legit take on things going by common and historical use of language on issues of homosexuality and womens rights. Russel norman isnt claiming a fact – hes saying “based on colins public statement i take them to mean “X”

      you guys have some major logic issues going on

    • McFlock 14.2
      7 March 2014 at 3:47 pm

      Actually, I think that we should all care about the personal opinions of our elected representatives and those who wish to be such.

      Their personal beliefs indicate their bias when moral or imprecise issues are before the House.

      Worst case scenario, Russel Norman is someone who believes he should personally oppose discrimination and its supporters wherever possible. “Worst case”? Sorry, I meant “best case”.

      • framu 14.2.1
        7 March 2014 at 3:52 pm

        i think we have to be wary of this little bait and switch being pulled here – MM is trying (just like colin craig) to turn it away from “what one could logically assume based on colins public statements” to “hes talking about evidence in a study”

        its a distraction

    • weka 14.3
      7 March 2014 at 3:50 pm

      He also said that he is standing up for a fair NZ where all of us are valued (me paraphrasing). His finding of Craig’s beliefs to be personally offensive mirrors what lots of NZers feel, and given he is the co-leader of the third biggest political party in this country, that’s relevant.

      “Firstly, even if we accept that statement 2 is true, it does not follow logically that 1 is therefore true.”

      The first statement is only a problem for people that can only think literally. Obviously Norman was shorthanding Craig’s sexism and homophobia by using two very well known turns of phrase. The only people that think that Norman was being literal are Craig and pedants.

      • framu 14.3.1
        7 March 2014 at 3:54 pm

        ie: “colin craig doesnt think gay people should stay in closets” – as in a physical closet

        • weka 14.3.1.1
          7 March 2014 at 4:03 pm

          Just seen your and McFlock’s comments 🙂

        • Populuxe1 14.3.1.2
          7 March 2014 at 6:08 pm

          He prefers us out where his SS can find us

        • Hayden 14.3.1.3
          7 March 2014 at 7:19 pm

          I would love to see him state that he’s never literally pushed a gay person into an actual closet, nor stood at the kitchen door, shooing a woman back into it.

      • felix 14.3.2
        8 March 2014 at 8:07 am

        “The only people that think that Norman was being literal are Craig and pedants.”

        Nah, not even them really.

    • wtl 14.4
      7 March 2014 at 4:51 pm

      Firstly, even if we accept that statement 2 is true, it does not follow logically that 1 is therefore true.

      As other’s have already pointed out, this is complete bullshit. It is impossible to use rational or logical reasoning to determine if 1 is true, simply because statement 1 is a figurative statement. Therefore, statement 1 doesn’t have a objectively defined meaning and therefore any interpretation of that statement is necessarily subjective.

    • Murray Olsen 14.5
      8 March 2014 at 1:27 am

      You really should wait for the second week of Philosophy 101 lectures before you try addressing sophisticated notions such as logic, Michael. It’s easier to just say god told you. None of us can prove you wrong then.

  15. MrSmith 15
    7 March 2014 at 6:58 pm

    “Keep the Greens Honest”

    Scary photo and it seems the money is ‘pooring’ in from the Christians I suppose and you really have to wonder wouldn’t this money be better spent helping a few poor souls instead of pissing it away on some frivolous law suit.

    Collin Craig is a cowardly fool like most God botherers, manly because when anyone questions or challenges there beliefs they’re never honest about it, they can never deliver with any facts to back up their belief and so they lie to themselves, others and let others lie to them, the “Keep the Greens Honest” cry is hilarious.

    • ropata 15.1
      7 March 2014 at 7:41 pm

      Message to Colin Craig Conservatives:

      Pig headed denial of evidence is not faith. Prov 8:22-31; Psalm 19
      Blind obedience to authority is not faith. Acts 17:11
      Dull failure to think critically is not faith. 1 Thess 5:21

      Faith is an intuitive leap, an inference of hope, a subjective spiritual experience. Heb. 11

      We live in a secular democracy and it is wrong to impose religious strictures on people who don’t share those values. 1 Cor 5:12

      • xtasy 15.1.1
        7 March 2014 at 9:05 pm

        No, no, you are wrong, the mullahs did it in Iran, we must have the same “rights” here in NZ! Colon Cringe just wants “equal rights”, nothing less or more.

  16. Tanz 16
    7 March 2014 at 7:50 pm

    Colin never said that, though did he. Norman just alleged that he did.
    Maybe that spelling mistake was just an honest typo.
    Go Colin, up in the polls too.

    • weka 16.1
      7 March 2014 at 10:06 pm

      Norman didn’t allege that Craig said anything. Here’s what he said, see if you can prove he is wrong

      “Now the thing about Colin Craig is he thinks that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and a gay man’s place is in the closet.”

  17. Michael Morris 17
    7 March 2014 at 7:53 pm

    If Russell’s comments are to be excused on the basis they are hyperbole, then so are accusations that the Green’s policies will see us living in the stone age all singing Kumbaya around the campfire. Both are straw man fallacies. And saying somthing is offensive is simply another form of the ad hominem argument; no different from saying Colin is a plonker.

    One thing I used to admire the Greens for was that they rose the standard of debate above the gutter and attacked issues, not personalities. But starting with their John Key “Muldoon” comments they now seem to be slipping in their debating standards and are getting no better than the rest.

    • Hanswurst 17.1
      7 March 2014 at 8:44 pm

      If Russell’s comments are to be excused on the basis they are hyperbole, then so are accusations that the Green’s policies will see us living in the stone age all singing Kumbaya around the campfire.

      The difference in this instance being that the Greens have not taken vexatious defamation cases to the courts to silence what you describe.

    • Arfamo 17.2
      7 March 2014 at 9:57 pm

      “One thing I used to admire the Greens for was that they rose the standard of debate above the gutter and attacked issues, not personalities.”

      Good point. The Greens scored points with me for keeping to the issues and keeping out of the sandpit. They shouldn’t buy in to the personality politics and petty name-calling bullshit.

      • weka 17.2.1
        7 March 2014 at 10:08 pm

        Do you think that Craig is sexist and homophobic? Should Norman talk about that or not?

        • Arfamo 17.2.1.1
          7 March 2014 at 10:26 pm

          Yep, has certainly given me that impression. And No, because he doesn’t need to. All he has done is waste time and resources on a pointless cock fight.

          • weka 17.2.1.1.1
            8 March 2014 at 3:13 pm

            Ok, let me get this right. Are you saying that, during an election year, the co-leader of a left wing party shouldn’t raise questions about/point out the prejudice of the beliefs of the leader of a right wing party?

            • Arfamo 17.2.1.1.1.1
              8 March 2014 at 3:31 pm

              No. How on earth could you interpret what I said to mean that? Are you saying that Colin Craig has made the statements Norman alleges? Because if he has, then great. Post the evidence. If he hasn’t made those statements, why bother suggesting he has? My impression is that Norman comes out of this looking more stupid than Craig. And look at the waste of time and energy this little spat really is. I’d never vote for Craig anyway. Nothing needed to be said by Norman.

    • wtl 17.3
      7 March 2014 at 10:30 pm

      Did you look up a list of logical fallacies and decide that throwing a few into your comment would make you seem to be smart? Unfortunately for you, it’s actually doing the opposite.

      Norman’s comments are not hyperbole. They are figurative ways of saying that Craig does not support equal rights for women or homosexuals. Is it really that hard to understand? Did you really think that Norman literally meant that Colin Craig believes that women should stay in the kitchen and gays should stay in the closet?

  18. RedBaronCV 18
    7 March 2014 at 8:13 pm

    Isn’t this more of a new right wing tactic? Use the money you have to put your opposition into a position where they have to pay legal or court fees. Both are now absolutely unaffordable for most of the people in our society that the laws apply to. Hence for most people there is no effective civil law.

    When used in the political arena it is looking to shut up anybody who disagrees with the RW view.

    Used on Len Brown where ratepayer funds went to the RW and they tried to get him to pay towards the cost as well as that of his own lawyers. I reckon he personally would have been up for $100,000 plus.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if substantial court costs were awarded.

  19. RedBaronCV 19
    7 March 2014 at 8:19 pm

    And while I’m here. Comments on NZ women being promiscuous- one assumes that they are being promiscuous with er promiscuous NZ blokes?

    Or is there a number for the girls and a higher one for the boys? or does the internet have a different answer?

    Are we not all equal in front of the law – will a judge have to decide on these numbers? Can he make them different?

    • veutoviper 19.1
      7 March 2014 at 9:14 pm

      “Are we not all equal in front of the law – will a judge have to decide on these numbers? Can he make them different.”

      Who is the “he” in your final sentence above? Hopefully not the judge. We have a lot of “she” judges now.

      LOL – just stirring!

  20. Steve (North Shore) 20
    7 March 2014 at 8:33 pm

    Colin Craig wants help with his legal costs?
    Russel Norman needs help with his legal costs, because the TAXPAYER will pay for the loser

  21. Richard Christie 21
    7 March 2014 at 8:35 pm

    Michael Morris,

    “woman’s place is in the home” or “kitchen”

    is a common colloquialism. It implies a fossilised viewpoint on the issue of equality between the sexes.

    Good luck proving that using a figure of speech in this manner is defamatory.

    Norman only has to point to the “promiscuous” quote to show Craig applies double standards to the differing sexes. I’m sure there are other examples available.

    This case is has the same level of stupidity as the that taken against NIWA by climate change deniers, who were so divorced from reality that they believed in the fantasy of their own creation.

  22. xtasy 22
    7 March 2014 at 9:00 pm

    This is Bullshit, as Colin Craig may not be the richest amongst us, but he has previously shown he is not shy of spending millions on his campaigns for mayor of Auckland, for his election ambitions now, and whatever else. He is doing this with ulterior motives, simply to get more attention and to make this a “public” issue, nothing else.

    Well, good on him for trying, but any intelligent and sensible person must see through what he does and claims. This is not worth the attention he seeks!

  23. ropata 23
    7 March 2014 at 11:17 pm

    Not only does CC think women belong in the kitchen and gays in the closet; but also that parents should be able to assault their children[1]. I’m sure CC would use weasel words and legal clauses but the end result would be the same. What a pillock.

    [1] ref: con party website, search for ‘smacking’

  24. felix 24
    8 March 2014 at 8:21 am

    Something about all this has slipped beneath the radar.

    Russel’s statements about Colin were actually in the context of criticising John Key. It was in the context of ‘look at Key, he’s such a scumbag that he’s even willing to team up with Colin Craig who hates women and gays.

    Wonder if John Key’s secret trust will be supporting Colin financially…

  25. Tigger 25
    8 March 2014 at 8:50 am

    I will never understand those very religious who trump integrity as a moral yet cannot identify a lack of it in their leaders.

  26. red blooded 26
    8 March 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Can CC point to any public statements supporting women in the workplace (eg an extension of paid parental leave, more women on boards of directors, or more female MPs?) or respect for gay people (eg marriage equality, adoption rights?). If not, it’s hard to imagine how he hopes to “prove” his case.

    This whole issue is muddle-headed. Does CC want his supporters to think that he DOES approve of the policies listed above? One doubts whether many of them do.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.