Written By: - Date published: 2:07 pm, August 7th, 2008 - 48 comments
Categories: national, slippery -
Tags:
You’d be hard pressed to have missed the story on what some National MPs have been caught saying behind closed doors.
We’ve seen discussions over the content, questions on the law. Now Gordon Campbell asks:
…is it more unethical for a delegate to tape someone speaking candidly or a for a political party to dedicate its campaign efforts to not being candid, and thereby assisting the public to deceive itself?
Frankly, if a lone activist with a $200 dictaphone can defeat the massed phalanxes of p.r. bullshit, and thereby give the public a clearer idea of what the next government may actually do when elected, then surely that’s all to the good – isn’t it?…
So far, the public has been the winner. In the wake of the taping, National’s response this week has actually been quite informative. We now know more about what it plans to do about Kiwibank, Working for Families and Kiwisaver than we did before the tapes were leaked. This has been a big advance towards an informed electorate, in that the tapes and their aftermath have told us far more than the National Party’s skeletal policy releases.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Not everyone that disagrees with you and your Government and its Social Engineering agenda is a Bigot.
Not everyone no, but you certainly sound like one. Hey, have a read of this, knock yourself out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/18/iceland
Bigot, you’re a bigot because you made homophobic comments, presumably because I’m left wing and you have this idea that everyone from the left must be gay.
Most people would think “hell yeah I could do with a couple of wives/husbands” – only bigoted 17 year-old reactionaries would actually think OH YUCK! How is the 18th century going for you anyway?
And I still have no idea what you’re on about because you’re still incoherent. Can you type less, but with a bit more effort? Where’s this ‘policy’ then, give me a link.
“Hey but we wont do Herceptin Ohh perhaps we will now because National has said it will”
I bloody hope not. Just because National want to interfere with the functioning of an independant impartial body and manipulate health funding in a sop to some peoples’ emotions (and to look good to complete idiots like you) I would hope that labour keeps right out of it – screw whether it would get them votes, stick to being honest and principled, unlike National. Trust you to be one of those fools to be sucked in, you mindless bigot.
Maybe in six years, when you are at the heady age of 23, you might learn to think for yourself.
Mathew
Have a great weekend enjoy [no derogatory remarks about sexuality. SP]
Rob,
Well the first time I met Matthew at a social function about six weeks ago, he appeared to be in the company of a very attractive yooung lass.
Stop making a fool of yourself.
So let me guess this right then, you guys are all for secretly taping a private conversation at a National party convention, but boy oh boy if the police tries to secretly record a criminal’s phone call or if governments keep a watch on terrorists, your out there PROTESTING screaming “SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME”
If Labour had planned any of this, and Aunty Helen knew about it, she should be in jail.
Brett,
So let me guess this right then, you guys are all for secretly taping a private conversation at a National party convention,
The recording was made by some person currently unknown.
The statements on them were the responsibility of English and Smith.
The publicising of them was done by news media.
You have no linkage to “us guys’ whatsoever.
The conversations were NOT private, they were being held in an uncontrolled environment with multiple persons present. Moreover it is NOT illegal to record a conversation to which you are a party.
The only possible ethical objection is that the conversation was recorded without the consent of all present. On the other hand as you rightly point out, various agencies routinely do this kind of thing. The police and media often do, as can private citizens if they believe their interests are best served in doing so. It is good manners to ask for consent to record, but it is neither legally necessary, nor an absolute principle.
For instance the TV program Target routinely films tradespeople without their consent; justifying this intrusion with the reasonable argument that the public interest is served by it.
We are frequently recorded in both public and private locations, by all manner of agencies, employers and operators without our consent. Indeed one of the ironies here is that the person who made these recordings may well be identified because he in turn was being recorded without his consent.
And I cannot help but recall that when taped conversations of Tamihere and Williams, obtained without their explicit consent surfaced in the media, I struggle to recall any outrage from the right about using that material to embarrass them.
So if someone from the Labour party has a private conversation taped and then that tape is released by the media, you wouldnt have a problem with that? heck if only I had a tape deck when Marion Hobbs taught at my old school in the mid 80′s, she never would of got into government a decade later.
Brett,
1. It was NOT a private conversation. By definition it cannot have been because neither English nor Smith can remember WHO they were talking to.
2. There were multiple people present, anyone of whom could have heard.
3. The environment was uncontrolled, otherwise the Nats would merely have to go back through their invite list to identify the person concerned. It was not a closed meeting.
4. A trespass does not occur until AFTER someone is asked to leave a premise.
So loose the ‘taping of a private conversation’ line. It was not private.
Would I have a problem with a Labour person being recorded without their consent? Probably not. Mike Williams and John Tamihere were both crucified over recordings made without their consent, but I’m don’t recall the left resorting to this line as their primary defense.
I do concede that it is good manners to ask if you are going to tape a conversation; but that then begs the question of why anyone, especially a politician who on the face of it should always be pleased for the attention and publicity, would object to being recorded.
It was sleazy and underhanded not telling him that he was being tape, but I come to expect that from the left.
It was sleazy and underhand for National to be telling the electorate one thing, while believing in another, but I’ve come to expect that from the right.
(And if you don’t like my reasoning, don’t grizzle to me.)
Lies, intrusion, deception. These are not principles. Most kiwis have an innate understanding of this.
Who stood to benefit? Who repeated “extracts” in the house?
coge,
What’s with the scare quotes? What are they meant to be telling us?
Lies, intrusion, deception. These are not principles. Most kiwis have an innate understanding of this.
I quite agree. The National Party should stop lying to the electorate.