Seriously extreme and nutty

Written By: - Date published: 9:27 am, May 10th, 2012 - 82 comments
Categories: conservative party, united future - Tags: , ,

Everyone has written off ACT. The Right are now sniffing around Colin Craig’s Conservative Party as possible future supporter, and plenty is being written by the pundits about that prospect. Amongst all this chatter there was one comment that I think we should get on record for future reference:

Current coalition partner Peter Dunne says National will “destroy itself” if it formed a partnership with the Conservative Party, calling them “seriously extreme and nutty” on his Twitter account this morning.

Good advice from Peter Dunne (who would have thought it?). No doubt Mr Sensible will refuse to go into coalition with these nutters. Expect a clear, definitive statement ruling the possibility out real soon now…

82 comments on “Seriously extreme and nutty ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Akldnut 1
    10 May 2012 at 9:41 am

    I’m wouldn’t be too sure about that, how many times have we seen politicians say something  then swallow a dead rat to stay in the halls of power.

  2. mikesh 2
    10 May 2012 at 9:43 am

    Peter, I think is somewhat biased, as he would prefer that UF was selected as the support party.

    • alex 2.1
      10 May 2012 at 11:44 am

      Exactly. Dunne would say that, if the Conservatives get the nod he’s out of a job.

      • Pete George 2.1.1
        10 May 2012 at 11:51 am

        Why? National have done coalition with him twice now when he wasn’t necessarly required. It’s up to the voters to give him the nod or not, but if they do and National get the chance to do it again next time there’s not reason to see them excluding Dunne.

        If Labour finnaly do the reform and rebuild they need to and don’t have too many silly policies they could do a deal too – especially if it mean Government or not.

        • Matthew Whitehead 2.1.1.1
          10 May 2012 at 11:58 am

          Are you saying that Dunne would go into coalition with a party he thinks is crazy and doesn’t respect, after already having vetoed working with the Greens on similar grounds? I mean, I know the man doesn’t have principles, but that’s practically signing your political death warrant.

          • Pete George 2.1.1.1.1
            10 May 2012 at 12:05 pm

            Are you saying that Dunne would go into coalition with a party he thinks is crazy

            I don’t recall him saying Labour are crazy, misguided last election for sure but I don’t think he went that far.

            • alex 2.1.1.1.1.1
              10 May 2012 at 12:22 pm

              Because if National no longer need Dunne then they will start pushing Shanks in Ohariu. Let’s not forget that she tried to be the electorate MP last time only for the National Party leadership to tell her to stand aside and let Dunne through.

              • Pete George …
                10 May 2012 at 12:31 pm

                I’d be surprised if National pushed Shanks in Ohariu, a different sort of pushing is more likely. Hint – see Parliament’s seating arrangement:
                http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/397EB2CD-755B-44E6-B3A1-4631E33917E9/212720/2012_04_04.pdf
                Her list positions have been 46, 46, 38.

                If National and Labour both put up strong electable candidates it would be a different story.

                • felix …
                  10 May 2012 at 2:01 pm

                  Hi Pete. Why don’t you give Matthew’s question a proper honest go this time.

                  Dunne thinks this Craig bloke is “nutty” and “seriously extreme”.

                  Will he sit around the cabinet table with them or not?

                  And would you support him doing so, given his statements?

                  • Pete George …
                    10 May 2012 at 3:33 pm

                    I don’t think that’s Dunne’s call to make. If he gets the opportunity he will negotiate with National (or Labour). Who else goes in the coalition would be up to the major party.

                    I’m with Key in that it’s far too early to make a call on 2014 possibilities, if I have a chance to support any decisions it would depend on how things look then.

                    A couple of many possible examples:
                    1. National need UF and one other party to form a secure coalition, if UF become an essential part of the equation they can limit what the other minor party (eg Conservatives) can force, so it may be worth joining.

                    2. Conservatives win say 15 seats and earn a big influence and National win 46+ seats, and they have pre-agreed on nutty policy commitments. I’d be reluctant to tag along – but even then you would weigh up whether you could influence more by being a part of it, versus being powerless and associated with nuts.

                    I’ve no idea what Dunne’s view on this would be. From what I’ve seen he assesses each election at the time.

            • bbfloyd 2.1.1.1.1.2
              10 May 2012 at 1:07 pm

              try to keep up petey boy!!! or are you trying that old tory troll trick of deliberately misinterpreting statements in order to rubbish the person making it???

              have you and petey1 gotten so stuck in your own corruption that you are reduced to copying mean minded halfwits with nothing but abuse to debate with??

              you are actually doing us all a big favor, reminding folk just how morally bankrupt your party, and it’s adherents really are… keep it up…. it will be the death of uf before too long….

              can’t come soon enough…

  3. TheContrarian 3
    10 May 2012 at 9:47 am

    I don’t think a socially conservative party would ever get enough votes to be represented in parliament.

    • toad 3.1
      10 May 2012 at 11:28 am

      Unless the Nats gifted the Cons an electorate. But I can’t imagine the promiscuous women of Epsom voting for a creep like this, even with a dozen tea parties.

    • Matthew Whitehead 3.2
      10 May 2012 at 12:00 pm

      Historically the conservative vote tends to range from 1-4%, depending on the political climate. I think that deserves into parliament, where we can keep an eye on them, and where they can sabotage themselves and their erstwhile allies if they want to.

    • NickS 3.3
      10 May 2012 at 12:02 pm

      I don’t think a socially conservative christian party would ever get enough votes to be represented in parliament.

      ‘fixed.

      Politics in NZ is curiously irreligious when it comes to political party branding, to the point where it’s been extremely difficult for parties that brand themselves as “christian” to have any success in elections. Doesn’t effect individual politicians though within the main parties.

      And the base is there for a socially conservative party, it’s just that traditionally National holds sway over them with clever choices in the rural electorates where those views have somewhat more penetration than urban electorates.

      • Descendant Of Smith 3.3.1
        10 May 2012 at 7:30 pm

        From my perspective New Zealand politics has an ever increasing religious bent – the growth of the fundamentalist right as separate entities in politics mirrors the rise in influence of the same religious right in the National Party.

        Do we so easily forget the links between National and The Exclusive Brethren, the non-contestable funding of parenting courses to Parents Inc, an earlier Parents Inc President Greg Sheehan moving to become the CEO of The National Party, The links between Bruce Pilbrow the current CEO and his working for Paula Bennett.

        The ongoing religious influence within the National Party from senior members such Jenny Shipley and the English’s. It’s clearly none of them have a charitable bone in their body.

        It’s no wonder the religious right feel they have a voice in NZ politics – they have – it’s called the National Party.

        Why is anyone surprised at their attacks on the poor and the indigent, on women, the allowing of businessMEN to stick all their income in trusts, the insistence that if your life is shit it’s your own fault, reducing services such as money to the Women’s Refuge, TIA, the removal of adult education (mainly utilised by women) and the transfer of that funding to religious schools from state schools, the provision of services transferring from the state to the religious groups e.g. Salvation Army for housing…….

        While there are some differences between the neo-liberal right and the religious right they are clearly strongly connected in NZ.

        Bringing poorhouses, forced adoption and single mothers homes to somewhere other than their own neighborhood soon.

  4. just saying 4
    10 May 2012 at 10:03 am

    This is about market share. Dunne would be in direct competion with Craig for the nutty-fundy vote in the next election.

    Except he’s finished.

    Seems to be in denial.

    • Lanthanide 4.1
      10 May 2012 at 10:33 am

      I think you’re right. Apparently many of the list candidates for Conservatives are from Christian Heritage et all, and some from UF itself.

      • Pete George 4.1.1
        10 May 2012 at 11:33 am

        Dunne is nothing like a “nutty-fundy”. He learnt the hard way that nutty-fundies are a disaster in politics, they almost sank United Future who haven’t been able to shake off an association that departed from the party five years ago.

        If anyone knows the dangers of nutty-fundies Dunne should be an expert.

        • felix 4.1.1.1
          10 May 2012 at 11:50 am

          What was there to learn? Seriously Pete, that’s no excuse.

          • Pete George 4.1.1.1.1
            10 May 2012 at 11:55 am

            He’s admitted it was a mistake to unite with them. He makes no excuses for trying, but got burnt and learnt.

            It was a learning experience for other parties too, either warning them off or confirming their concerns. Except Colin Craig – he tries to deny the Christian connection but that’s impossible looking at some of his recruits.

            • Kotahi Tane Huna 4.1.1.1.1.1
              10 May 2012 at 11:58 am

              “He makes excuses for trying”.

              The chief one being “I am a political whore and parasite and don’t really look too closely at anyone who might help me keep my snout in the trough.”

              • NickS …
                10 May 2012 at 12:05 pm

                lawl.

                Yes, Dunne should have known better given the stupidity, drama and all round fuckwittery that occurred in the Christian Heritage party before it’s implosion.

            • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.1.1.1.2
              10 May 2012 at 12:02 pm

              Saying it was a mistake doesn’t exactly lend him the credibility to be throwing stones on this matter when it simply looks like he’ll become irrelevant next election, if he even manages to hold on to Ohariu after voting against the interests of his electorate on asset sales.

              • Pete George …
                10 May 2012 at 3:36 pm

                after voting against the interests of his electorate on asset sales.

                That’s nonsense, Ohariu voted him back in knowing both National’s and UF’s positions on asset sales, a few protesters don’t speak for “the interests of his electorate”.

            • felix 4.1.1.1.1.3
              10 May 2012 at 6:03 pm

              “He’s admitted it was a mistake to unite with them”

              There’s honest mistakes and then there’s blatantly awful judgement with entirely foreseeable consequences.

              Which category do you honestly think teaming up with a bunch of fundamentalist theocrats falls under? I mean it’s not exactly a “could’ve gone either way” situation, is it?

              And seriously, what could he have possibly learned from the experience that wasn’t immediately apparent from the outset?

              • Pete George …
                10 May 2012 at 6:31 pm

                I honestly don’t know, I wasn’t following politics very closely then so don’t have any idea what should have been foreeable and what may be wisdom in retrospect.

                It’s impossible to know what position I’d have taken. I’m very wary of fundamenrtal Christians, but am fine with Christians who are ordinary Kiwis who happen to have beliefs on something that I don’t share.

                I first met someone from UF last August so missed any chance of meeting anyone from the Christian exodus. I’ve heard inside comments on Gordon Copeland’s exit in 2007 that weren’t very complimentary about honesty and intent.

                I’ve met and spent a bit of timing talking/listening to Judy Turner, she has Christian connections but she comse across as very pragmatic and sensible, I’d certainly be inclined to work with her if I had the opportunity. I think if she had held her seat it would have made a big difference to the party, and if she’d been in a position to stand last year it may well have helped, but impossible to say how much.

                So “Christian” shouldn’t be a red flag, there’s a wide variety of people with that faith – most are in fact “one of us” with little difference from most non-Christian Kiwis.

                I don’t think “Christian” was the real problem, it was the risk any party has, especially small parties, attracting people who are prepared to get into politics. Many have personal ambitions and expectations that won’t become apparent until they’re in. Power does different things to different people.

                Many decent people would not consider standing – in large part because of the unfair crap that is often thrown around. I think that’s our biggest problem, too small a willing pool of people who would risk their own and their and family’s exposure.

                • felix …
                  10 May 2012 at 8:10 pm

                  I don’t think “Christian” is a red flag at all, not in the everyday sense of the word. I’m not one myself but there are many Christian people who I have a great deal of respect for.

                  But when someone makes their religion the sole focal point of their politics, I do see red flags. Enormous ones, waving wildly, in the shape of just about everyone else who has ever made their religion the focal point of their politics.

                  • Pete George …
                    11 May 2012 at 7:09 am

                    How do you know how they will act and what their primary focus will be until they are in parliament?

                    Whatever ambitions a prospective MP may have, if they make it into parliament it’s a huge change in their lives, with vastly different potential power and responsibilities. It’s impossible to know how they’ll react to that.

                    Christins make up a significant part of our population, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that some Christians, especially of the more extreme variety, are seen to be unsuccessful additions to the parliamentary ranks. But is it disportionate?

                    There are and have been many Christian MPs who have not overplayed their faith in parliament.

                • alex …
                  10 May 2012 at 10:27 pm

                  That is a thoughtful and insightful comment from PG. No trolling here, that was really very interesting Pete.

  5. tsmithfield 5
    10 May 2012 at 10:13 am

    I don’t know that they are any more extreme in their conservative views than say ACT is on the economic far right, or Mana on the far left. If people don’t like the prospects of these types of parties being in government, then they shouldn’t have supported MMP, I guess.

    • TheContrarian 5.1
      10 May 2012 at 10:30 am

      The Conservative party is a socially conservative, religiously bent, party. You can’t compare them to any other party really because no other party in NZ has such views.

    • Armchair Critic 5.2
      10 May 2012 at 10:32 am

      Nice strawman, ts.
      MMP is a system for electing representatives, conservatism is a system of beliefs. They are quite different. People who do not want conservative representatives in parliament should not vote for candidates who promote conservatism.

    • cardassian 5.3
      10 May 2012 at 10:33 am

      Can hardly call Mana far left, more centre left imo.

      • millsy 5.3.1
        10 May 2012 at 10:36 am

        Quite. Mana support privatisation of water.

        • TheContrarian 5.3.1.1
          10 May 2012 at 10:42 am

          “Mana support privatisation of water.”

          err, what?
          http://mana.net.nz/2012/03/mana-supports-south-taranaki-iwi-in-their-opposition-to-local-water-privatisation/

          Mana are the furthest left party in NZ – they are far left 

          • millsy 5.3.1.1.1
            10 May 2012 at 10:48 am

            They support ownership of water by iwi.

            Just because an iwi’s name is on the title deed/stock certificate, doesnt mean its not privatisation.

            I find a lot of people on this site make that assumption.

            • TheContrarian 5.3.1.1.1.1
              10 May 2012 at 10:52 am

              Though I see what you mean I wouldn’t call  indigenous  ownership “privatisation”. “Privatisation” is ownership by a private business or organisation not an indigenous group – strictly speaking.

              • Colonial Viper …
                11 May 2012 at 12:00 am

                What if the business activities of the indigenous group is organised in corporate or commercial limited liability form?

          • fatty 5.3.1.1.2
            10 May 2012 at 10:53 am

            “Mana are the furthest left party in NZ”

            That equals centre…Mana are still a capitalist party

            • TheContrarian 5.3.1.1.2.1
              10 May 2012 at 10:54 am

              Capitalism is not the only thing that defines ideology.

              • fatty …
                10 May 2012 at 11:01 am

                True…but economic ideology is often how the left/right scale is perceived.
                We can use a more modern measurement of left vs right…How about Mana’s gender policies?..where do you fit them in on a left/right scale.

                • TheContrarian …
                  10 May 2012 at 11:09 am

                  True but capitalism can also be shaped, like Mana would attempt, to benefit the whole as opposed to the few in that Mana is pushing for the full equalization of social hierarchy under fully regulated capitalist economics. 

                  I haven’t seen anything on their gender polices (as far as I can recall). Can you give me some info/a link? 

                  • fatty …
                    10 May 2012 at 11:24 am

                    True, its a more socialist capitalism for sure.

                    good critiques here about Mana’s backward gender policies.

                    http://ideologicallyimpure.wordpress.com/tag/mana-party/
                    http://storytellerproductions.net/2011/08/11/te-mana-and-women/

                    Mana is actually socially conservative, much more conservative in that area than National…probably only less conservative that The Conservative Party.

                    Mana Party have ten key points of policy…I cannot find anything there relating to gender/homosexuality issues

                    Reo Tiriti Health Livelihoods Economics Education Enviro Housing Wellbeing Disability
                    http://mana.net.nz/policy/

                    Mana are economically conservative, and are also socially conservative…Economically left, but socially right.
                    Although I voted for them, I think calling them far left is excluding many of their (often non-existing) policies

                    • TheContrarian …
                      10 May 2012 at 11:28 am

                      Mana are definitely left in economics and are definitely left in the NZ political sphere…however you have given me some interesting things to think about. Mana’s racial policies are very out of step with far left-wing ideology that’s for sure.

                    • Carol …
                      10 May 2012 at 11:31 am

                      Thanks for this.  I have been watching Mana as a possible party to vote for in the next general election… especially if the Greens continue to move more to the centre.
                      I have had reservations about where they stand on gender, but haven’t really seen any evidence much either way.  When I’ve raised the issue with people that talk about the credentials of Annette Sykes.  Bradford is also very good on gender and sexuality issues.
                      It’s getting increasingly hard to know what party to vote for, but I will keep watching Mana and the Greens.

                    • fatty …
                      10 May 2012 at 11:35 am

                      “Although I voted for them, I think calling them far left is excluding many of their (often non-existing) policies”

                      yeah…its a strange mix.
                      Like many people, I gave them my vote based on their economic policies, but I oppose many of their social policies/standpoint.
                      I am still waiting on a party that is socially liberal and economically socialist…I’m not holding my breath.

                    • TheContrarian …
                      10 May 2012 at 11:42 am

                      I find some of their social policies more divisive than the divisions they wish to address.

                    • Vicky32 …
                      10 May 2012 at 5:00 pm

                      Mana Party have ten key points of policy…I cannot find anything there relating to gender/homosexuality issues

                      Why do you feel that’s necessary. and that the absence of such a policy means they’re conservative? An interesting bias on your part… You ought to love Josie Pagani then, for the way she bit Hooten’s head off for his allegedly anti-gay remarks on 9 to Noon! 😀

                    • fatty …
                      10 May 2012 at 6:42 pm

                      Vicky32;

                      “Why do you feel that’s necessary. and that the absence of such a policy means they’re conservative? An interesting bias on your part… You ought to love Josie Pagani then”

                      Why do I feel policies on gender equality are necessary? Is that a serious question?
                      I feel policies on gender equality are necessary because I see women as equal to men. I also consider LGTB’s as equal to heterosexuals. Mana should be promoting equality between sexual cultures just as they do with ethnic cultures (your question shows an interesting bias on your part).
                      Yes, I’d say that if Mana highlight and resist cultural privilege (ethnicity), but don’t bother about another vitally important cultural privilege (sexuality)…then I stand by my label of Mana Party as socially conservative. Feel free to challenge that properly rather than making a vague reference to a non-existent bias you assume I hold.
                      And lastly, as for an absence of such a policy meaning Mana are socially conservative…I made it quite clear above why I think Mana are socially conservative…if you don’t agree with me, then here is Hone stating his ideology;
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG1W4qFfvQQ&feature=relmfu#t=10m35s

                      For the record I have no time for Pangani, I heard her on the radio the other day with Hooten, they sounded like a pair of neoliberal nutjobs fighting over the same piece of rotten meat. (smiley face)

  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    10 May 2012 at 10:28 am

    Fine balance between exposing extremists to public scrutiny and letting them actually do anything. ACT’s minuscule vote landed us with a corporatist super city and charter schools thanks to Nationals ‘Trojan Horsing’ duplicity.

    Lets just hope at the very least Colin Craig has a better track record of relating to young people than Graham Capill.

  7. Lanthanide 7
    10 May 2012 at 10:33 am

    There was a story on Stuff yesterday where Key said he was ruling out Winston Peters for the remainder of this term of parliament. The writer highlighted this as a change in attitude, as previously Key had ruled Winston out without giving any time frame.

  8. millsy 8
    10 May 2012 at 10:45 am

    If we want evolution and science to be taught in our schools still, then I strongly suggest that liberals on both the left and the right unite to keep Colin Craig and his band of merry men out of the House. Imagine if they got seats in Cabinet:

    1) No-fault divorce, gone by lunchtime
    2) They may not recriminalise homosexuality, but they would probably have gays and lesbians barred from teaching jobs and certain sexually themed books pulled from our school libaries.
    3) Chop welfare and replace it with ‘faith based charity’, along with our public hospitals.
    4) No state funding for contraception. Ever. Not even the Pill and condoms.
    5) Anything about sex pulled from the airwaves.
    6) Ten Commandments displayed in all public buildings.

    It will be all god god god and more god.

    They probably will ban Harry Potter books too. They dont like competition. After all, They are ones who have a book about a guy who goes around waving a magic wand and making things appear as well.

    • TheContrarian 8.1
      10 May 2012 at 10:47 am

      Basically, welcome to Rick Santorums USA.

      • millsy 8.1.1
        10 May 2012 at 10:49 am

        I was rather relieved when he announced that we was quitting the GOP nomination race.

        • TheContrarian 8.1.1.1
          10 May 2012 at 10:53 am

          I felt if America was stupid enough to vote him into power then they deserve what they get

          • Lanthanide 8.1.1.1.1
            10 May 2012 at 11:24 am

            Yeah, but does the rest of the world also deserve it? Bush’s abstinence only requirement for foreign aid funding really did a number on a lot of health organisations battling HIV.

            Huntsman pulled out of the race way too early. If you look at the graphs, the media were doing a system of promoting one politician after another, trying to find someone better than mitt. I think if he’d stayed on for another month he would have had his turn and quite possibly could have put on a much stronger show than Santorum or Gingrich did.

            • NickS 8.1.1.1.1.1
              10 May 2012 at 12:13 pm

              Huntsman didn’t have a chance to begin with.

              The internal power structure of the GOP is pretty much rotten and to get any headway requires aligning with conservative christian factions and corporate lobbyists, and even the faintest whiff of liberalism is enough to get you shitcanned. And woe betide thee if you’ve worked with the Democrats recently thanks to the teabaggers departure from reality. Or worse yet, consider climate change to be something that’s happening.

              • TheContrarian …
                10 May 2012 at 12:19 pm

                Even believing in Evolution is enough to get you canned as the republican nominee 

              • Pete George …
                10 May 2012 at 12:23 pm

                The internal power structure of the GOP is pretty much rotten

                What about “the internal power structure of the USA is pretty much rotten”?

                Too much money involved, too much power involved, too many embedded vested interests and to many entrenched self serving systems. I really don’t see how US democracy can recover from a terminal illness.

          • NickS 8.1.1.1.2
            10 May 2012 at 12:07 pm

            lawl.

            Unfortunately we all end up paying the price of American stupidity 😛

    • Lanthanide 8.2
      10 May 2012 at 11:21 am

      All that with a single seat? It’ll be far more than Winston Peters ever managed in all of his partnerships in government.

      • millsy 8.2.1
        10 May 2012 at 11:30 am

        ACT got a cap on public spending with its concequent impacts on the ability of any future government to fund the social wage system as it is, (let alone extend it) with one seat.

        So ergo, I would imagine that getting the policies I have highlighted, would come with ease. #6 requires very little expenditure, while #4 can come with the justification of getting back to surplus by ’14/15.

        • Matthew Whitehead 8.2.1.1
          10 May 2012 at 12:08 pm

          Political capital is just as scarce as public funding in the government right now. Can you imagine the political capital it would take to claw back no-fault divorce? The straight people will be rioting in the streets.

    • ianmac 8.3
      10 May 2012 at 11:34 am

      There was a National Minister of Education Merv Wellington back in the late 70s, who tried to instigate daily flag raising in schools and the banning of any nudity or sex in books in schools. At least one Principal went through his school library and with a black felt tipped pen blacked out works of art and digrams of how the body works. He tore out pages which could be “misintepreted.”
      He did what he knew his Christian church wanted him to do. Bless you my son.

    • Matthew Whitehead 8.4
      10 May 2012 at 12:06 pm

      Actually I hope they’re prominent in the election and get plenty of media coverage. The right loses whenever it lets its extremists speak the truth, very few people like it, and even then, only when they’re scared. We can stand up to fearmongering.

    • Vicky32 8.5
      10 May 2012 at 5:02 pm

      6) Ten Commandments displayed in all public buildings.
      It will be all god god god and more god.
      They probably will ban Harry Potter books too. They dont like competition. After all, They are ones who have a book about a guy who goes around waving a magic wand and making things appear as well.

      Er, links to their policy that shows these things are likely, especially number 6! Otherwise, I can safely assume it’s just your testerical bigotry… 😀

  9. fatty 9
    10 May 2012 at 11:37 am

    Is anyone aware of the conservative’s economic policies, or can post a link?
    If they exist?

    • fatty 10.1
      10 May 2012 at 12:38 pm

      ” http://www.conservativeparty.org.nz/policies.php ”

      These are the 4th & 3rd to last policies they have listed…

      “Allow police to stop and search anyone who they have good cause to suspect is carrying a knife or offensive weapon.”

      “The repeal of any law which allows authorities to monitor electronic communications without a court order. The presumption should be that a citizen’s electronic communications are innocent and private, with the onus on the police to show good cause to intercept or otherwise monitor them. Judges and not the police decide whether there is good cause.”

      So to summarise those two policies…The police do not have the right to decide whether there is a good cause…unless the police suspect there is a good cause.

      • Jeremy Harris 10.1.1
        10 May 2012 at 1:43 pm

        There are two different standards of proof on law enforcement;

        “reasonable cause to believe” and

        “reasonable cause to suspect”

        Reasonable cause to believe means that you need some evidence that if you search you will find what you are looking for. It is a high standard of proof and is in most NZ law. Essentially it means you would be quite shocked to search and not find what you believed you were looking for in the place you were looking for it. Witness testimony is sufficient, i.e. interviewing a suspect who testifies, “Joe Bloggs hides his unlicenced shotgun under the sink at his place”.

        Reasonable cause to suspect is a lower standard of proof and is less applicable in NZ law, for example Customs Officers have it to search at borders and in CCA’s, this means they can damage property and search bags etc if they have reason to suspect something might be concealed, i.e. they can force entry in a compartment of a bag if they have seen examples of restricted goods concealed in a similar manner in the past.

        • fatty 10.1.1.1
          10 May 2012 at 11:19 pm

          I’ve just read your summary and I have no idea of how they relate to the Conserative’s policies. The difference between ‘believe’ and ‘suspect’ is irrelevant…for the average person or cop they are one in the same.
          In the end the youth and/or Maori will be searched and the middle aged / upper class white person will be free to go. Our justice system is racist from the handcuffs to the courtroom.
          I believe lawyers protect the rich, I suspect cops target ethnic minorities. I suspect lawyers protect the rich, I believe cops target ethnic minorities.

    • Vicky32 10.2
      11 May 2012 at 3:16 pm

      The only policies they seem to have are the Laura Norder ones! I can’t find any others at all…
       

  11. prism 11
    10 May 2012 at 1:16 pm

    NZ is high on the early sex stakes, along with the USA. It takes two to tango and many good people are here and now because of youth pregnancies by their parents. If a woman has another pregnancy while on the benefit, then she will have two children and should think about having long term contraception. And she should have lots of support with time for personal discussion with a trained and sympathetic medical person, no overbearing patronising, military or spite-filled types for this task please. I do believe that we should be educating and supporting both sexes while still ‘youth’ to think and talk about this.

    Also teenage mothers should be going to school (with on-site creche) in their own group so that they don’t get ignorant and negative approaches in an ordinary class that would affect their learning. We would need to ensure that they had opportunity to work on their skills and gifts to raise their self-value and determination to be a good parent and to manage their emotional lives well. At the same time they would be getting NCEA credits for future jobs and in childcare and money management and practical house and garden maintenance. They would get a centre for their social life and become well-informed and lift their sights about their own importance as mothers (I’m concentrating on females here) in society.

    Mr Colin Craig parts his hair in the middle which is always a good sign of a balanced mind. He also has a tight-lipped smile, heralding the righteousness of the self-controlled purist with all the answers about sexuality. Which gives him the right to make moral judgments.

    Many men like to do that – one Potter facing the opposite direction died recently. And one is on trial right now for the crime committed by Jake’s friend in Once were Warriors, possibly carried out in the way shown on film. I remember hearing that African men had the folk-myth that having sex couldn’t lead to AIDS if it was with young girls, probably because they were virgins, though that was a once-only opportunity. But the young girl idea rather than being a virgin might have become the prevailing one.

    • prism 12.1
      10 May 2012 at 4:39 pm

      Craig reminds me of a Greek key (lots of twists and angles). Hey that could be our NZ PM.

  13. Jenny 13
    10 May 2012 at 10:27 pm

    Colin Craig is no Christian with his attack on sole mothers, reverting to some sort of pre Christian fundamentalist concept of fallen women.

    Jesus Christ himself was less judgemental than Craig appears to be.

    In the parable “Jesus and the woman taken in adultery”:

    Jesus defended the women who had committed adultery, saving her life.

    “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” Jesus said.

    John 8:7

    The passage describes a confrontation between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees over whether a woman, caught in an act of adultery, ought to be stoned. Jesus shames the crowd into dispersing, and averts the execution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adulte

    Compare the parable according to Jesus Christ of the woman accused of adultery, with the parable according to Colin Craig of sole mothers accused of being promiscuous.

    Are solo mothers more promiscuous than the rest of us?

    Or are they just more vulnerable?

    Colin Craig reaches for the sharpest hardest stones within his reach.

  14. Well Balanced: a Chip on Both Shoulders 14
    10 May 2012 at 11:53 pm

    +1. Well put Jenny.

    Colin Craig has effectively described all Kiwi women as “sluts”. One cannot say what he said about women who are on benefit without implying that all women are like that. His comments speak about Craig himself rather than NZ women. I know nothing about his upbringing and background but I’m curious to understand how he has has got to having such a low opinion of women-kind. He is a bigot and an idiot.