Yeah, nah, too far

Written By: - Date published: 12:46 pm, November 10th, 2009 - 81 comments
Categories: maori party - Tags: ,

We all use language sometimes that’s too stong and we regret. Hone Harawira apologised today over his choice of words in the “white motherf**kers” email.

Unfortunately, he followed that up by saying Phil Goff “should be lined up against the wall and shot” over the foreshore and seabed law.

It looks to me like his head’s not in the right place. Perhaps the pressure of internal friction in the Maori Party is getting to him. Whatever the reasons, it’s no excuse for these comments.

Time to take a few deep breaths, Hone. Your principles are good but this shooting from the lip and your little Paris junket are undermining them. You’ve gone too far and you’re going to struggle to recover your political career from here.

81 comments on “Yeah, nah, too far ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Daveski 1
    10 November 2009 at 12:50 pm

    However, if Hone had referred instead to the relationship between Oedipus complex and post-colonial suppression of the tangata whenua, we would have been impressed with his complex thinking. Funny how ideas and words are quite different things!

    Still, right now he’s the gift that keeps giving for someone.

  2. felix 2
    10 November 2009 at 12:57 pm

    Be running as an independent next time I guess.

    Probably win too.

  3. Chen 3
    10 November 2009 at 1:05 pm

    The UK have got Nick Griffin, we’ve got Hone Harawira.

  4. burt 4
    10 November 2009 at 1:06 pm

    Eddie

    So if Goff shouldn’t be ‘shot’ for the foreshore and seabed law then are you saying that the foreshore and seabed law was a good law ?

    Or are you just being a Muldoon type where you never admid mistakes beause that is not the way old school politicians behave?

    • Eddie 4.1
      10 November 2009 at 1:10 pm

      Burt said:

      So if Goff shouldn’t be ‘shot’ for the foreshore and seabed law then are you saying that the foreshore and seabed law was a good law ?

      That’s possibly the most idiotic sentence ever written on this blog, burt.

      My views on the F&S Act are clear, look in the archives or learn to use google.

      I shouldn’t need to explain that my problem with Hone’s comments is that I’m opposed to political violence, full stop.

      Your routine’s really starting to get a little tiring burt. Who do you think you’re impressing?

  5. Brett Dale 5
    10 November 2009 at 1:09 pm

    Like all bullies he is a gutless wimp and a coward. It must of been so easy for him to go on Maori radio and be interviewed by Willie Jackson.

    I remember comedian “Sinbad” commented on Michael Richards going on Letterman to say sorry and saying he should of gone on a African American show to say sorry it would of meant more.

    Anyway in my opinion, Hone got a free ride, too bad some people will forgive him just because of his skin colour.

    If he runs again as a independent or for the Maori party, the people who voted for him will get what they deserved.

  6. Bill 6
    10 November 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Aw c’mon eddie.

    He said that if he should be suspended for swearing then Goff should be shot for the F&S.

    Fair comment I’d have thought. I mean, somebody uses a rude word….oh my gosh, don’t tell teacher!…and they are to be punished versus what appropriate punishment for massive land confiscation? And don’t tell me that Hone is being anything other than metaphorical….simply using colourful language. Strange how colourful or descriptive language upsets some. Never have been able to figure that one out. Maybe Goff will shed some light on it during his pantomime piece?

    • felix 6.1
      10 November 2009 at 1:36 pm

      Oh you’re fucking kidding. This is all because of an analogy?

      Jeebers. Lern 2 reed moar yoo idjits.

    • lukas 6.2
      10 November 2009 at 1:38 pm

      grow up Bill…. Hone is an idiot for saying that someone should be shot, how is that helping his cause at all?

      • felix 6.2.1
        10 November 2009 at 1:54 pm

        But he didn’t say someone should be shot, did he?

        • lukas 6.2.1.1
          10 November 2009 at 1:57 pm

          sorry, forgot that he said that he should be lined up against the wall first….huge difference.

          • felix 6.2.1.1.1
            10 November 2009 at 2:13 pm

            Nah, he made a comparison.

            As Bill notes above, he said that if he should be suspended for swearing then Goff should be shot for the F&S.

            That’s a very different statement altogether. He’s making a comparison of the relative seriousness of his own transgressions with those of Goff’s.

            Maybe a poor choice of words (or maybe a deliberately provocative one) but it’s not at all the same thing as saying someone should be shot.

            • gobsmacked 6.2.1.1.1.1
              10 November 2009 at 2:22 pm

              Smart response from Goff this afternoon:

              “As for being lined up and shot, I’m not taking that seriously.”

              Let the media go to town on it, Goff doesn’t need to, it’s a story already.

            • Tigger 6.2.1.1.1.2
              10 November 2009 at 3:45 pm

              If Hone thinks swearing was his only crime then he’s a lost cause.

        • the sprout 6.2.1.2
          10 November 2009 at 11:42 pm

          exactly. reminds me of those monty python “Is she a witch” inquistion skits. everyone waits with baited breath to watch every word uttered, be it denial, confession under torture or rational refutation confirm that YES, SHE IS A WITCH!

          anything Hone says, even if it isn’t what he said, will be eager awaited by similar intellects as those portrayed in the sketches to provide more ‘incontrovertible evidence’ that YES, HE IS A RACIST! A SCARY ANGRY BLACK MAN – BEWARE!

      • Bill 6.2.2
        10 November 2009 at 2:41 pm

        Hey Lukas, What the fuck was Goff on about calling for somebody to be suspended for swearing? …..You can picture it, can’t you?…A classroom of 9 year old’s….Goff’s hand quivering and straining as he seemingly attempts to touch the ceiling from a sitting position while simultaneously making little grunty toilet sounds “Please Miss! Please Miss! Hone swore Miss! He used a bad word Miss and I think he should be suspended Miss. Miss, Miss!”

        Anyway, it’s perfectly valid to slam sanctimonious pricks like Goff when they display faux prudish bullshit and secondly, but much more importantly, what about the substantive issues?

        • lukas 6.2.2.1
          10 November 2009 at 4:40 pm

          If Hone was a list MP I would have expected any party to suspend him for his racist outburst.

        • Tigger 6.2.2.2
          10 November 2009 at 5:18 pm

          Suspended for swearing or suspended for ripping off the taxpayer, lying and abusing white people in vile language?

          This isn’t just about using mofo, this is about how he used it, the vitriol behind his attack and his defence of jumping off an official trip to go tour the Louvre.

    • rocky 6.3
      10 November 2009 at 3:29 pm

      Well said Bill 🙂

      • Bright Red 6.3.1
        10 November 2009 at 3:40 pm

        it’s not a matter of whether this is a legitimate phrase in some circumstances. The fact is it was a bloody stupid thing to say given that’s he’s already in trouble for the junket and the mf email.

        It just shows appalling judgement. He should have known that all this would lead to is more trouble. In fact, Willie Jackson tried to get him to shut up before he said it.

  7. lukas 7
    10 November 2009 at 1:26 pm

    That is not an apology at all. That is a “sorry I got caught”, he doesn’t resent any of his comments.

    Racist mofo

  8. coge 8
    10 November 2009 at 1:27 pm

    BTW where is Phil Goff? If he had a shred of PM material, he wouldn’t be hiding away.

    • lukas 8.1
      10 November 2009 at 1:30 pm

      cut it out. He has called a press conference for this afternoon… you can’t expect an instant response from an interview with the third rate radio show hosted by a third rate host Willie Jackson. Attacking Goff for this is just petty.

    • gingercrush 8.2
      10 November 2009 at 1:30 pm

      He’s doing a press conference about it or something.

      Frankly Harawira is disgusting no matter whether you agree with his principles or not. A principled person would be able to compose themselves better.

    • vidiot 8.3
      10 November 2009 at 1:39 pm

      He’s out investing in a new bullet proof suit.

      Rofl Captcha: puncture

  9. Deus ex Machina 9
    10 November 2009 at 1:42 pm

    “Hone’s principles are good”?

    I was deprived of a father by German military action in Italy in 1945. Does that permit me to blame all the failures of my life on every German “motherf****r” alive today? Should I have spent the last fifty years demanding compensation from the German people for depriving me of a father-figure in my youth with all the losses of income, affection, example and encouragement I would have received from him had he been alive?

    The damage Harawera is doing to ‘racial harmony’ in this country by encouraging the belief that his stupidity represents main-stream Maori thinking is incalculable.

    • Bright Red 9.1
      10 November 2009 at 1:50 pm

      I don’t see how iwi claiming compensation from the crown is analogous to the situation you’re describing.

      The iwi signed a treaty with the Crown, the Crown breached it. Compensation (which, btw, is usually about 1% of what was taken) is due. That’s a foundation stone of anglo-saxon law – when person A damages person B, A owes compensation to B for that damage.

      It doesn’t matter that the treaty was signed 169 years ago or that most of the breaches occured over 100 years ago, the parties still exist. Just as a company can sue another company for breach of contract decades ago.

      The treaty was not signed between individuals who are now dead, it was signed by the still extant bodies they represented.

      • Deus ex Machina 9.1.1
        10 November 2009 at 2:57 pm

        Harawera wasn’t complaining about “the Crown” breaching legal obligations. His emailed rant is a declaration that he does not regard himself as being bound by a particular standards of honesty or integrity because those standards are promulgated by the third-or fourth-generation descendants of a generation towards which he feels a grievance.

        Yes, Iwi might have a claim against the Crown. That’s a matter for historians and lawyers. The “white motherf****rs” living in New Zealand today, who are not the Crown yet accept his right to sit in the legislature under the system of Government we consent to, who pay his salary and perks and will pay his pension, expect in return a certain standard of integrity, of civil behaviour and of constructive problem solving. Harawera has shown himself devoid of all three and has no business being there.

        • Chess Player 9.1.1.1
          10 November 2009 at 3:01 pm

          Well said.

          It is amazing that there are people who will try to justify what this guy has done.

          It also risks setting back race relations in this country decades.

        • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.2
          10 November 2009 at 3:04 pm

          Election before last Labour only just won after passing legislation denying a whole bunch of property rights to Maori. In the same election National nearly won by promising to do the same things only harder, (and abolish the Maori seats and lord knows what all else).

          That’s not several generations ago, and it’s a whole lot of votes from people thta supported that stuff, to some degree or another.

          • Bill 9.1.1.2.1
            10 November 2009 at 3:54 pm

            Maybe it’s just me, but there feels to be a certain echoing of those pre election anti-Maori sentiments in this thread ( Is it a failing to recognise Maori grievances as quite justified and therefore to some degree or other dismissable?)….and I mean from left leaning commentators as well as right leaning one’s.

            A tad unsettling.

            I’d have thought the only way forward for the left was to wholly and unabashedly embrace the Maori perspective and then broaden the church by tying the race and class issues together.

            Then it could be said that NZ is moving forward on race relations ( and class and gender etc)….when all of us oppressed come together on our common ground rather than forlornly shouting shit from our own wee patch.

            just saying…..’cause I hate the constant undercurrent of racism in this country….know what I mean?

        • Bright Red 9.1.1.3
          10 November 2009 at 3:07 pm

          I’m not trying to justify Hone at all.

          Deus was comparing holding a grievance with a country because an ancestor dies in war against it to the iwi claiming compensation for treaty breaches.

          It was the same old ‘it happened ages ago, they should get over it’ line. And I was pointing out the problem with that is the treaty was signed by extant parties.

          I’m not in any way defending Harawira’s remarks.

  10. tc 10
    10 November 2009 at 1:48 pm

    The more I see from Hone the more it looks like he’s building up a profile to go independant from the MP.
    Unless de-facto approving NACT policy by letting your Party carry the ETS/ACC etc in parliament is what he’s about…….yeah right.
    MP parliamentary leadership is weak and caved in for no real gain to Maori on crucial issues when they had them over a barrel……is that what Hone joined the MP in a NACT gov’t for ? methinks not and unlike his peers he has principles.

  11. gobsmacked 11
    10 November 2009 at 1:51 pm

    It’s pretty painful listening to Harawira on Radio Live, with Jackson and Tamihere. Lots of assertions, not much analysis.

    Now the talkback callers are on, 80% of them are fruit cakes.

    None of this is helping the Maori Party’s cause. We’ve had a year of optimism in race relations, with National leaving Orewa in the past, and Labour revising its stance on Foreshore and Seabed. There was a chance to move forward, a potential consensus. It’s rapidly slipping away.

    All very sad.

  12. Leopold 12
    10 November 2009 at 1:53 pm

    “principles are good”

    Oh fer Chrissake – stop toadying to the little creep. His principles enabled him to feed off the MP-NACT teat until he got caught, and even then he’ll find away to worm back into the govt bosom – his attack on Goff should be enough for that

  13. BLiP 13
    10 November 2009 at 1:57 pm

    Should I have spent the last fifty years demanding compensation from the German people for depriving me of a father-figure in my youth with all the losses of income, affection, example and encouragement I would have received from him had he been alive

    Did the German Head of the State come to New Zealand to apologise in person and acknowledge your grievance?

  14. Zaphod Beeblebrox 14
    10 November 2009 at 1:59 pm

    Makes we wonder what his bottom line is for the F and S. Key has said that everybody will have access (enshrined in law I assume), which means their will be no freehold title, which means it is still a confiscation of land rights.

    If they want to give partial (customary? ancestral?) rights they would need new legislation.

    My legal knowledge is rudimentary, will it work like this or am I naive?

  15. George D 15
    10 November 2009 at 2:09 pm

    I don’t think you understand just how deeply many, including Harawira, feel about their betrayal by Labour over the confiscation of the Seabed and Foreshore.

  16. Pascal's bookie 16
    10 November 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Look, if Goff has been tagging a wall it’s not murder.

  17. torydog 17
    10 November 2009 at 2:29 pm

    Hone is a dork……and frankly needs to be booted!

    One law for Hone and maori and another law for the rest of us….that what it amounts to and frankly F & S…get over it! Labour came up with the best decision that safeguarded F & S for us all, and I wonder what the solution would have been had Brash won the 2005 election….

  18. Pascal's bookie 18
    10 November 2009 at 2:33 pm

    As for Goff’s presser, meh.

    Should’ve used it as an opportunity to say Hone was right. Labour panicked and fucked up, he personally is sorry, the FSA was shit and that labour looks forward to a multi partisan resolution of the issue now that all the scaremongering about beaches and iwi/kiwi has been dustbinned.

    • gobsmacked 18.1
      10 November 2009 at 2:38 pm

      PB

      The point is, Labour have been moving in that direction on the F &S, and National too. But “I agree with Hone” is the last thing any politician wants to say right now.

      Harawira is making things much tougher for Finlayson, Sharples etc who are trying to get a workable deal, probably with cross-party support in Parliament.

      And I don’t think the H is going back into wHanganui this week!

      • Pascal's bookie 18.1.1
        10 November 2009 at 2:53 pm

        I just don’t think Phil’s passive aggressive approach helps either.

        If he’d said Hone was right and included in the sound bite in what way he meant he was right, he’d have been talking about an issue rather than the horse race, taking his lumps for labour’s failings, pointing to a new direction, starting to mend bridges with the mP, (who are under some stress at the mo), and putting pressure on the Nats to get this issue sorted in a progressive way.

        Which wouldn’t have been bad for an afternoons work. IMV

  19. researcher 19
    10 November 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Phil Goff “should be lined up against the wall and shot’

    How do you line up one person?

    • Daveo 19.1
      10 November 2009 at 3:08 pm

      Hone also included some unspecified “mates” of Phil Goff in his list of people he thought should be lined up and shot.

      • Zaphod Beeblebrox 19.1.1
        10 November 2009 at 3:38 pm

        Not funny, in light of events in the last few days and the Leonard Snee death earlier this year. It only takes one crazy to take him literally and you have a tragedy. He should be more responsible.

        • J Mex 19.1.1.1
          10 November 2009 at 5:12 pm

          “It only takes one crazy to take him literally and you have a tragedy. He should be more responsible.”

          The term now is mental illness, and your post could be taken as stereotyping by saying that people with mental illnesses could be a danger and kill people.

          You should be more responsible with you language.

  20. J Mex 20
    10 November 2009 at 4:44 pm

    All this episode does for me is illustrate the double standard that exists.

    I can’t imagine the same relatively mild response from The Standard, Kiwiblog and the mainstream media if, say, Rodney Hide, had replied to a constituents concern about his behaviour by insinuating that “black motherf**kers” had caused a lot of problems to pakeha.

    Would Eddie be asking for Rodney to simply “take a deep breath”?

    Hell, I’d get banned from The Standard for writing a tirade that “black motherf**kers” or “yellow mothf**kers” were responsible for our problems – And rightly so.

    • Daveo 20.1
      10 November 2009 at 5:20 pm

      I think people give Hone a bit more leeway because he’s not a polished politician like Hide and others, he talks with a frankness and lack of diplomacy you’d expect to hear down the pub and is in a way the anti-politician.

      That leeway’s probably all but gone given his recent antics.

      • Brett 20.1.1
        10 November 2009 at 5:55 pm

        You give him leeway because you think he’s a dumb blacky

        [lprent: I’ll let this pass without a ban because of the context of the discussion. However I’m pulling in your leeway because I think that you’re probably a dumb troll based on your past comments.

        Adding you to the moderation queue while we see if it is possible for you to raise your standard of comments. I suspect that won’t happen, but I have been surprised before. ]

        • Brett 20.1.1.1
          10 November 2009 at 8:19 pm

          Your right Sergeant major , I am a troll and I am not worthy to post on your board.Sir

          [lprent: Issat you d4j? You have been doing pretty damn well – no-one picked it. Go away and come back next week. ]

      • J Mex 20.1.2
        10 November 2009 at 7:56 pm

        Maybe. But a lot on the left were quick to paint Melissa Lee as racist for insinuating that there were a lot of criminals in South Auckland.

        She didn’t once refer to a race or a colour and was probably factually correct that there is a higher incidence of crime in South Auckland.

        She was widely derided as being racist and even had students turn up to her speeches with pictures of her with swastikas painted on. I bet you a trip to Paris that none of those radicals for racial harmony will be seen harassing Hone at any of his events.

        Yes, there was a difference in that one was in the middle of electioneering, but it does show that stupid and naive politicians (Lee) don’t always get leeway (excuse the pun).

        If Lee’s comment was held here as racist (and I can’t be bothered trawling through posts to see if they were), then Hone’s comments are racist in the extreme.

        Imagine Lee saying “The proposed new motorway will divert all those brown motherf**kers from South Auckland away from your suburb” and ask if there is anyone in NZ (save the national front), who would cut her ANY slack at all.

        • Pascal's bookie 20.1.2.1
          10 November 2009 at 8:19 pm

          There’s a difference. When you are talking about crime, you are talking about non sanctioned actions by individuals, who are, get this, criminals liable for prosecution and outside of respectable society.

          When Hone talks about Maori land being confiscated since the Treaty, he’s talking about sanctioned breaks of that treaty by duly elected governments, supported by the electorate at large. if you honestly can’t see the difference then you need to reflect a bit about exactly how maori are supposed to talk and think about it. Should they just be all nice and pretend there wasn’t a huge majority of people demanding the F&S be confiscated just 5 years ago?

          • J Mex 20.1.2.1.1
            10 November 2009 at 8:48 pm

            Pascal, you are being willfully ignorant and you miss my point altogether

            The two comments (by Melissa and Hone) are pretty much this:

            1) There are a lot of criminals in South Auckland. Maybe this will stop them coming here
            2) White motherf**kers have been ripping us off for centuries

            For 1 to be held as extremely racist to the point of painting nazi signs on posters and 2 to not be particularly racist, then we live in a pretty screwed up world with a pretty screwed up definition of “racist”.

            Let me make this clear. There is NOTHING racist in 1. It is stupid but not racist. It doesn’t mention race, colour, or particular groups of people. For 1 to be racist, the phrase “I don’t like Mission Bay” is racist.

            2 is actually racist. It’s not extremely racist and is more impolite than anything.

            Care to argue that 1 is racist and 2 is not? If this is your honestly held belief then you and I are on different planets and are using very different dictionaries.

            • Pascal's bookie 20.1.2.1.1.1
              10 November 2009 at 9:09 pm

              Ok,

              1) is a dogwhistle, check out this quote from Lee Atwater who got lots of Republicans elected.

              You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

              Worth noting: he got Republicans elected by winning the south, talking about ‘Crime’. Lee’s comments were practiced. There was something there beyond stupidity all right.

              That’s not to say that I think n*zi signs are or were an appropriate response. And I’m not saying that there aren’t racial overtones to what Hone said either, of course there are. All I am saying is, well, what I said.

              Do you think the majority population has treated Maori well, or that they have not been robbed, or that they should not be angry about that, or that they need to ask politely please in order to be listened to?

              Or that if just one high profile activist says some inflammatory shit then that’s it, throw the toys out of the cot and make it all about the uppity angry black man?

            • the sprout 20.1.2.1.1.2
              10 November 2009 at 11:47 pm

              exactly, well put Pb

            • J Mex 20.1.2.1.1.3
              11 November 2009 at 5:33 pm

              I give up.

              What you hold, as far as I can ascertain is this:

              “There are a lot of criminals in South Auckland” is a racist dogwhistle statement.

              The statement “White motherf**kers have been ripping us off” – might have “racial overtones”.

              Do you really believe that? Really? Are you suggesting that Rodney Hide saying “There are a lot of those black motherf**kers on benefits” is a statement that “might have racial overtones” and that Eddies response that Hide should “take a deep breath” is an appropriate response. You know Hide would be out on his ass, and rightly so.

              What I can’t understand, Pascal, is if these are honestly held beliefs of yours, or you can’t bear to make a fair assesment of someone you view as “on your team” or if you are just trying to win the argument at all costs, with the most strained and by extension logic ever, and the game is to keep going until the other guy gives up.

              It’s one of these three, and what I do know is that there is no point arguing with someone who is going for one of them. I should have learnt this lesson a while back, and it confirms my suspicion that, for the most part, most blogs of the “left” and “right” are just sad echo chambers or cheerleading squads of people who aren’t actually interested in right and wrong or truth, just scoring points for their “team”

              In answer to your questions:

              “Do you think the majority population has treated Maori well, or that they have not been robbed, or that they should not be angry about that, or that they need to ask politely please in order to be listened to? ”

              – No. Historically they haven’t been treated well, and yes they can feel angry. But Hone is no more excused in his statement than Rodney Hide twittering “Just had my car broken into and had laptop stolen. VERY ANGRY. Police caught the black motherf**ker but it made me late for dancing lessons”

            • J Mex 20.1.2.1.1.4
              11 November 2009 at 5:47 pm

              P.S. I guess by extention you will argue that if the theoretical car thief was Maori, he would be justified in his actions if they were caused by sufficient anger at white motherf**kers historically ripping of the Maori people.

            • Pascal's bookie 20.1.2.1.1.5
              11 November 2009 at 6:29 pm

              J, I assure that everything I have written above is what I think. I’m getting a little annoyed at your repeated questioning of that. If you are going to question my honesty it might pay not to so flagrantly misquote me.

              I never said or implied that Hone’s comments “might have “racial overtones’ “.

              What I said was:

              And I’m not saying that there aren’t racial overtones to what Hone said either, of course there are.

              Perhaps in your haste to assume that I am being dishonest you are not paying attention to what I am actually saying. I’d appreciate it if you started to do so.

              Now, as I stated before, I see a difference between what Hone said and your invented examples that you consider equivalent. (Re read my comment @ 8:19). Maori were ripped off by the majority acting through the government as official policy. That’s different from someone bleating about welfare or crime. Unless you are suggesting that the high rates for Maori in these areas is a deliberate plan on their part to fleece whitey.

              On the Rodney being robbed scenario, yes I would say that the comment definately had racial overtones if Rodney knew that it was a ‘black’ thief. Just like Hone’s comments. He’d be right to be angry and describing the thief as a thief who was black. Just like Hone was describing the motherfuckers that have aggrieved him.

              If Rodney had no idea of who the thief might be but just assumed it must of been a ‘black’ then I’d say it was a bit more than that.

              As for ‘historically’ not being treated well, I guess 5 years ago is historical if you take a narrow enough view.

            • Pascal's bookie 20.1.2.1.1.6
              11 November 2009 at 6:45 pm

              another thing that has been lost in the ether is the context of Hone’s comments.

              Buddy emailed him, asking about who paid for the trip to paris. that much as has been repeated over and over and Hone’s foul mouthed reply has been painted as some out of the blue explosion of his deep seated race hate.

              However, it was Buddy who brought up white mofo’s. When asking about the trip, he said that if hone hadn’t paid for it himself then he was no better than that wanker Hide or all those white mofos you (hone) don’t like.

              So Hone’s reply was essentially asking why he should be held to a higher standard than what those white mofo’s were being held to, especially seeing those white mofo’s had stolen all that Maori land.

              Now that’s not the best argument in the world by any stretch, but neither is it an unprovoked and out of context explosion of racial hatred.

            • felix 20.1.2.1.1.7
              11 November 2009 at 7:36 pm

              I’m surprised that Rodney used such language but I’m sorry to hear about his car and his dance lesson.

        • J Mex 20.1.2.2
          12 November 2009 at 12:10 pm

          “On the Rodney being robbed scenario, yes I would say that the comment definately had racial overtones if Rodney knew that it was a ‘black’ thief. Just like Hone’s comments. He’d be right to be angry and describing the thief as a thief who was black. Just like Hone was describing the motherfuckers that have aggrieved him.”

          Here you and I disagree, PB.

          If Rodney, knew that his thief was black or brown and wrote “Some brown motherf**ker just broke into my car” there would be hell to pay. I suspect nearly every commenter and author here would be calling for his head. And rightly so. I do not imagine that you would be any different. You claim you are, so I have to take your word for it.

          Melissa Lee said something along the lines of “One of the problems Mt Albert has is burglars driving in from south Auckland to steal. Maybe this motorway will fix that problem” (I haven’t been able to find an exact quote – none seems to exist).

          Eddie tagged his post on Lee’s comments: Melissa Lee, Mt Albert, Racism. He went on to say that the racism was implicit and inherent.

          Eddie tagged his post on Hone “Maori Party” and gave no indication that Hone’s comments were racist. Eddie only added “racism” to subsequent post after the media started with the racist theme.
          Eddie then went on to appear to justify that Hone’s comments weren’t racist because there were actually historically whites who were mofos.

          I look forward to Eddie revisiting his post on Lee and saying that Lee was actually ok in saying her comments about South Auckland because there were burglars in South Auckland. And she in no way implied that all South Aucklanders were burglars.

          You think we are treating Lee and Hawawira equally in regards to their comments (racist or not). I don’t. Looks like we aren’t going to agree.

          • J Mex 20.1.2.2.1
            12 November 2009 at 12:13 pm

            Just realised that it was The sprout with the blue mofo post. Looks like Sprout and Eddie will be disagreeing on Lee

          • Pascal's bookie 20.1.2.2.2
            12 November 2009 at 12:33 pm

            “Looks like we aren’t going to agree”

            Indeed it does. Given your track record on getting what I have already said right, I think I’m going to take your predictions about what I might say in some other circumstance with a large bucket of salt.

  21. m stein 21
    10 November 2009 at 4:47 pm

    “It is a silly comment. I can’t take that sort of thing seriously, but what the public of New Zealand are looking for was an apology, an apology for ripping off the taxpayer, an apology for abusing people in racist and obscene language,” Mr Goff said.

    “There is no contrition there, he is proud of ripping the taxpayer off and he genuinely believes that white people are to blame for all of his problems.”

    Good on Goff for calling Harawira out on his racism, something craven media types & John Key have failed to do.

  22. Quoth the Raven 22
    10 November 2009 at 5:14 pm

    I don’t know why people are defending Hone. He’s a lost cause. He lied to Turia about being ill and he skived off work the taxpayer was paying him for. He really is just another run of the mill disgraceful politician.

  23. Deemac 23
    10 November 2009 at 7:24 pm

    why has everyone been sidetracked into the “bad language” debate?
    if you or I were sent to a conference by our employer but skived off instead, do you think we’d be in trouble?
    as a union rep I’d expect the employer to sack the offender!
    I don’t think “sorry” would fix it (not that Hone has actually apologised for it)
    how come an MP can get away with this when you or I can’t?
    as for his comments and “apology”, Hone is a clown, how can anyone take him seriously now?

  24. Patrick Baron 24
    10 November 2009 at 7:52 pm

    Hone is deservedly getting a pummelling in the press for his folly and general boorishness. While the Maori Party are not rushing to publicly censure him to any large degree (for bringing the party to disrepute) they are certainly in their very polite way proverbially “leaving him to dry”.

  25. Brett Dale 25
    10 November 2009 at 8:01 pm

    Im hoping people arent confusing me with the poster “Brett”

    [lprent: Nope. I look at the IP’s. ]

    • felix 25.1
      10 November 2009 at 10:23 pm

      I’ve confused the two of you in the past. Bit of a bugger for you to share a name with the likes of him eh?

  26. CMR 26
    10 November 2009 at 8:33 pm

    The F and S was the sole piece of legislation the previous government enacted that exhibited some genuine forethought. Leave it be. Hone is just another airhead greedy politician. Race is not a part of this equation. The greed of any politician underscores the remoteness which invariably develops between MPs and their constituents. Examples: Hone H, Rodney H, Winston P,Helen C, Richard W, Graham C, the list continues ad infinitum! My point being that party, race, gender,age are not the determining factors.

  27. Pascal's bookie 27
    10 November 2009 at 8:55 pm

    If Goff is so damn keen on comity perhaps he should get Mallard to stop calling out “tinkerbell” whenever a certain National MP speaks in the house. He might want to have quiet word to Cosgrove as well.

    The Nat’s run on bigotry when they are in opposition because there isn’t enough votes there for their economic policy. That’s why we hear all about PC gone mad and nanny states, and gravy trains, and quiet disquiet about abortion, and gay conspiracies to corrupt your kids and all the fucking rest of it. Notice how they’ve shut the fuck up about all that shit now? Now all that stuff is good for is a few jokes and they sure as shit aren’t legislating on it.

    That’s how wedges work. There is a constituency out there for all these things that crosses economic lines. Would be left voters can be dragged over with this sort of stuff and the rightwingers are prepared to do it because none of it matters to them. (All they care about is tax cuts). They won’t legislate on it though because, i) they don’t care, ii) it’s not worth the riots, iii) they like to think that they aren’t really bigots, they just play them on the tele for votes.

    If Labour try to pull the same trick it’s just epic fucking fail, because of two reasons.

    One: There is also a constituency that does care about this stuff. let’s call them progressives, or liberals or whatever else you want, but they tend to vote left and Labour can’t afford to piss them off.

    Two: the voters Labour would be trying to steal off National don’t trust Labour on these issues because of ‘one’.

    The solution is to somehow tell racists that there is a racist party they can vote for, but it won’t do them any good because even the racist party won’t do the things they want. They are being played for suckers on these issues. If Labour can help National pass progressive legislation, the people for whom that sux become homeless on those issues. So they either stay home or vote on some other issue.

    • prism 27.1
      10 November 2009 at 9:33 pm

      “So they either stay home or vote on some other issue.”
      They would be reluctant to give up their issues as they feed off their own anger getting a feeling of legitimacy and strength from getting mad about things. And their main interest is inner space, that is the space in their pockets which might be filled with tax money if they can only bring enough pressure for tax cuts.

      And people like Trevor Mallard with Gerry Brownlee seeming similar, like to spend time being attack dogs in Parliament – they have the same anger response as above. The politicians seem to spend a surprising amount of time planning retaliations and gloating over successful point scoring.