Carter must go

Written By: Marty G - Date published: 9:43 am, November 28th, 2010 - 86 comments
Categories: corruption, religion - Tags: david carter, halal, shechita

Agriculture Minister David Carter has been exposed abusing his ministerial powers to protect the trade interests of his private investments. Earlier this year, Carter banned Jewish religious slaughtering practices because of perceived risks to the meat trade with Muslim nations after being briefed by companies he owns that take part in the trade.

The issue was this: both Jewish and Muslim religious practice requires animals that are about to be slaughtered for food to be prayed over and have their necks slit. In an exemption from normal practice, New Zealand has dispensation from some Muslim clerics to stun the animals before halal slaughter. No such exemption exists for animals killed under shechita, the Jewish rules (nothing in this post should be taken as defending shechita or halal, it’s about rule of law).

As I understand it, most of the meat produced in New Zealand is slaughtered according to halal because its easier that way for the meat producers sending meat to the large Muslim markets. In contrast, just 2,000 chickens and 300 sheep a year are slaughtered for the small observant Jewish population.

The right of the Jewish community to continue its practice had been affirmed numerous times in the past decade on human rights grounds.

Meat exporters feared that if Muslim importers became aware that Jews were being allowed to slaughter animals without stunning them while Muslims were being required to make an exemption to their rules and allow stunning, they would perceive it as special treatment for Jews over Muslims and refuse to buy New Zealand meat. This had not happened in all the time the meat exporters had been raising their concerns but still they were worried.

Then along came the new minister, David Carter, who just so happens to own shares in Silver Fern Farms and Alliance Group, both of which export halal meat to the Muslim market and “a 1200ha cattle breeding property in Teddington, a fattening unit at Southbridge and shares in a property in Waiau.” The meat exporters, including ones he part owns, lobbied him on the issue of banning schechita to protect the halal trade.

What Carter should have done when considering the issue of shechita slaughter is say ‘well, I’ve got major financial interests in one of the parties that has skin in this game. There is no way I can make a decision without a perception that my personal interests have coloured my judgment. I have a conflict of interest’. He should have then passed the issue on to his associate minister.

But he didn’t.

Instead, he handled the issue himself and decided to ban shectita.

To compound the conflict of interest, in making his decision Carter broke the rules. The law around animal slaughtering does not allow the minister to consider trade implications. Carter was only allows to consider animal welfare in making his decision. Yet the paper trial clearly shows that Carter did consider trade implications. Not only did he have a conflict of interest that should have barred him from making a decision in the first place, when it came to making the decision, Carter broke the rules to take special note of the consequences for companies he owns.

I’m going to say that again because it’s very important: in making his decision, Carter broke the law and the conflict of interest rules by considering the business implications for companies that he has a financial interest in.

What followed was the Jewish community taking a judicial review of Carter’s decision (where a court decides if the decision was made according to the rules). It appears Carter had lost one case and was about to lose another when he suddenly agreed to drop the ban on shechita. Crown Law won’t say how much the taxpayer has spent trying to defend Carter’s corruption.

I don’t see how a minister who acts with a clear conflict of interest to make a decision that advantages his personal financial interests and breaks the law to do so can be allowed to remain in office.

John Key, according to the report, is ‘relaxed’.

86 comments on “Carter must go ”

Comments are now closed

ianmac 1

28 November 2010 at 10:02 am

“It is the Opposition’s job to catch us and not our Minister’s job to be ethical or open to scrutiny. If we do get caught out, the Boss says just say sorry for getting caught and cover up the error,” said the spokesman for the Minister. 🙂
Weren’t there questions about the Minister possible conflict of interest in relation to irrigation in North Canterbury?
nilats 2

28 November 2010 at 10:18 am

Must be hard for you guys here to stick up for the Jews since they are the elite. I don’t think this is a big deal in the scheme of things. A few thousand beasts. For that amount of beasts I think the Kosher should be carried out by smaller boutique slaughter houses, it will cost more but it is a value added service that is being requested so they will pay the price.
- Marty G 2.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 1:06 pm
  
  it doesn’t matter which religions or other groups are involved.
- Kaplan 2.2
  
  28 November 2010 at 3:35 pm
  
  I think you just exposed your own prejudicial thinking process a bit too much there nilats.
- Rex Widerstrom 2.3
  
  28 November 2010 at 4:41 pm
  
  I don’t think this is a big deal in the scheme of things. A few thousand beasts.
  
  I’ve never quite understood how one can be guilty of manslaughter or murder or assault by harming just one human, yet those who torture animals for either their own sadistic pleasure, their profit margins, or some archaic ritual allegedly promulgated by their particular Imaginary Friend, tend to have their actions evaluated at least partly on how many victims are involved.
  
  I’m not implying human and animal life are equal, of course – or I’d be calling for imprisonment of everyone who worked at an abbatoir, and for supermarkets to be charged as accessories. What I am saying is that causing unnecessary fear, pain and suffering to one animal is a serious matter, deserving of punishment in and of itself. More than one simply means the offender deserves greater punishment, IMO.
  
  And those involved in ritual slaughter puzzle me – they seem like cowards. The rules requiring the practice were written at the same time as the advice that, if you really wanted to impress your Imaginary Friend, you’d sacrifice your first born, never mind some helpless goat or cow. Isn’t it about time you manned up and did what’s really being asked of you, rather than hoping the blood of enough animals will appease Him?
  
  As for David Carter… words fail me. I’ve come to expect deceit and self-interest from politcians. But to have clearly no thought whatsoever for animal welfare, so much so that you’re happy to use it as a bargaining chip for commercial advantage… well you’ve just hit a new low.
  - QoT 2.3.1
    
    29 November 2010 at 7:53 am
    
    Be fair, Rex. You’d only have to sacrifice your firstborn if the dude in the sky said so because he was testing if you reeeeeeeeally loved him. (/respectsreligionbutdoesnotgetthatfuckingstory)
KJT 3

28 November 2010 at 10:37 am

These are all sideshows. What about the total conflict of interest when a stooge of the people, who are ruining us, is bought (AS in paid for) into power as Prime Minister.

We are going to see another bailout of finance company insider traders shortly to prop up the system advocated by a charismatic talking head.

As someone said. Successful countries are buying up infrastructure and resources and investing in training for the future. The unsuccessful, like us, have NACT standards and bank bailouts.
Bill 4

28 November 2010 at 10:40 am

If his decision was to be guided by considerations of (cough, cough) animal welfare, then I can’t see where the conflict of interest comes in if conflict of interest is gauged according to financial considerations.

Jeez. Then I read the post again and the point you had been kind enough to repeat in bold.
ghostwhowalksnz 5

28 November 2010 at 10:46 am

A worry too is he is using Crown Law to bully the journalist into not writing the article and using court confidentiality to cover his arse

Fulstow (Crown Law) contacted the Herald on Sunday on Friday to warn against printing material relating to the court case.
Fulstow said she was calling to warn about a confidentiality order at the urging of Carter’s lawyer.
The call came within minutes of questions from the Herald on Sunday to Carter’s ministerial office
- Colonial Viper 5.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 10:51 am
  
  That’s good, hopefully Carter will add fuck up upon fuck up just like Wong and the NZ Herald journalists will finally figure out what this Govt is about.
  - ianmac 5.1.1
    
    28 November 2010 at 10:55 am
    
    You would hope that even the Herald would react to not printing order/request, by printing as they have done, though no outrage, yet.Of course there is only one week of Parliament left when I suppose Carter will be elsewhere and not available to answer questions.
    - Jum 5.1.1.1
      
      28 November 2010 at 12:58 pm
      
      Maybe the mps of this government should be kept tabs on during the next couple of months. If they can get away with this criminal behaviour in full public view and with a toady press just what can they get away with out of public view.
JM 6

28 November 2010 at 10:50 am

It is outrageous that taxpayers money has been wasted defending this minister’s appalling decision whilst a small community has had to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting for their basic human rights because of it. How many other decisions has he made to protect his own interests which are going to cost us in the future? He needs to go now.
- KJT 6.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 4:38 pm
  
  Why is it a basic human right to be cruel to animals, or people, because of any form of sky fairy fruit -cakery.
  
  Oh. I forgot. It is OK to treat Palestinians like cattle because they are not Jewish.
  
  Or to bomb Afghanis because they are not Christian.
  - Marty G 6.1.1
    
    28 November 2010 at 5:01 pm
    
    not really on topic. The particular ethnic/religious groups involved is incidental.
    - KJT 6.1.1.1
      
      28 November 2010 at 5:16 pm
      
      Trying to make the point that any religious group should not be able to use their beliefs as an excuse for cruelty.
      
      Carter is just one of many dishonest politicians. But this piece of dis-honesty is insignificant compared with other things they are doing.
      - Redbaron77 6.1.1.1.1
        
        28 November 2010 at 9:15 pm
        
        The treatment of the Palestinian’s by Israel has no relationship with the New Zealand Jewish community’s right to prepare kosher meats locally..
  - Steve 6.1.2
    
    29 November 2010 at 1:23 am
    
    KJT, not sure Palestinian cattle could ever be ‘kosher’. They’re too busy being offered up to the Palestinian sky fairy fruit cakery by Afghani Christians whilst blowing themselves up as freedom fighters in P lab restaurants owned by MP David Carter. I suspect you feed at the same trough strictly reserved for anti-Semitic, pig swilling, blood drinking cretaceous boorish oafs. So if NZ now seems too kosher for you, then get on a plane, loaded with ‘suicide bombers’ and leave.
  - dAp 6.1.3
    
    30 November 2010 at 12:38 pm
    
    Its a basic human right to be able to practice your religion whatever that may be .
    
    If there is shown a valid scientific and ethicall argument that jewish ritual slaughter is significantly crueler than stunning which so far hasn’t been established and would be very difficult to establish then there would perhaps be some merit to placing such a ban – however even then you would have to adress the issues of homkill and hunting regulations etc otherwise you are simply targeting minority groups and turning a blind eye to the rest – called prejudice – Ps you might want to also reconsider your staments re palestinians and jews and Afganis they are equally as uninformed and pathetic.
    - KJT 6.1.3.1
      
      30 November 2010 at 1:29 pm
      
      I don’t much like hunting, battery chickens or some homekill methods either (Thats why some of us were running around dressed up as chickens outside Kentucky fried not long ago)..
      Using religion to justify cruelty should not be part of a civilized society. Freedom of religion does not extend to bypassing laws against cruelty toward people or animals. Should we allow female circumcision also, because there is an equally valid freedom of religion argument for that.
      
      The human right to freedom of religion stops against other human and animal rights to live free from cruelty.
      - Stef 6.1.3.1.1
        
        2 December 2010 at 11:05 am
        
        Shechita has long been regarded as a humane method of slaughtering. Let\’s face it, there’s no nice way to kill a sentient being but slitting its arteries and windpipe in one quick go with a razor sharp blade is pretty darn quick and painless. Unless you think a metal bolt in slammed into the front of the head is better a la modern methods. I’ve got an idea: why doesn’t KJT try out both methods and let us know which he prefers? On second thoughts, a metal bolt through his head probably wouldn\’t result in a significant difference to his conscious state.
    - Jum 6.1.3.2
      
      30 November 2010 at 2:12 pm
      
      dAp
      
      KJT has a very good point.
      
      Practising religion sometimes involves taking a 5 year old girl to see an old woman (don’t you just love how women continue to attack their own so the girl will get a husband later) who with a rusty razor blade hacks off the fleshy parts that supposedly give women pleasure, and/or to stop these parts growing into a penis apparently, then she sews them together except for a tiny hole for peeing out of and menstruating from which when the girl is married off will be split open by her new husband. That’s if he still wants her when the smell of unhealed sores from leaking urine and blood hits him. Often the girls die before then, which may be a blessing. Even if done in a hospital, that doesn’t make it all right.
      
      But then, it’s not about religion at all really. And we can’t be sure it doesn’t happen here, either.
      
      One day, they say it will stop, people will evolve past these savage rituals, but somehow I doubt it. Not while the cruel parts of religion and superstition hold sway. Not while women are seen as less than men, both here and in other countries.
      - Stef 6.1.3.2.1
        
        2 December 2010 at 11:07 am
        
        Are you equating female genital mutilation with kosher slaughtering of animals? Are you insane? Oh wait, you think that KJT has a good point so you maybe you are…
        
        Jum 6.1.3.2.1.1
        
        2 December 2010 at 1:38 pm
        
        Stef Please apply your own “4. There are some serious arseholes commenting on this post” to your insane assertion that I was ‘equating female genital mutilation with kosher slaughtering of animals’.
        Read KJT properly: “Freedom of religion does not extend to bypassing laws against cruelty toward people or animals. Should we allow female circumcision also, because there is an equally valid freedom of religion argument for that.” and my reply:
        “But then, it’s not about religion at all really. And we can’t be sure it doesn’t happen here, either.
        
        One day, they say it will stop, people will evolve past these savage rituals, but somehow I doubt it. Not while the cruel parts of religion and superstition hold sway. Not while women are seen as less than men, both here and in other countries.”
        
        Arsehole.
        
        The jury is still out on your other assertions too.
        
        Stef 25
        2 December 2010 at 11:15 am
        
        1. Shechita is no less humane than ‘modern’ methods of slaughter
        2. Jewish religious tradition has for thousands of years take the issue of animal welfare seriously
        3. There is NO praying over an animal when it is slaughtered according to Jewish methods
        4. There are some serious arseholes commenting on this post.
        
        It amazes me how intolerant people are about religion’s place in today’s society when others seek to question them in an objective way, i.e. just wanting to debate. E.g. finally the Pope allows his followers to consider using condoms to avoid Aids. It was a modern decision to fight a modern problem. Yet for so long he allowed people who through religious and male traditions fell victim to sexually transmitted diseases to die. Why? To increase the worldwide Catholic population? Probably. But he rethought his position when he discovered too many were dying…
Sanctuary 7

28 November 2010 at 10:55 am

This sort of lazy cronyism and low-level corruption is becoming the dominant trait of this government. The ministers of this government behave with a cavalier indifference toward norms of good government and constantly seek to blur the difference be private business and public office.

Key and his elite cronyists seem to think the NEw Zealand state exists to be used and looted for their benefit.
ghostwhowalksnz 8

28 November 2010 at 11:43 am

Tell me again why we have an exemption from animal cruelty regulations for religious practice ?
As the point in contention only seems to relate to the stunning of the animal before cutting the throat
Islam allows it while Judaism doesnt.

we have rules about conflict of interest for ministers who are making decisions
National allows it
- Marty G 8.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 1:08 pm
  
  yeah, I kind if agree on that point ghost, but that doesn’t justify carter’s actions, of course
Jum 9

28 November 2010 at 12:54 pm

captcha: nasty

That bast*d – but what can you expect from the devilspawn of Pondscum Inc. The face of the water is calm and ‘relaxed’ but underneath is spawning misogyny, greed and a Mexican lifestyle for 80% of Kiwis.

Every time I see Carter’s face, it reminds me of Richard Nixon. Corrupt.

Next he’ll be pushing for live sheep exports. He has done nothing about improving the lives of pigs or chickens. New Zealanders are only as fine a people as their treatment towards their most vulnerable creatures – children and animals.

New Zealand does not deserve credence internationally as a worthy country to live in. Pointing out we are better than some other countries means nothing. We know better. Some countries don’t.

A 21 year old told me that animals are the ones to fight for now. New Zealanders can’t think outside of their greed and if governments won’t fight for their animals to be well treated right to the end, and that includes all avenues like stunning, I am inclined to agree. This is New Zealand and the rights of our vulnerable are more important than religious rites. All creatures to be killed for eating should be stunned before the savagery of slitting their throats commences. The slaughterhouses breed fear in the animals and any rules that can make these places more sensitive to that should be made law.

No country or religion has the right to control our animal welfare code. The fact it seems to exposes the greed, cowardice and corruption in New Zealand.

In Britain, a couple of decades ago there was a major investigation into a killing field meatworks after an undercover reporter discovered that in order to make more money (workers were paid per animal slaughtered) they were slaughtering without stunning, which saved a few seconds. The bosses turned a blind eye because of their profit markup. So much for humans evolving. The 21 year old is probably right. Start with the animal welfare and work your way up. Trouble is the cretins in charge of this world are even greedier than the rest and they are in control, at present. The Capitalist/psychopath comparison is so true.

Greed will often turn a blind eye in any industry that makes money from increasing output.

Sack Carter, not just for this corruption but for all his corrupt activities and his total disregard for animal welfare.
Key knows Carter is corrupt if he is not following the law about conflict of interest.
Key knows Wong is corrupt if she is not following the law about use of taxpayers funds.
Key knows Key is corrupt if he covers up, and he has covered up his own greed and conflict of interest just as Nixon did.

Nasty Pondscum Inc. Nats. If the Act, Maori and United Future sidekicks don’t call on the government to kick out David Carter they are just as guilty.
uroskin 10

28 November 2010 at 12:56 pm

It’s not just the (desert) stone age cruelty to animals that needs banning – halal and shechita both – but also the knifing of male newborns. The Coalition of the Circumcised has more in common than it is ready to admit.
pete 11

28 November 2010 at 1:14 pm

Touching naivety from DPF:

I don’t think the issue is he had shares in an agricultural company, and there is no way at all he would have been motivated by how it personally affects him (he is very rich). The issue for me is having the trade issues involved at all.
- Jum 11.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 2:36 pm
  
  Someone said just because you’re rich doesn’t mean you couldn’t be richer, more successful, have more power. It’s an addiction like everything else when it has taken your whole being to achieve it, you don’t just stop. That also is the hallmark of the capitalist psychopath.
  - Colonial Viper 11.1.1
    
    28 November 2010 at 3:08 pm
    
    Exactly FFS, for starters how exactly does he think these people got “very rich” in the first place if not by taking commercial advantage everywhere it can be taken?
BLiP 12

28 November 2010 at 1:18 pm

Good work by The Herald!
Tigger 13

28 November 2010 at 2:00 pm

I assume Key will send him off to the cupboard under the stairs, where Pansy Wong is already hiding, for a few weeks until this blows over so Carter can emerge, blinking into the light but without any serious reprimand…
- Jim Nald 13.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 2:11 pm
  
  Another Nat Minister/MP about to go into exile.
  Not to worry. Even at this rate, there should be enough countries to host the whole donkey cabinet .. or make that, caucus.
  
  Oh, just read Granny Herald and seems that Dan Carter’s shakey boot is signalling this shonkey government might go to the polls before the RWC.
  - Zorr 13.1.1
    
    28 November 2010 at 2:17 pm
    
    I have always said that they would. Why rely on a situation that is out of your control and relies on the ABs performing at their highest standard over a period of weeks against the rest of the best. Not going to happen and they will be calling that election early.
    - Jim Nald 13.1.1.1
      
      28 November 2010 at 2:27 pm
      
      With the worms coming out and about to come out some more from the woodwork, it’d be better for NACTs to go for an early election, with or without the RWC factor.
      
      Some of my astrologically inclined Asian friends are saying NZ has been hit with too many bad news under Key and the country should have a go at a new govt to shift the vibes sooner rather than later. Hah.
      - Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.1
        
        28 November 2010 at 4:13 pm
        
        Bad omens both Key and English both. Oh yeah and add Brash in there too.
Irascible 14

28 November 2010 at 2:51 pm

This is, in Key’s mind, the second wrong making his policies right.
How many more examples of corruption does it need for the trial by media to really begin in New Zealand??? It must take a lot when it comes to NACT as the Labour govt was on such a trial over crosby-textor generated “issues” as “paintergate” and “light bulbgate”.
- Draco T Bastard 14.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 3:23 pm
  
  Trial br MSM doesn’t happen to the National Party as the MSM is owned by the National Party and their rich mates.
MrSmith 15

28 November 2010 at 3:07 pm

Key to spin doctors. Carters in trouble what have we got.

Spin doctors. Well can’t do another mine disaster like for Wong , how about we play the race card where’s Don .
- ianmac 15.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 3:16 pm
  
  Don: “Here I is! Just played the race card again at Orewa, and didn’t I do well!”
  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10690570
MrSmith 16

28 November 2010 at 3:26 pm

John: Great that worked well for us last time didn’t it ? hang on Don I think last time you spoke there it cost us the election.
bobo 17

28 November 2010 at 3:55 pm

someone with a better memory than me might recall not long into nationals term they sounded the idea of resuming live exports as an option i wonder if it might be related to this?
30 March, 2009 4:00 AM Negotiations to resume exports of live sheep for slaughter are continuing but Agriculture Minister David Carter says a ban will remain unless they meet the highest welfare standards.
- ghostwhowalksnz 17.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 4:47 pm
  
  The live sheep exports arent a winner for any businesses Carter owns.
  
  The companies like Silver Fern are opposed to live sheep exports, since they cut into their market share and also drive up the prices for sheep in NZ ( good for the farmer but not good for those exporting lamb meat)
  
  Dont expect him to change any time soon, as he ‘so concerned about the welfare’
  - bobo 17.1.1
    
    28 November 2010 at 7:25 pm
    
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/2287062/Live-sheep-exports-to-resume
    
    “There’s a particular breed of sheep Saudi Arabia was interested in obtaining,” Mr Carter said.
    
    “If we can provide the security and safety around the arrangement with the Saudi Arabian government, I see it as being another opportunity.”
    
    —
    Maybe the breed isn’t the sort that would directly effect carters own business interests as such.. but the deal at the time if it went through could have had some influence over his other dealings in saudi arabia if that makes sense? The idea was always a no go as it would have caused wide outrage but maybe he had to air the idea to show who ever was lobbying him..
Treetop 18

28 November 2010 at 5:02 pm

Maybe Key will resuffle the cabinet in the New Year, this would be a solution to the conflicts of interest regarding some cabinet ministers who are either very disliked or who need to be sorted out. Pansy Wong is another matter altogether.
my thoughts 19

28 November 2010 at 5:26 pm

Carter must go for ignoring the human rights of a minority group, for corruption and for stupidity. Most Muslim countries don’t accept stunned killed meat as properly halal. So there goes Carter’s big market. Both Halal and Kosher slaughter of meat should be permitted- they are more humane than stunning. Have you ever had a short electric shock?Compare that with a cut. The electric shock is far more painful and the animal is still conscious when its killed.
- Jum 19.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 6:59 pm
  
  Greens where are you? Do you agree with ‘my thoughts’ about stunning being less humane than stepping up and slitting throats?
  - toad 19.1.1
    
    28 November 2010 at 7:11 pm
    
    I am a Green and a supporter of animal rights, and smell a nasty stink here.
    
    Carter was supposedly concerned enough about the suffering of chickens in the last minute or so of their lives to ban shechita killing, but is still quite happy to continue to allow them to spend all their lives to that stage suffering while being jammed up together in battery cages, unable to walk, and pecking the feathers off each other.
    
    I call bullshit. I call hypocrisy. And I call corruption.
    
    Of course it was the trade implications that motivated his decision. The fact that he hasn’t goven a shit about any other aspect of animal welfare during his tenure as Minsiter would lend weight to that.
    
    And the fact that he was briefed on it by his own company and then used that briefing in making his decision makes it look downright corrupt.
    
    Time for Carter to take the Wong road and resign, methinks.
    
    That good enough for you Jum?
    - Jum 19.1.1.1
      
      28 November 2010 at 8:35 pm
      
      I agree with your post Toad but the poster ‘my thoughts’ has stated that stunning is less humane than just moving the animals through and cutting their throats. I think otherwise. What do you think? Why would the western countries be stunning their animals if it was less humane. I don’t get that. Stunning puts the animal into a subconscious state and therefore feels nothing – surely.
      
      I’d like Carter to take a walk on meat row so he can get the feel of the fear.
- Draco T Bastard 19.2
  
  28 November 2010 at 9:44 pm
  
  got proof that the animal is still conscious and can still feel pain?
  - Zorr 19.2.1
    
    28 November 2010 at 9:47 pm
    
    Can we test the pain level of electric shock with the pain of having your throat cut on you “my thoughts” because somehow I doubt you have personal experience of either. You could scrawl down how you are feeling when your throat is cut in your own blood because if it doesn’t hurt that much you should still be cognizant enough to give the rest of us insight.
    - clandestino 19.2.1.1
      
      29 November 2010 at 12:49 am
      
      As far as I see the Jewish practice of throat cutting without stunning is inhumane and should be outlawed. They should practice their barbaric ‘cultural’ rite by buying homekill like many other new zealanders do. It’s actually a magnanimous backdown by muslims to accept halal meat killed through stunning rather than cut throats. Only an imbecile would think there was more pain this way.
      As for whether we call this ‘corrupt’, I would hazard a guess most people would see it as a good thing so…who cares?
      The point about exporters being worried we are contradicting ourselves is a valid one….why on earth does it matter that carter has skin in the game? he has money to invest! he wants NZ companies – and the one he’s got something in – to grow, the halal game is much bigger than a few odd jews here and there complaining they can’t torture an animal before it dies. it’s not like there are kosher competitors out there shit.
      - Marty G 19.2.1.1.1
        
        29 November 2010 at 1:00 am
        
        “The point about exporters being worried we are contradicting ourselves is a valid one”
        
        No, it’s not. It is illegal for the minister to consider trade implications when deciding animal welfare rules.
        
        And, Carter compounded that by making the decision when he had a conflict of interest because of his shareholdings in concerned parties.
Santi 20

28 November 2010 at 6:45 pm

Yes, DC should go voluntarily. Otherwise, JK should sack him.
- Armchair Critic 20.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 9:45 pm
  
  There’s a first time for everything. Maybe Key will sack Carter.
Tanz 21

28 November 2010 at 8:24 pm

Like Labour’s Carter? You need to put first names in the post title, to avoid confusion. Am I allowed an opinion here?
- Zorr 21.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 9:19 pm
  
  You are allowed an opinion. I just wouldn’t expect it to be given much weight or creedence.
  - Tanz 21.1.1
    
    28 November 2010 at 9:26 pm
    
    And yours are?
    - Zorr 21.1.1.1
      
      28 November 2010 at 9:36 pm
      
      –shrug– In this case I don’t actually believe my opinion is that important. It is an issue that further highlights the inadequacies of the current government but other than that I don’t really hold an opinion on this one.
      
      All the animal rights activists probably enjoy jumping over the fact that it is ultimately to do with “kosher” preparation of meat and the trade implications around that. With the fact that the animals are stunned before being slaughtered in order to prepare them for sale to Muslim markets, I have no issue with that. The fact that meat is prepared in order to please the Jewish population in a way that is inhumane is disturbing to me. However the slaughter of the animal is just the end point for it – I feel a greater issue is more to do with battery hens and sow crates that put the animals in incredibly disgusting conditions for the entirety of their lives. Compared to that, having your throat slit unstunned must be more of a release from hell than anything else.
      - Stef 21.1.1.1.1
        
        2 December 2010 at 11:11 am
        
        On what do you base your statement that shechita is inhumane? Jewish religious tradition imposes an obligation on animal handlers and slaughterers to treat animals humanely, to avoid any unnecessary suffering. I really can’t see how the proper practice of shechita can be any less humane than the ‘modern’ methods of stunning etc.
Santi 22

28 November 2010 at 9:00 pm

The crooks David Carter and Pansy Wong have been exposed and caught. This dishonest pair should resign immediately.
- Tanz 22.1
  
  28 November 2010 at 10:14 pm
  
  Pansy Wong is a good player in the House, she speaks from the heart, and has done nothing that other MPs haven’t done, English with his housing rorts, Chris Carter and Hide, with their travel perks, etc. Big deal. Stop whipping her through the mud. If she must resign, how come Key lets her stay in Caucus?
  - Zorr 22.1.1
    
    28 November 2010 at 10:19 pm
    
    Please name the other MPs and their specific abuse of the travel perk system? I doubt they will rival Pansy’s abuses that break very specific rules and mix her roles as both an MP and a government minister in with her partners private business interests. This is not to say that they are “better” but that Pansy is the low lying fruit of a rotten bunch.
    - Tanz 22.1.1.1
      
      28 November 2010 at 10:29 pm
      
      Hello. Sigh. I have named the MPs, and the media has reported widely on their abuses of perks. And that’s the ones we know about. What an inflated sense of entitlement our politicians often have! Bet they never had to survive on the minimum wage, etc…
      - Zorr 22.1.1.1.1
        
        28 November 2010 at 10:52 pm
        
        I know you named them but unless you actually have something to add to their personal lists of transgressions that we are aware of then none of them rival Pansy in their abuse of the perk system. At the end of the day, she put herself in this situation and she only has herself to blame.
        
        A lot of the issue here is the hypocrisy. If the Nats had come in saying “Look NZ, be prepared for the ride of your life because we’re here in the Enitlement-mobile and are going to abuse you until you wish the cows would come home”. However, Jonkey came in promising increased accountability and a more prudent government when it came to the abuses. Not only has he failed on being accountable for his own minister’s actions, his government is currently doing their best to better any previous records for levels of corruptness and blatant stupidity. My ass hurts and I wasn’t one of the people wanting to sign up for bending over.
        
        ianmac 22.1.1.1.1.1
        
        28 November 2010 at 10:59 pm
        
        Tanz. What crime did Chris Carter commit? He travelled a lot but it was legal? Can you help me there?
        
        Colonial Viper …
        
        28 November 2010 at 11:32 pm
        
        Usual Tanz sideshow, abuse of miscellaneous perks by some Labour MP is supposed to be in the same league as a Minister of the Crown misusing their official powers for personal/business financial gain.
        
        Tanz …
        
        29 November 2010 at 7:15 am
        
        Yes, his travel holidays were legal, but in poor taste, with an emphasis on travel lots, while you can. Ask the boss, Phul, he was not happy with the sheer volume of Carter’s trips, anyway!
        
        ianmac …
        
        29 November 2010 at 9:51 am
        
        How would you class Bill English’s double-dip Tanz? Was he more or less culpable than Chris Carter, or in this case with David Carter who, like Wong, has actually appeared to act unlawfully?
Steve 23

29 November 2010 at 1:47 am

Shechitah pre-dates all other forms of meat processing. Over thousands of years the technique to ensure that the animal does not suffer has been studied and perfected beyond the ‘stunning’ process. Stunning still leaves the animal completely conscious and aware of what is happening and they do not die instantaneously. Shechitah is the process used to ensure that at all times the animal and the process including the ‘shochet’ is kosher. It is not a sacrifice or a slaughter as is down currently with non kosher kills. There are no magical utterances dedicating the animal to a deity.
Carter used taxpayers money to commit a fraud. He abused his position of power to turn on a minority group of NZ citizens who have lived here for more than 180 years so he could sell them out and make a buck off them.
Shame on you clandestino for supporting such treachery and thinking that being non kosher could ever be kosher.
graham 24

29 November 2010 at 6:59 am

You townies amaze me with your ignorance
both silver fern(ppcs) and alliance are co-ops which farmers have to be shareholders in order to supply
the old max shareholding for ppcs was 10 k but i think it was increased a couple of years ago to 15k
that is less than two hundred lambs
So Every sheep farmer in new zealand is involved with a company in some way in this country sorry this wont fly just another beat up by fools
- ianmac 24.1
  
  29 November 2010 at 9:54 am
  
  But if you use your position as Minister to advantage your shareholding against the protocols and against the law, surely this is different from Farmer Brown, shareholder?
  - insider 24.1.1
    
    29 November 2010 at 10:05 am
    
    But if most farmers are shareholders, they are all similarly affected aren’t they? So, doesn’t a decision that favours one favour the industry as a whole?
    
    You could argue that the MoA should not be a farmer because, the way the indsutry is structured with a number of co-ops, he is far too likely to be conflicted somewhere along the way.
    - graham 24.1.1.1
      
      29 November 2010 at 1:25 pm
      
      spot on insider
      Farmer politics means that carter is trying to help the whole sheep industry not himself i cant see why you guys dont get that
      what next ban any ex union member from voteing on employment matters
      to think that owning a few ppcs shares means he is corrupt is laughable
      - Colonial Viper 24.1.1.1.1
        
        29 November 2010 at 1:30 pm
        
        Apparently now Carter giving a Ministerial hand up to his own share portfolio is OK because OTHER company shareholders would also benefit!
        
        LOLZ you guys, so do you really think corruption is OK as long as the goodies are shared around enough?
        
        to think that owning a few ppcs shares means he is corrupt is laughable
        
        Whoops maybe you do. There goes Key’s pre-election promise of an ethical and transparent NAT Govt.
        
        graham 24.1.1.1.1.1
        
        29 November 2010 at 5:52 pm
        
        So the union movment was involeing the labour party in corruption under helen clark
        They gave money to labour to change laws they didnt like which they got a montry gain from
        
        I repeat clare grow up
  - graham 24.1.2
    
    29 November 2010 at 1:29 pm
    
    they are all stakeholders of the industry
    every suppler of a co-op has to have shares. In the south alliance and ppcs must control 95% of the killing space(may be out by a fraction)
    Believe it or not not evey thing a tory farmer does is about self interest
    What he would do is put the interest of the industry first so that everyone benifits
    - Colonial Viper 24.1.2.1
      
      29 November 2010 at 1:31 pm
      
      As I said above:
      
      LOLZ you guys, so do you really think corruption is OK as long as the goodies are shared around enough?
      - grumpy 24.1.2.1.1
        
        29 November 2010 at 1:45 pm
        
        graham makes a very good point. Another point is why do we have these barbaric slaughter methods in the first place, why not just tell the halal and shechitah demanders to either buy our humanely killed products or FO?
        
        graham 24.1.2.1.1.1
        
        29 November 2010 at 5:50 pm
        
        For money
        
        personaly i am with you on that one grumpy
        but i am a ex sheep farmer who now milks cows so it isnt fair for me to sand bag the sheep industry
      - graham 24.1.2.1.2
        
        29 November 2010 at 5:56 pm
        
        Do you know what the biggest joke is though do you think a 10 k investment in a co-op is worth being corrupt over
        i mean that would be less than a days production for me
        or less than a weeks interest on my loan
        only a bennie would think 10k is alot of money
Stef 25

2 December 2010 at 11:15 am

1. Shechita is no less humane than ‘modern’ methods of slaughter
2. Jewish religious tradition has for thousands of years take the issue of animal welfare seriously
3. There is NO praying over an animal when it is slaughtered according to Jewish methods
4. There are some serious arseholes commenting on this post