Colin Craig does not want to disclose his view on gays

Written By: - Date published: 10:51 am, March 4th, 2014 - 70 comments
Categories: conservative party, russel norman, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

Colin Craig has announced that he has commenced proceedings against Russel Norman, or at least I think this is what he has done.

From his press release:

Craig Continues Push for Honesty

Colin Craig today advised that the defamation claim against Russell Norman will be split into two stages in the hope of fast tracking a court hearing.

“After extensive discussion and advice from my legal team, I’ve decided to proceed immediately against Mr Norman regarding his claims about the place of women,” says Mr Craig.

“Not only were Mr Norman’s comments entirely untrue, but they demonstrated a cavalier and reckless disregard for the truth.”

“Debates should be won by presenting the facts, not by corrupting them,” Mr Craig says. “I think the public deserve an honest debate.”

“A high standard of public debate is essential to a properly functioning democracy. I, like most New Zealanders, am tired of politicians corrupting the facts, making up stories, name calling, and generally behaving badly in political debate,” Mr Craig says.

“The reason the rest of Mr Norman’s comment will not be pursued in the first instance is that his lawyers have already indicated that discovery would include emails and other correspondence. Given the extensive debate around the redefinition of marriage, this is many hundreds, if not thousands of documents, and would result in prohibitive costs and time delays.”

“It is hoped by breaking the case into two stages, that a declaration of defamation may be obtained prior to the election this year.”

There is someone called Russell Norman who is really afraid that he may be served with papers for something he has not done.  The Greens co-leader is Russel Norman.

Effectively running two cases will make the claim considerably more expensive.  And if cost and the obligation to disclose documents relating to his views on homosexuality are the concern then I presume that he is signalling that he is not going to sue Norman for his comment on Craig’s views on gays.  Presuming this is the case it would be more honest to say so rather than saying that he is going to split the case into two stages.

70 comments on “Colin Craig does not want to disclose his view on gays ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. aerobubble 1
    4 March 2014 at 11:28 am

    Sorry, but everyone knows Norman was at the big gay out festival, as leader of the Greens, talking to gays about historical beliefs of conservatives (that Craig has still failed to deny). How could any reasonable person see this as an attack on Craig the man and not Craig the leader of the conservative party.

    Normans laws should counter sue as its vexatious, as the sentence Norman is read, was read as a whole, any idiot can read between the lines, and I would be surprised if the judge did not throw out the case precisely because Colin Craig doesn’t understand the politics of the statement.

    Cripes what a diva. By taking a statement out of context of its place, whose saying it, where its being said, how its being said, to whom its being said, about what its being said and the full context of what is said, Craig hopes to vexatiously sue Norman. That can’t stand.

    Counter sue the ingrate.

  2. Zorr 2
    4 March 2014 at 11:30 am

    grabs popcorn

    Soon he should be starting proceedings against Air NZ over their use of chemtrails…

  3. adam 3
    4 March 2014 at 11:36 am

    Go colin, keep it up bro – now prove you don’t hold any sexist beliefs and no homophobic ones either.

    God I’m sick to death of WHITE privilege, and the defenders of it like colin I can’t think too hard it makes my head hurt craig.

    • weka 3.1
      4 March 2014 at 3:03 pm

      “now prove you don’t hold any sexist beliefs and no homophobic ones either.”

      Heh, am looking forward to that too (although he’s dropping the homophobic part from the case). And not just any sexist beliefs, but sexist beliefs that are akin to thinking women’s place is in the kitchen.

  4. lprent 4
    4 March 2014 at 11:41 am

    Looks to me like Colin Craig didn’t figure out early enough what is required in the discovery stage of a defamation case. I wonder what he is scared will be found on a discovery on his views on homosexuality?

    His explanation simply doesn’t make sense. Since the Russel’s statement was made in a single sentence, trying to separate them is simply daft and I suspect is going to be a BIG ask of a judge.

    “A vote for John Key is a vote for Colin Craig,” Dr Norman told TV crews following him around the event, adding, “Now the thing about Colin Craig is he thinks that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and a gay man’s place is in the closet.”

    It also leaves Colin Craig open to an immediate countersuit. After all his reputation has been besmirched by Colin Craig’s reaction to this statement. I suspect a judge would look kindly on joining the two cases since they are about the truth or otherwise of the same statement.

  5. Enough is Enough 5
    4 March 2014 at 11:58 am

    This may be political.

    This is like Winnie screaming the Chinese have bought Huka Lodge. It is bullshit but the red necks hear those words and think ‘yeah go get em Winnie!”

    Colin has a following of conservative religous nutters who would happily have Uganda type laws in New Zealand. Colin’s bigotry being highlighted (at the same time he is denying it) is a dog whistle to the gay hating followers who will hear again and again Colin’s comments.

  6. Rodel 6
    4 March 2014 at 11:58 am

    I hope costs (judges, court clerks etc.) will be met by Mr Colin..or somebody other than us.
    But then I expect to pay if I go to watch a circus.

  7. Skinny 7
    4 March 2014 at 12:51 pm

    Collin Craig is doing more harm than good the changes of the Conservative Party getting over the 5% threshold to get into parliament with his foolish decision to proceed to court.

    His odds of a successful ruling would be less than 70-1, any lawyer worth their salt giving a legal opinion would back my view of his chances. Why? Because leaders of political party’s have more leeway to bustle and tussle when speaking publicly against each others views.

    In saying that I think Norman has lost the plot by not choosing to silence Craig by a partial apology. I can not see any political gains for the Greens. And meanwhile Labour trumps the Greens with the Rena wreck clean up proposal.

    • Clemgeopin 7.1
      4 March 2014 at 10:00 pm

      It is the lawyers! The lawyers! They are laughing away on their way to the banks during the day and ROFL in the night too!

  8. felix 8
    4 March 2014 at 1:00 pm

    ahem Co-Leader

    [lprent: fixed ]

    • Hayden 8.1
      4 March 2014 at 1:48 pm

      Co-leader is a kind of leader… 😉

    • mickysavage 8.2
      4 March 2014 at 9:36 pm

      Feck. It has been a tough day …

      • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.1
        4 March 2014 at 9:46 pm

        Not surprised. What the feck were you thinking?

        The third gaffe had me thinking that once is SNAFU, twice is coincidence, but the third time it’s enemy action.

  9. Tracey 9
    4 March 2014 at 1:52 pm

    ok. had a chuckle. nothing to hide, nothing to fear. sound familiar? like johnny banks,craig has nothing to hide but doesnt want some stuff seen or heard.

  10. Tracey 10
    4 March 2014 at 1:55 pm

    skinny

    perhaps because it keeps the greens in the news and constantly reminds people what craig really stands for and the danger associated with a govt including him.

    the greens should have connections that enable them to find a pro bono lawyer. hell, norman should defend himself.

    • Skinny 10.1
      4 March 2014 at 2:51 pm

      It looks what it is Tracey a silly petty little sideshow that a major political party’s Co Leader shouldn’t get engaged in. Craig is grandstanding and after the man on the moon nonsense is hardly credible to many outside the wacko bible sector.

      Norman has lost mana with me allowing himself to get distracted. He already has the runs on the board within his support base, however I see this silly little scuffle he chooses to engage in as off putting and slightly mad. The Green party has done well to remove the ‘mad’ tag hang on them by NACT. In one foolish move Norman has single handedly exposed them to ridicule.

      • North 10.1.1
        4 March 2014 at 10:17 pm

        So Skinny, what was Norman meant to do ? Apologise ? Or run away and hide ? It’s Craig who farted. Why should Norman own the stink ? Frankly, for me Norman and the Greens are looking more and more and more attractive all the time.

        • Naturesong 10.1.1.1
          4 March 2014 at 10:51 pm

          I concur, Russel should apologise:

          “I’m sorry that Colin Craig thinks that a woman’s place is in the kitchen and a gay man’s place is in the closet”

          That ought to do it 😈

  11. captain hook 11
    4 March 2014 at 2:16 pm

    Colin Craig is a first class nincompoop and theologaster who thinks because he has a lot of money then he is intelligent.
    Amy judge who listens to his drivel will probably warn him about wasting the courts time.

  12. Tracey 12
    4 March 2014 at 3:07 pm

    as a green supporter i disagree. it hasnt undermined my desire to vote for them.

    craig is trying to shut down discourse using his money through the legal syste. the greens are saying that money wont shut them down.

  13. Psycho Milt 13
    4 March 2014 at 3:09 pm

    “…I’ve decided to proceed immediately against Mr Norman regarding his claims about the place of women,” says Mr Craig.

    In other words, he accepts the comment about his attitude to gays was true and in no way defamatory…

    • lprent 13.1
      4 March 2014 at 4:22 pm

      In other words,

      Nope. He is saying that he will want to proceed on that claim later. Can’t see how he can try to separate them since they are in the same sentence and he has objected to them both.

  14. George D 14
    4 March 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Mr Colin Craig is welcome to use the correct title for Dr Russel Norman, or refer to him simply by his name.

    National should be worried if the Greens or Labour are able to effectively align Craig with Key in the minds of National-voting women, particularly younger women. A lot of that support is reasonably soft – it drifted over from the Clark Government – and can drift back again. A net negative like this is a huge gift for the left, which is why Key is gently talking Craig down.

    • Te Reo Putake 14.1
      4 March 2014 at 4:27 pm

      Dya think it might help if a few opposition MP’s ‘accidently’ refer to the PM as Colin Key or John Craig in the house?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 14.1.1
        4 March 2014 at 9:11 pm

        Nah, but if they “accidentally” call him John Capill or John Garrett that might do some good.

  15. Aww 15
    4 March 2014 at 4:27 pm

    Anyone else think that picture of Colin Craig looks a little like Tony Robbins?

    • North 15.1
      4 March 2014 at 9:25 pm

      Nah, in a strange, Ivy League, Kelvinator door teeth, ludicrously coiffed, lantern jawed, Yankee sort of way, Tony Robbins was still sorta handsome. Craig’s picture,puts me in mind of ……….well, can’t say it. Prick’d sue my arse out of my modest whare. The dirty little Clearasil Kid. Sorry, shouldn’t be mean. Probably prays eyes firmly shut while shaving. That’s good, that’s good. Such is his solipsistic FAITH.

      Fuck, imagine Conservative Party board meetings with that vile old bottle blonde baggage Rankin Of The Jangling Ears in attendance. Oh to be a fly on the wall when Adultery’s on the agenda.

      Major screeching !

  16. MrSmith 16
    4 March 2014 at 4:29 pm

    Craig is a Homophobic Bigot and the more publicity this gets the better, Collin Craig = John Key! keep saying it people.

    I will gladly donate to Normans defense fund.

    • North 16.1
      4 March 2014 at 9:05 pm

      Yeah, notice how the superbly Crosby Fester briefed ShonKey Python is throwing brickbats at the squeaky nutter Craig…..”toughen up blah blah blah”. Distancing himself from the person but just slavering to give him East Coast Bays and rely on the nutter religious right to deliver up maybe 4 or 5 extra seats with party vote from those who slid right up the Bible and kid banging monster Capill, until he got busted for his perversion.

      Colin…….what a pussy. Too frightened to pursue the homo factor because discovery would show him to be the sick nutter he is. What a pussy ! Hope his lawyers charge him the mill’. To lose.

  17. Grumpy 17
    4 March 2014 at 5:51 pm

    Seems like Colin gets the same crap legal advice as David Cunliffe.

  18. Pascal's bookie 18
    4 March 2014 at 5:51 pm

    Worth bearing this in mind:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1304/S00212/day-of-reckoning-still-to-come.htm

    It’s CC’s statement on the passage of marriage equality, and while it was roundly mocked at the time (rightly enough) it explains exactly why he wants binding referenda as a bottom line in coalition talks.

  19. NZ Jester 19
    4 March 2014 at 5:53 pm

    So he is going to try to sue him multiple times over the one speech?
    What is the legal stance on that?
    There must be something in law to prevent him from taking multiple expensive cases against him on a single speech.

  20. Populuxe1 20
    4 March 2014 at 6:18 pm

    Oh Russel is telling fibs. Colin doesn’t want Teh Gayz back in the closet. That just makes them far too hard to round up for the waterboard-the-gay-away camps he will build in Canterbury and the Waikato when he is elected Fuhrer.

  21. Kevin McCready 21
    4 March 2014 at 9:06 pm

    Craig is a either a liar or a fool, but probably both.

    He knows, or should have been advised, that discovery costs, if excessive, have to be paid by Norman. The procedure is to ask the court to declare that the costs are excessive.

    So the reason he’s trying to avoid providing evidence is that he knows it’s there and that it’s pretty nasty stuff, not the cost.

    If he’s stupid enough to go ahead with this the same will be found in his emails about women I have no doubt. Nasty bigoted fool.

  22. Jim 22
    4 March 2014 at 9:14 pm

    Craig should just roll with Russel’s description. There’s probably 5% support out there for closet and kitchen anyway.

    • North 22.1
      4 March 2014 at 9:46 pm

      That’s the madness of it……..there are those out there whom in ONE would vote for Craig on the score of the description AND applaud the litigation against Norman for the very description.

      Wow, people who voted about 5.6% for the Christian Coalition in an election not that many years ago are some really fucked up folks. And they’re still out there, semi-erect, just dying for the gravy stroke.

      The very people ShonKey Python’s got his devious little eyes on. I genuinely fear that ShonKey Python will form the next government with the votes of those who would seek to ‘cure’ yours’ and their gay sons with electric shock treatment, while attesting in the name of God to their ‘love’ for them.

  23. tricledrown 23
    4 March 2014 at 9:39 pm

    Colin craig looks like crusty the clown on the simpsons

  24. Clemgeopin 24
    4 March 2014 at 9:41 pm

    Crazy Colin is coming across by his cunning and cowardly ‘splitting’ action as a complete hypocrite and a total time waster. What a nincompoop! Mr Norman refererd to Craig’s views on gays and women TOGETHER in the SAME sentence. He did not ‘split’ that into two issues. So it looks like Craig accepts one part of the sentence and not the other! To me, it appears that crazy Colin is scared to bring up his views on gays, because heart of heart he knows that Mr Norman actually hit the nail on the head! I suggest that Mr Norman should not let this fool get away with his smart ass tactics. Craig’s views on gays should also be a main part of the defense case. Doesn’t Craig understand that in politics and in the English language idioms, innuendos, analogies, interpretations, conclusions, ironies, similes, sarcasms ARE allowed. The way to fight it in politics is to counter argue and not run looking for comfort, solace and satisfaction under some court skirts! A dork with too much cash and a pea brain! Now sue me!

  25. Populuxe1 25
    4 March 2014 at 10:56 pm

    So why is Russel now asking for donations to pay his legal fees in relation to comments on behalf of women and gay people neither grup actually asked him to make?

    • felix 25.1
      4 March 2014 at 11:06 pm

      Actually he’s the co-leader of the third largest party in NZ, a progressive party with a strong commitment to equality for all.

      There are a lot of women and gay people in that party who absolutely expect him to stand up against homophobia and sexism, especially from those wanting to gain access to parliament and influence our laws.

      • Populuxe1 25.1.1
        4 March 2014 at 11:24 pm

        I don’t remember Russel trying such tactics against John Banx who helf more or less identical views. In any case he needs to stick to attacking Cons policy, not ad hominem stuff like this which is beneath him. It’s like Bombast Bradbury bunching his panties over Jamie Whyte’s philosophical views on incest (revolting though they might be) when they have nothing to do with policy.
        The left needs to stay classy

        • felix 25.1.1.1
          4 March 2014 at 11:28 pm

          “I don’t remember Russel trying such tactics… “

          lolz, I hardly think ‘being sued by reactionary idiot’ is a tactic. You have your subject and object the wrong way around.

    • McFlock 25.2
      4 March 2014 at 11:08 pm

      probably in order to play up the “colin craig’s a rich bully” angle.
      You don’t have to donate if you don’t want to.

      • Populuxe1 25.2.1
        4 March 2014 at 11:19 pm

        I shan’t. I find it distasteful when he can so obviously afford it himself and I suspect many of his supporters cannot. I had hoped the Greens were above such political shenanigans. Though I find the justification of such quips ironic to say the least in light of the Turei/Tolley exchange.

        • McFlock 25.2.1.1
          4 March 2014 at 11:29 pm

          well, I don’t speak for the greens and I’ve not kept up with the news lately, so have no idea what you’re on about.

          I just reckon that the longer craig keeps being an idiot, the better it is for everyone.

          • McFlock 25.2.1.1.2
            4 March 2014 at 11:40 pm

            yeah I took that at face value, the turia/tolley thing slips my mind though.

            • felix 25.2.1.1.2.1
              4 March 2014 at 11:56 pm

              Tolley said “Turei isn’t allowed to wear a coat or live in a house”.

              Turei said “lolz racist”

              • McFlock …
                5 March 2014 at 12:05 am

                that?
                WTF has that got to do with craig suing norman because norman [apparently, in my opinion] summed up what craig believes but is too cowardly to openly admit?

                • felix …
                  5 March 2014 at 12:19 am

                  I have no idea.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  5 March 2014 at 12:25 am

                  Well if Turei is allowed to claim she’s being misrepresented, why not Craig? You’re probably right about him and he certainly is a homophobic dick, but putting words into other people’s mouths is a bit much

                  • McFlock …
                    5 March 2014 at 12:43 am

                    1: Turei wasn’t misrepresented – she pointed out that they don’t criticise e.g. Annette King for advocating against poverty while dressing non-opshop.

                    2: Craig is suing someone who had the nerve to describe what they believe his personal beliefs to be, and I don’t think norman was that far off. Turei didn’t even threaten to sue anyone, nor did toley.

                    3: Craig is welcome to claim he was misrepresented – but that’s not what he’s doing. He’s throwing his chequebook against someone who criticised him.

                    All Craig need do is say that norman was wrong, craig in fact believes homosexality should be legal, same-sex civil marriage is fine, point to his previous statements to support that case, and point to the number of women he’s promoted in his organisation and that his business has an obviously-implemented policy of diversity in employment from board of directors, through middle management, and down to the cleaning staff. If Craig did that, norman would look like an arse and the conservatives would leap in the polls.

                    That’s if norman is wrong, of course.

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      5 March 2014 at 12:57 pm

                      1: Turei wasn’t misrepresented – she pointed out that they don’t criticise e.g. Annette King for advocating against poverty while dressing non-opshop.

                      To be fair it was Turei who started that one by accusing Tolley of being out of touch with low income people – that is a subjective values statement based on assumptions, though Turei was free to provide concrete examples at any time. While Tolley’s bitchy response was classist and sanctimonious, it wasn’t racist. Turei calling it such, while not as frivolous as a law suit, was in the political arena just as damaging and I was dissapointed she chose to make it about her rather than attack National’s treatment of the poor.

                      2: Craig is suing someone who had the nerve to describe what they believe his personal beliefs to be, and I don’t think norman was that far off. Turei didn’t even threaten to sue anyone, nor did toley.

                      Well maybe rather than trying to imagine what people’s personally beliefs might be, we might stick to critcising their policies. Name-slinging, however accurate, alienates voters. The ladies handled with a tad more class than the gentlemen, but it still ends up looking like a petty spat.

                      3: Craig is welcome to claim he was misrepresented – but that’s not what he’s doing. He’s throwing his chequebook against someone who criticised him.

                      Burden of proof is on the accuser. Assumed innocent until proven guilty – it applies to arseholes like Craig as well.

                      All Craig need do is say that norman was wrong, craig in fact believes homosexality should be legal, same-sex civil marriage is fine, point to his previous statements to support that case, and point to the number of women he’s promoted in his organisation and that his business has an obviously-implemented policy of diversity in employment from board of directors, through middle management, and down to the cleaning staff. If Craig did that, norman would look like an arse and the conservatives would leap in the polls.

                      Actually no – he need only say that he doesn’t believe that women should stay in the kitchen (Conservatism has a diverse range of opinions and casting them as teabagger misogynists isn’t especially clever) – he employs women, so I doubt his views are as blunt as that. And what he personally feels about homosexuals is irrelevant so long as he says he has no intention of trying to repeal homosexual law reform and other legal protections of LGBT people.

                      That’s if norman is wrong, of course.

                      I don’t think he’s entirely wrong, but I don’t think he has Winston’s polish and chutzpah to be able to pull this sort of thing off without looking a bit like a chihuahua.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 March 2014 at 2:43 pm

                      Turei calling it such, while not as frivolous as a law suit, was in the political arena just as damaging

                      Also a very plausible claim to make. Unlike Craig’s court case. Also cheaper, which suggests that Craig is simply a chequebook bully rather than a politician who can use his words.

                      Well maybe rather than trying to imagine what people’s personally beliefs might be, we might stick to critcising their policies.

                      And what about conscience votes in parliament? Will he put forward a private members bill to repeal same-sex marriage? Make abortion harder to get? Weaken the Human Rights Act? These are valid concerns that are foreshadowed by the character and beliefs of the representative. He might very well have no plans to do any of this, but might just decide during the term to put the “fun” in fundamentalist.

                      3: Craig is welcome to claim he was misrepresented – but that’s not what he’s doing. He’s throwing his chequebook against someone who criticised him.

                      Burden of proof is on the accuser. Assumed innocent until proven guilty – it applies to arseholes like Craig as well.

                      But Craig hasn’t been accused of a criminal matter, simply being a conservative dickhead. Which I believe he is.

                      he need only say that he doesn’t believe that women should stay in the kitchen

                      Indeed. Doesn’t need to use a chequebook at all – his readiness to do so probably says more against his character than anything another politician can say.

                      he employs women, so I doubt his views are as blunt as that.

                      Really? What proportion of staff in senior management or directorships are women? Unless it’s ~50/50, or even just roughly the same as the rest of new zealand, his actions speak louder than your words.

                      And what he personally feels about homosexuals is irrelevant so long as he says he has no intention of trying to repeal homosexual law reform and other legal protections of LGBT people.

                      Yes, because we can always trust what a politician says, even if it’s contrary to his personal beliefs /sarc

                      That’s if norman is wrong, of course.

                      I don’t think he’s entirely wrong, but I don’t think he has Winston’s polish and chutzpah to be able to pull this sort of thing off without looking a bit like a chihuahua.

                      All he has to do is let craig make a dick of himself by dragging it out longer and longer and longer. And what about the credibility plummet is craig loses as badly as david irving? That would really help the nactoids achieve 50%, given that key wants to work with the man.

                      All in all, much more successful than anything labour have tried recently.

                    • Tracey …
                      5 March 2014 at 2:56 pm

                      Yup

                      Norman just needs to popint to some stuff that enables Norman to claim he genuinely holds that opinion of Craig. It has tohave some factual basis, so he can trawl back through public documents of Craig’s quotes etc…

                      VERY interesting that Craig is balking at his emails and letters around the same sex marriage issue are not something he wants revealled prior to the election. he obviously feels on much safer ground that women dont belong in the kitchen.

                      I suspect his affidavit will include things like

                      “some of my companies best cleaners have been men”

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      5 March 2014 at 3:10 pm

                      And what about conscience votes in parliament? Will he put forward a private members bill to repeal same-sex marriage? Make abortion harder to get? Weaken the Human Rights Act? These are valid concerns that are foreshadowed by the character and beliefs of the representative. He might very well have no plans to do any of this, but might just decide during the term to put the “fun” in fundamentalist.

                      That’s rather the point of a conscience vote, isn’t it? He might very well put forward a private members bill to repeal same-sex marriage, but this isn’t Uganda. He could put frward a private members bill to make every day Christmass. I’m pretty sure New Zealand democracy is robust enough to take it.

                      Really? What proportion of staff in senior management or directorships are women? Unless it’s ~50/50, or even just roughly the same as the rest of new zealand, his actions speak louder than your words.

                      But that would be holding Craig to standards higher even than women CEOs which seems a little out there. Why don’t female CEOs have 50% female management? He probably loves that family values shtick and I wouldn’t vote for him, but I’d prefer to see a difinitive statement from him first.

                      All he has to do is let craig make a dick of himself by dragging it out longer and longer and longer. And what about the credibility plummet is craig loses as badly as david irving? That would really help the nactoids achieve 50%, given that key wants to work with the man.

                      “Give me back my flag”

                    • McFlock …
                      5 March 2014 at 11:57 pm

                      He might very well put forward a private members bill to repeal same-sex marriage, but this isn’t Uganda.

                      Ah, so we needen’t care about what elected reresentatives believe in, because other elected representatives would vote against it. But then how do you know that would be the case, if you don’t know what they believe in? And didn’t you just argue that craig had been misrepresented?

                      But that would be holding Craig to standards higher even than women CEOs

                      No, I was describing how craig could show that norman’s statement was incorrect without using a chequebook and a court. You know, basic skills for politicians. You obviously missed the “even just roughly the same as the rest of new zealand” bit.

  26. Whatever next 26
    4 March 2014 at 11:50 pm

    ” a high standard of public debate is essential for a democracy” perhaps John Key should sue Craig for saying making such an outrageous suggestion

  27. Murray Olsen 27
    5 March 2014 at 4:19 am

    I donated for the case. I’m neither gay nor Green, and you always find me in the kitchen at parties, but Colon Craig can’t be allowed to intimidate people with his overweight chequebook. The last politician I remember who tried that was Jeffrey Archer, and he ended up in prison. That’d be a great result, seeing how Colon likes violence against children.

  28. North 28
    5 March 2014 at 8:48 am

    Hey Popsicle I stand to be corrected…….but I thought I saw you quite recently having a go at Craig for his anti-gay shit.

    And I also recall something from you a while ago which approached an acknowledgment that you “help out when they’re busy’……” so to speak, the minority team that is.

    Now I see you nitpicking at straight dude Norman for taking it to The Homophobe. You’re not one of those horribly conflicted Tory gay fellows are you ?

    Known quite a few in my time. They’re a riot. Frequently however, prissy, disdainful, pearl-clutching, vexatious, authoritarian, insecure snobs. Like vaunted “Toryness” atones somehow.

    In case you’re moved to yell “homophobe” you’re welcome to ask me about my team. I’m likely to respond, not that cryptically – “all of the time, busy or not……..”.

    Again, I stand to be corrected Pops’……..but not in the way the religious right might propose.

    • Populuxe1 28.1
      5 March 2014 at 1:18 pm

      Oh, I’m gay, very gay, but women and LGBT people can say that for themselves and do. I am mainly concerned that Norman will undermine himself by getting caught up in this sort of largely irrelevant nonsense (shades of “give me back my flag”) and give too much weight to Craig’s idiocy.

    • Murray Olsen 28.2
      6 March 2014 at 1:39 am

      Funnily enough, North, I get the same impression, but Pop swears he’s a leftwinger. I suppose he could like the RWNJ slogans like “give me back my flag” for their poetic qualties, so I could be wrong.

  29. North 29
    5 March 2014 at 3:35 pm

    I reckon you’re disingenuous there Pops’. Your studied concern that Norman may be undermined I mean. Risible actually.

    But if your concern is real be not concerned Pops’. If anything I suspect there are electorally significant LGBT numbers who will view Norman much more favourably than previously they might have. Precisely as a result of Craig’s carry on and Norman’s response. Undermined ? Norman’s hardly reaching out to the “dirty dirty” brigade or the flat-earther “God can cure you” merchants.

    As an aside, it was another Norman, the crazy old bigot Norman Jones, National MP for Invercargill RIP (death not jeans) whom in the days of law reform trenchantly cultivated and whipped up them mob. Could only get as far as the foyer at the bigot’s jampacked meeting at North Shore Teachers College one night. Meeting over two “Don’t fuck with us……” gay women strode defiantly from the hall arm in arm. Jesus, the profanities and filth issuing from the mouths of scores of teenybopper god-botherers in that foyer. In one it was appalling for the hatred and hilarious for the cacophany – both faith-based apparently. And nary a leftie or a greenie amongst them I’d wager.

    Anyway, I can see how you’re conflicted Pops’. Broadly (exceptions do prove) empathy and tolerance is much less the mark of ‘the’ tory than it is of gay people I think. As reflected in the essential selfishness of ‘the’ tory economic mindset – all power to me in MY life – all power to me in YOUR life.

    Go for it Russel Norman – even if ‘the’ tory feels undermined…….conflicted.

  30. captain hook 30
    5 March 2014 at 8:13 pm

    my opinion is that colin craig, the great theologaster, should come out of the closet and stop denying the real him.