Dick of the year

Written By: - Date published: 7:15 am, March 9th, 2017 - 71 comments
Categories: Metiria Turei, Politics, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

And we have an early contender.  It will be difficult to beat this effort.

Yesterday, on International Women’s day ACT leader David Seymour chose to question what Metiria Turei was wearing. Apparently her T shirt may have had a slogan on it.  Seymour choosing to complain about it basically reinforces every negative preconception anyone has about him or Parliament as an old boy’s institution.

How about addressing the issues and not being preoccupied with what people may be wearing …

Here is the video.

71 comments on “Dick of the year”

  1. James 1

    There are rules and requirements for being in the house.

    She breaks the rules and you say he’s a dick for pulling her up on it.

    The best way to have parliament work and not focus on petty stuff like this is not to break the rules.

    So of anyone’s being a dick here and causing distractions it’s her.

    • Macro 1.1

      James is trying to be dick number 2.

      • james 1.1.1

        Nothing to add to the discussion – just an insult?

        • Macro 1.1.1.1

          There isn’t anything to discuss! Just one idiot apologizing for another.
          You will note that the Speaker of the House – who is not known for his impartiality – considered the interjection by Seymour to be not worth responding to.
          If Seymour was offended by the little of the slogan (which I gather is supporting pay equality for women – the slogan itself being mostly covered by Metiria’s jacket) which he could see, then he needs to take a long hard look at himself, and his underlying misogyny.

          • james 1.1.1.1.1

            He gave no indication that he took offence to what it said – he simply said that it was out of the rules.

            Do you not think that Members of parliament should follow the rules of the house? A simple yes / no will do.

            • Macro 1.1.1.1.1.1

              If you think that a simple” yes” or “no” is all that is required, then it says a great deal about you, and not a lot about the conduct of the House of Representatives.
              If he did not take offense – then why did he need to raise the question, when no one else – including the Speaker – considered it important?

              • james

                The fact that you cannot answer a question “Do you not think that Members of parliament should follow the rules of the house?”

                with a yes / no says a lot about you also.

                It shows that you are an apologist, and have no respect for the rules as long as it suits your agenda.

                Yet you are happy to apply emotions to another person inferring they were offended without a single shred of evidence to back it up.

                • McFlock

                  The fact that you have your knickers in a twist about a covered tshirt shows that you interpret “business attire” and “reasonable” far more strictly than the Speaker.

                • Macro

                  And it shows you to be a dick.
                  One of the severely potty trained variety, who are so anally retentive that they think ever rule is sacrosanct, no matter how stupid. I can see you as one of those overly officious little pricks, who when given the power of prefect in a high school, gleefully run to teacher whenever John has his shirt buttons undone, or his socks down.

                • Macro

                  Matt 12: 1 – 7
                  “12 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

                  3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.’
                  my bold
                  You see. just saying “Rules are Rules and rules are to be obeyed without question” Is a very foolish attitude to take – it is also unchristian – if that is important to you. Certainly Jesus was not averse to breaking the rules where they were clearly “unmerciful”.
                  He was also no averse to making his point quite clearly and forcefully where people were acting in a poor or corrupt way – eg the clearing of the Temple.
                  So if I appear to be a little brusque it is purely because I perceive you to be behaving rather unmercifully and and not a little unlike the Pharisees.

                  • james

                    My personal opinion is that thats a made up story book and not rules. So the argument is pretty moot there.

                    • Macro

                      You are welcome to your opinion – many others hold the same view – the point of the story however is quite clear whatever beliefs. Mercy is far more important than sacrifice (or blind obedience to rules).

                • Draco T Bastard

                  As my father said “Rules are made to be broken.”

                  • McFlock

                    …and then the murders began 🙂

                  • AB

                    Especially when they concern total irrelevancies such as what people are wearing.
                    If we are going to have stupid arbitrary rules about clothing in parliament, then I suggest making it outside the rules to wear suits, ties, expensive watches or Italian shoes, as these could be construed as an attempt to intimidate others with overt displays of wealth and dominance.
                    If James (and David Seymour) are able to get worked up over something as mad as clothing rules then they should be treated as a laughing stock. (Oh – I see that is the point of the post!)

        • greywarshark 1.1.1.2

          Yeah other insults James – you must enjoy having a sign with ‘Kick Me’ on your bottom as you keep coming back for that result.

          What do you mean when talking about a dickhead by saying “he’s pulling her up on it?” That’s plain rude.

          • james 1.1.1.2.1

            “Yeah other insults James ”

            There have been plenty of comments or even a thread or two about this not being a comfortable place for some to comment (mainly females).

            Do you think ongoing insults to people who you disagree with help make this a better or worse place for all?

            Supporting bully type behaviour make you a better or worse commenter?

            Anyway – back on topic.

            My comment was simple – she broke the rules, how is he the dick for pointing it out?

            Example – I speed driving my car, I know its against the rules, but when I get pulled over by the police – Its not him/her thats the dick. I cannot use that its “speed week” as an excuse.

            But for some reason some on here seem blinkered that the whole “event” could have been avoided if she simply followed the rules.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.2.1.1

              However, the self-aggrandising Libertarian in the passenger seat who calls the cops might just look like a petty little nark with no life.

            • weka 1.1.1.2.1.2

              “There have been plenty of comments or even a thread or two about this not being a comfortable place for some to comment (mainly females).”

              I get you have a hobby horse about the culture of TS (me too). But please don’t appropriate what I’ve been saying about women on TS in order to push your own agenda. There hasn’t been an in depth discussion about what the issues are for women and feminists here, and I’m going to guess that you probably don’t know what I have been talking about. I’ll give you a hint though, if men here want to understand what the dynamics are they need to shut up for a while and listen.

              Which doesn’t mean that you can’t talk about the rude/abuse culture on TS, just that when a feminist starts talking about the difficulties for feminism here, it’s asking for a runner up placing in dick of the year award to then misuse that conversation on International Women’s Day. Not that you are the only contender, and tbh I don’t think you are really in the running, so just treat this as an invitation to do the right thing. And if you want to be taken seriously on women’s issues, next time women start talking about them, listen and ask and learn.

              • james

                Weka – fair point – I was kind of lumping the poor behaviour of some commenters and the potential for impact against others in with a lot of what you have been commenting on (which BTW – you will see I normally am pretty quiet on – and for a reason).

                So for that I do apologise – I really didnt intend to diminish (if that is the correct word) what you have been arguing – but I can see how I have used it to push my agenda (I cannot stand keyboard warrior bullies) – and that is pretty poor form.

      • reason 1.1.2

        Trolls share a lot in common with Dick pics …. unpleasant, unsolicited and sent with ill intention.

        James should know it is Act imposters who should be gone from Parliament ….

        Act are a Fake party …. which a few simple questions clearly demonstrate….

        What other political party gets into Parliament …..solely because another Party instructs its voters to support them ???? …. Answer: None… apart from Act

        What other party owes its continual existence in Parliament on the say so of another Party ??? … Answer: None … apart from Act

        It is National and national alone who keep Act alive …. To exploit a non-proportional loop hole in our proportional voting system…

        Act is the Hard Right branch/division of Natioanl … it also takes the ‘blame’ for the more extreme National policy .. Charter Schools, Serco private prisons and other vote losers.

        ‘Nact’ is the only accurate description of National with their mini me Act dwarf

        David Seymor, the joke face representing this Nact-con fake party has been a bit lost of late ….

        Since his lunchtime drinking buddy Johnny …. made off

        Who can he make Tax Haven jokes to in Pafliaments debating time ??…. now that john gone.

        Apart from insider tax haven jokes ….seymors other main claim to fame in Parliament was to introduce … under urgency ….Pro Alcohol law changes ….

        Demonstrating that the Nacts were to stupid or lazy to write the date of world rugby cups on a calendar …. and do necessary work beforehand.

        Basically Seymor is a chinless wonder representing rich white trash … he is probably only brave enough to bully Metiria because he has the lynch mob sisters backing him up …… https://thestandard.org.nz/focusing-on-the-issues-that-matter/

        James could have other reasons to back Seymors latest attempted bullying …

        ……” it’s the idea of an effective Maori woman that Tolley, Collins and Ross are attacking.” http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/08/22/you-just-have-to-keep-on-fighting-an-interview-with-metiria-turei/

        The greens and Metiria have always had far higher standard of ethics, morals and democracy ….. than any party James has ever voted for …..

    • halfcrown 1.2

      I take then you were “horrified” by Key’s slitting of the throat gesture a few years back.
      Or is it another case of this pack of incompetents in your eyes can do no wrong.

        • james 1.2.1.1

          While that was a disgusting jacket – if it was against the rules (other than the rules of good taste) – then yes he should have been pulled up on it.

      • james 1.2.2

        Not sure what thats got to do with anything? other than trying to change the subject?

        Did Metiria Turei break the rules? Yep.

        Why not call her up on it?

        • McFlock 1.2.2.1

          not according to the speaker.

          Was it appropriate business attire? Yep.
          Was the shirt underneath a jacket? Yep.
          Was it visually equivalent to a sports team tie that was referred to as permissable in the ruling rimmer mentioned? Yes.

          One of the most partisan Speakers I have heard of thought the point of order was trivial bullshit. Learn.

        • Robert Guyton 1.2.2.2

          “Why not call her up on it?”
          ’cause when you do, you become “Dick of the Week” and a candidate for “Dick of the Year”. If you are too much of a dick to realise that, then your argument becomes a good one.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3

      Act, the party of freedom and Libertarian lip service, standing up for the rules which must be obeyed because Liberty!

      • Andre 1.3.1

        Irony seems to be MIA today. Possibly just corroded away…

      • Macro 1.3.2

        I think it was a chumpish attempt at diversion.
        Now had he tweeted.

        “Matirira wearing pink T shirt with slogan on in Parliament – SO SAD!!!!” *

        He might have achieved the aim.

        * note the purposeful misspelling

    • DoublePlusGood 1.4

      The attire rules are stupid. They’re there to run the country, not look pretty.

      • jcuknz 1.4.1

        Wrong Double plus good …. they re there to maintain standards and govern the country .. people who pack the public gallery and sing and those wearing t-shirt with large messages do not maintain the dignity of the House.
        Parliament is a place for words not signs.
        another argument in my mind why not to vote green as if I needed another.

        • adam 1.4.1.1

          Oh look another far right troll, practicing fake concern.

          Tiresome, as it is boring.

          How is dignity maintained when the last PM screamed at the labour MP’s with froth coming from his mouth, oh wait he had a nice suit on then that was OK then.

          Children catching old world diseases, housing crisis, wages at poverty levels, and the Tory idiots want to talk about dignity.

          By definition, a very sick joke.

        • DoublePlusGood 1.4.1.2

          I would happily show up to parliament in stubbies, gumboots and a singlet and I’d do a better job than your useless twits in suits.

    • adam 1.5

      Sheesh James is that why you think it OK to beat children? Because they don’t follow your rules?

      What next, the ‘I was only following orders’ defense?

    • Ian 1.6

      The green party need to get rid of her. She is an embarrassment to all environmentalists.

      • Ian. Do you remember when Metiria Turei traveled the country, speaking to environmental groups, local government and industry representatives about the plight of the long finned eel?

        ‘Course you don’t.

  2. Carolyn_nth 2

    Very good of Turei to raise issues concerning Māori and Pacific women

    Māori women are paid 22% less than men. Pacific women are paid 26% less than men. These are pay gaps driven by sexism and bias. These are pay gaps that have real impacts on women’s lives. Having less income to pay rent, feed your children and take of yourself is an imbalance that is unfair and unacceptable. We all know this, but we need a Government that will actually take the action needed to pay women more.

    The gender pay gap has been highlighted through the Kristine Bartlett case and the CTU’s Treat Her Right campaign. But even as the gender pay gap is more visible generally, it is rarely mentioned that Māori and Pacific women earn so much less than men as well as Pakeha women.

    • Shadows 2.1

      What is the gender pay gap between men and women that have no children? Do you know?

  3. mikesh 3

    I think he was objecting to the fact that the t-shirt contained a message, rather than the actual wearing of a t-shirt. Therefore his complaint should be seen as an attack on freedom of speech.

    I notice from the video clip that Ms Bennett was wearing an anti-sexual-violence badge, so perhaps he should have complained about her as well.

  4. james 4

    “I think he was objecting to the fact that the t-shirt contained a message, rather than the actual wearing of a t-shirt. Therefore his complaint should be seen as an attack on freedom of speech.”

    No – He was complaining because there was a motif on the t-shirt and that is expressly against the rules.

    • shorts 4.1

      objecting to that particular shirt on international womans day is a dick move, especially for a man to do so, house rules or not

    • mikesh 4.2

      “No – He was complaining because there was a motif on the t-shirt and that is expressly against the rules.”

      The distinction between a verbal motif and a non verbal one, such as Ms Bennett’s white ribbon badge, seems very artificial.

      • McFlock 4.2.1

        The actual rule Seymour brought up dealt with rugby shirts as outer-wear. Clare curran wore an uncovered rugby shirt into the House, and lockwood smith said it was over the line, but ties and pins with some when Mallard asked:

        He asked Dr Smith to look carefully at the issue of sports attire, given that some MPs wore ties and badges supporting sports teams

        Dr Smith said he had no objection to that but asked MPs to exercise discretion.

        He said the standards had been updated since Ms Richardson was an MP, and women were now expected to wear business attire.

        Dr Smith said he would not be pedantic on dress and would trust MPs’ judgment, but asked them to be reasonable.

        A tidy and occasion-appropriate shirt under a formal jacket seems pretty reasonable to me.

      • jcuknz 4.2.2

        It could be a question of size …. dignified v. loud.

    • “No – He was complaining…”

      (James) says it all, really.

  5. Macro 5

    Maybe Seymour was trying to raise awareness of the International Misogynists Day being ruined by women.. Or maybe he was just being an idiot.

  6. greywarshark 6

    I found halfway through that the really important piece in this 7m clip showed Poorer Benefit to be a sly and slithery Gnat politician and Metiria Turei to be a clear and determined politician who was prepared with good questions that as the discourse unfolded showed Poorer clearly as someone determined not to legislate to advance fairness in present women’s wage disparity.

    And it appears that Metiria was wearing, under her pink suit jacket, a pink t-shirt that showed 100 on it and a design behind it that I took to refer to women’s wages though it wasn’t clear from the video, as it was mostly obscured by the jacket.

    Really I think that Seymour has a point. We can’t have politicians advertising their main concerns on their clothing, otherwise what would we get – pictures of Cigars form the pro-tobacco, pictures of people slumped in pools of vomit from the anti-welfare, anti-abortionists showing little balls of foetuses, wine and beer glasses brimming with a branded favourite beverage etc. The mind boggles.

    Unfortunately I have to say that James is right. The Rules are there and not insisting on them for one, opens up a can of worms with the others. And I have got better worms in my compost bin doing more important and useful things. For goodness sake don’t let us drop the ball on getting pollies to think and act intelligently on important concerns, just to argue about slogans on clothes.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

      We have a serious problem with electoral disengagement. Having all representatives dress like Toryboy wannabes is a small part of that.

      • greywarshark 6.1.1

        OAB
        It’s kind of extreme to say that a rule that says parliamentarians can’t promote or advertise on their clothing is part of electoral disengagement. But perhaps you can tell me if a man or woman can wear a simple t-shirt and pair of jeans to work in The House? I should imagine that tidy, clean is taken for granted but is it spelt out in the Regs?

        It would be interesting to see a Labour MP turn up in paint-stained overalls, or the farmer boys of 50 or 60 turning up in gumboots and black singlets on Fred Dagg Day. I think there should be one of those, though I don’t know when as I have the feeling that dairy farmers never dry their cows off now.

  7. ropata 7

    Men in suits ought to be banned. It was men in suits that signed documents to steal pensions, commit massive fraud, authorise drone strikes, send young people to war, and impoverish whole nations. “Respectable” attire is preferred by the wolves among us

    • james 7.1

      Men in t-shirts and hoodies ought to be banned. It was men in t-shirts and hoodies that broke into your house, raped your daughter, assaulted you as you walked down Queen St. “Casual” attire is preferred by the wolves among us.

      See what a silly argument that is.

      • McFlock 7.1.1

        Men in suits do more harm than men in hoodies. By several orders of magnitude.

        There’s what, 60 murders a year? The tobacco industry kills 5000, alone.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 7.2

      “The cannibals wear smart suits and ties”

      Midnight Oil

  8. Pete 8

    This sums up a lot of our problems. We have rules that say you can’t wear a shirt with a logo on it in Parliament and that’s a real problem. We have fuckwits like Seymour in Parliament all concerned about such serious stuff. And we have people on here who think rules are rules and it’s a bloody serious issue.

    Meanwhile women including Maori and Pacifica women are being grossly underpaid compared to men.

    Is Seymour going to get up on his hind legs and bay about that? And do something?

    • Red 8.1

      Are you talking for the same roles, qualifications over the same amount of working years, please elaborate if so. I think equal pay is a slightly more complex arguement then dress code, Also some people ( not all obviously) are able to have more than one thought or thing on the go at one time

  9. Skeptic 9

    I think the appropriate aphorism here involves something about rules and guidelines for the wise and absolutes for the foolish. The wider issue of “dress codes” is pretty much like the “school uniform” debate – it’s been ongoing for time immemorial – you either believe in appropriate clothing for the appropriate occasion or you don’t – it’s a matter of personal taste – except to OCD people!! 🙂

  10. Mrs Brillo 10

    Thanks, guys, for your unique take on celebrating International Women’s Day.

    • Jenny Kirk 10.1

      + 1000% Mrs Brillo

    • lprent 10.2

      Personally I treat all X special days as being like irrelevant marketing. If they don’t have time off (ie time to work on my nonwork projects like this site) then I simply don’t notice them.

      This applies to my birthday, new years eve, Halloween, Valentine’s day, my partners birthday, anniversaries, and the like. Not worth the effort unless someone reminds me.

      Generally unless someone makes it relevant, I find them all irrelevant. And I have done so for thelast 50 years.

      My mother does tend to remind me about my birthday. Someone in the family usually tells me where to attend Xmas, wedding anniversaries, birthdays, etc and what my contribution will be. My partner will tell me if a date is important to her, like her 40th birthday.

      If people need my support for everything from occasions to keeping young relatives out of disasters – then they will ask for it or organise it.

      If you want to make some day important then that is your job. Do something about it.

      • Mrs Brillo 10.2.1

        You shouldn’t have gone to all that trouble to explain just how irrelevant you find it.
        We could tell.

  11. Lloyd 11

    Meteria Turei was wearing a very nicely tailored pink jacket and the obscured logo on the t-shirt was of the same colour as the jaket. It looked a pretty professional package to me. Rodney Hide never managed to wear his yellow jacket with anything like Ms Turei’s aplomb or style.
    My guess is the pink jacket was by WORLD and was made in New Zealand by well-paid clothing workers. I couldn’t see the t-shirt in the video clip, so I can’t comment.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Passing a motion and other Parliamentary jargon
    If you were asked “that the question is that the question be now put”, or “that the part stand apart”, would you understand? If you heard someone “seek leave to pass a motion” would you crack-up giggling or throw your ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes
    7 hours ago
  • U.S. Federal Communications Commissars say ‘neyt’ to net neutrality.
    The Internet has faced many threats. Dictatorships building cyber walls, a hostile takeover bid by the International Telecommunications Union and states and companies trying to block websites, but last night the U.S. Federal Communications Commission repealed U.S. net neutrality rules. ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes
    3 days ago
  • Nga hapū o Ngāpuhi, kōrero mai!
    Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Andrew Little continues his Ngāpuhi listening tour throughout Te Tai Tokerau following the announcement of six more hui this weekend.  ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Pike River Recovery Agency advice released
    Minister Responsible for Pike River Re-entry Andrew Little has released advice on the establishment of the Pike River Recovery Agency, Te Kāhui Whakamana Rua Tekau mā Iwa. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • When gaming becomes gambling
    I was really looking forward to playing the new Star Wars: Battlefront 2 game. It looked pretty cool and I liked the first instalment. But when I checked out the reviews online, nobody was talking about the new game; they ...
    GreensBy Gareth Hughes
    3 weeks ago