Disgusting

Written By: - Date published: 9:40 am, August 22nd, 2013 - 110 comments
Categories: national/act government, same old national - Tags: ,

Blame my Irish Catholic Working class background or because of my family my immersion in Trade Union activity from birth but I have always thought that the National Party was a bunch of self indulgent, rude and arrogant miscreants who are under the illusion that they are born to rule and superior to the rest of us.

Last night’s speech by Attorney General Chris Finlayson reaffirmed my beliefs.

He gave the appearance of being utterly convinced that he is right and the fact that a huge number of legal heavy hitters such as the Law Society, former Justice Ted Thomas, the Human Rights Commission, Rodney Harrison QC, the Privacy Commissioner, and Geoffrey Palmer disagree with him did not cause him to rethink his views in the slightest.

The Herald has chronicled his array of insults as follows:

On Rodney Harrison, QC
“It’s not true that we haven’t allowed for enough time to craft good legislation but maybe we haven’t allowed enough time for the rate at which Dr Harrison can get to grips with this legislation.”

On Sir Bruce Ferguson, former GCSB director
“Let us not forget that despite his recent attempts to reinvent himself as a political commentator, many of the problems we are dealing with today in this legislation occurred on his watch.”

On Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Labour PM
“[He] allowed the GCSB to operate with no legislation at all when he was Prime Minister. Sir Geoffrey has claimed this legislation is rushed. Well it isn’t … If we want to talk about rushing something let us look at the debate on the SOE bill in 1986 … He has managed to recast himself as the guardian angel of constitutional propriety. He’s not. He’s deeply partisan.”

On Dame Anne Salmond
“The worst contribution has come from Dame Anne Salmond … some of her shrill and unprofessional comments … [have comparisons with] McCarthyism and comparisons with Nazi Germany.”

In many respects his attack on Anne Salmond is the worst.  She has responded with dignity and class.  She has accused him of engaging in gutter politics.  Her original reference to Nazi Germany was because Germans were also told “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”.

Stuff reports her as saying

It’s incredibly sad. I think people who have raised concerns about the bill are raising them because they care about democracy, and they care about the rights of our citizens.

If we’re talking about democratic freedom in New Zealand, and it’s descended into gutter politics like that, I just find it so sad.

Anne Salmond is so right.  People standing up for what they believe in should not be subject to this level of insults, let alone the mass surveillance we are now subject to.

It clearly is time for a change of Government.

110 comments on “Disgusting ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. cnrjoe 1
    22 August 2013 at 9:56 am

    Our Spyminister

    • Wayne 1.1
      22 August 2013 at 1:54 pm

      I guess one point to take from all of this is that if you enter the public debate, you should refrain from comparing your opponents to Nazis, or saying they disgrace the memories of New Zealand’s war dead.

      There is a reason why you can’t do that in Parliament and that is that it tends to provoke disorder, and often a very sharp retort. Which it did in this instance.

      In any debate where you are taking a public position, it is at least worth considering whether the actions of the Govt are typical of other western democracies. If they are then that should limit the scope of the debate and the level of outrage. Otherwise you might end up saying that President Obama is just like the Nazis. Or something as equally silly.

      Now of course you could argue as Seeby Woodhouse did, that NZ should have a higher standard than other nations, that we should be a leader. And as a general proposition New Zealanders like that.

      • Murray Olsen 1.1.1
        22 August 2013 at 11:46 pm

        Nah Wayne, the Nazis never had drones and Hitler never won a Nobel Peace Prize. Totally different and silly.

  2. vto 2
    22 August 2013 at 10:03 am

    so I was right all those months ago when Finlayson effectively appointed himself a QC – he is a queer cunt through and through.

    Finlayson QC – let nobody think of anything else when they see those letters next to his name.

    • karol 2.1
      22 August 2013 at 10:40 am

      Finlayson’s comments are disgusting as micky says.

      However, referring to anyone as a q***r c*** is very offensive, let alone when applied to a gay man. In Dame Anne Salmond’s words, it’s “gutter politics”.

      • vto 2.1.1
        22 August 2013 at 10:46 am

        Actually the term is not “very offensive”. It is an old term meaning, with even some small element of endearment, strange bastard. It is taken in people’s stride in a similar manner to, say, “rude prick” or “dopey bastard”.

        • karol 2.1.1.1
          22 August 2013 at 11:02 am

          Of course, the fact that queer is often used to refer to a gay person has nothing to do with it? And why use a term for female genitalia to attack a man, rather than the term for male genitalia. In fact, the two terms are not equivalent. And I really don’t like the c word being used as a term of abuse. Never do so myself. the q c phrase feels very offensive to me.

          • vto 2.1.1.1.1
            22 August 2013 at 11:19 am

            The two terms as you describe are secondary to their predominant use together like this, although your points around each of those individually are noted as are the wider issues they point to (although you may note the use of the word “prick” above. Male genitalia. I don’t think a lot of people worry too much).

            No apology is made in this case. It fits the situation. The same description would have been made if it had been any other minister making himself a QC, gay or not. You may find that hard to believe but it is so. Finlaysons personal situation is merely a lightweight highlight, nothing more.

            Same to Tracey below – your personal take on it is noted. My personal approach to it is as described. It is an individual (on my part) form of abuse that Finlayson deserves imo.

            It should also be borne in mind that the actions of this and previous governments have a very very immediate and direct of the life of me and those around me. Examples – GCSB spying, Ecan theft, Chch EQC (guess how they have been described down these parts with those initials), smacking laws, loads and loads. They make it personal to us – we make it personal to them. There is no hiding behind an office. No apology.

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.1.1.1
              22 August 2013 at 11:24 am

              Correct. My belief is that the office doesn’t make the pollie, it is the pollie which makes the office. And I’ve seen kindy politics rougher than this, and this is the grown ups game.

              • karol …
                22 August 2013 at 11:27 am

                Politics, unfortunately has a very long masculine heterosexist legacy – that doesn’t make such abuse right.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  22 August 2013 at 11:35 am

                  Yes, I suppose politics should keep to strictly gender neutral and sexual orientation free types of personal abuse. Also anything relating to ethnicity, race, parental marital status, educational history, class background, income level and personal appearance needs to be excluded.

                  But all other kinds of personal abuse should be ok.

                  Possibly the ideal the left should champion is that no personal abuse should occur in the public and political arena, comments from all parties should be kept strictly to the pertinent issues of substance and all political interactions encouraged to be disciplined, clean and professional.

                  Perhaps a demerit point system could be implemented with neutral and independent referees?

                  • Tracey …
                    22 August 2013 at 11:41 am

                    Missing the point. vto complains about Finlayson’s personal abuse of people, then personally abuses him. Of course he’s free to do it… and we are free to be offended by it he can rationalise and justify it, and even suggest that “others do it too” (if he wants). It just means he reveals himself as everything he says he opposes. Finlayson wont apologise and neither will vto. They are more alike than I expect vto would acknowledge.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 August 2013 at 11:46 am

                      So you think that public figures and political leaders shall be held to the same standard as private citizens and anonymous bloggers?

                      I don’t think so.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      22 August 2013 at 11:59 am

                      I personally would not use the term Q.C. etc. and to my memory I never have before.

                      Would I prefer VTO not to use the term? Certainly. Am I going to school him on it? Not his Mum.

                      Finlayson however I do expect a “higher standard” from.

                  • Tracey …
                    22 August 2013 at 11:51 am

                    I think people should behave the way they expect others to behave. vto took exception to Finlayson’s behaviour and promptly used the same behaviour. Politicians used to be “private citizens” where do you think they learn the behaviour.

                  • Populuxe1 …
                    22 August 2013 at 2:02 pm

                    Well I’m technically a “QC” and I take offense at the anachronistic usage when it is obviously offensive in this day and age, I’m probably more incredulous than offended, but I don’t like it, nor do I like being lumped in with Finlayson.

                    Also it’s not just National MPs who think they’re better than everyone else, that may just be wishful thinking on someone’s part.

                • North …
                  22 August 2013 at 4:12 pm

                  OK can we settle on ugly, pompous, elitist, typical little slime lawyer upper-cwust prick then ? Screeching of everything effete and ridiculous.

                  Anne Salmond earned her distinction. So did Rodney Harrison his call to the Inner Bar. This punky wee snob gave himself the silk.

            • karol 2.1.1.1.1.2
              22 August 2013 at 11:24 am

              It should also be borne in mind that the actions of this and previous governments have a very very immediate and direct of the life of me and those around me.

              Including myself – Finlayson’s comments, and other aspects of his politics and political actions are disgusting.

              And the use of the term “queer cunt” as a term of abuse has, and has had, a very direct impact on my life as a lesbian, as it has done for many LGBTI people. We have experienced a lifetime of all kinds of slurs, and abuse. Yet you fail to accept the impact it has on others.

              • vto …
                22 August 2013 at 11:30 am

                Karol, I don’t dismiss the impact such abuse may have on others, but I have no answer for it unfortunately. I guess it is an unfortunate side-effect. In most forms of abuse there is collateral damage.

                Genuinely curious though – have you suffered that term as a form of abuse personally? If so then perhaps its use is spreading from the past and more non-urban aotearoan locales…

                • Tracey …
                  22 August 2013 at 11:43 am

                  You say you have no answer vto, perhaps you could not indulge in it?

                • NZFemme …
                  22 August 2013 at 11:47 am

                  Have personally been verbally abused with that term more than once and never in the smaller rural areas I’ve lived, only Auckland and Dunedin, and dating back to around 1998. Because I don’t “read” as lesbian to people with stereotypes in their heads of what a lesbian “looks” like, it’s always happened to me when I’m with a partner.

                  When I hear it or read it, regardless of the intent of the person, it always feels like a punch in the stomach. The air feels like it is being sucked out of my body.

                  It hurts.

                  • North …
                    22 August 2013 at 4:22 pm

                    Yet I have many recollections of a decent enough number of gay people positively revelling in the word “queer”……..remember television’s “Queer Nation” ? Don’t feel moved to say much about the other word. Don’t feel moved to say much about VTO’s seeming lack of remorse either.

                    • NZFemme …
                      22 August 2013 at 6:34 pm

                      There’s a difference between reclaiming a word for ones self, and having the same word used as a slur against you. Queer Nation falls firmly in the reclaiming camp. It wasn’t Queer Cunt Nation produced by homophobes after all.

                      Having said that, there are words that I wouldn’t even bother trying to reclaim for myself, because they just cut too close to the bone.

        • Stephen 2.1.1.2
          22 August 2013 at 11:25 am

          With karol here. vot, you are dissembling and you know it.

          • North 2.1.1.2.1
            22 August 2013 at 4:29 pm

            That you’re disposed to think he’s dissembling is no proof at all that he is.

            • weka 2.1.1.2.1.1
              22 August 2013 at 7:01 pm

              As I’ve said before, I’ve also been around use of the term queer cunt that is not directed at gay people, and is used more in the sense of ‘strange person’. However it beggars belief that one would use the term in this community on ts, where there are many people who find the term personally offensive because in their world the term is one not just of abuse directed at them, but of abuse that is backed up by extreme forms of social violence. So, dissembling yes, and disrespectful. Vto is very well aware of how the term qc is viewed here (from previous conversations), and knows exactly what will happen if they use it.

              What surprises me is that vto thinks that their ‘right’ to use, and defend the use of, the phrase, trumps the feelings of people here.

              Context is everything with language. I had to learn how to not react to the use of the word cunt as a pejorative. In my middle class upbringing, you simply just don’t use the word, at all. When I started hanging around with working class friends who use the word commonly, it was shocking in the sense of just not being used to it – but it wasn’t used offensively, which further my point about context. Some people can call another person a cunt, and it’s just another slang word. Other people use the word cunt as a specific put down with all the misogyny and shame they can attach.

              So, I don’t have a problem with vto using the term qc in their own world. And I don’t object to it when I hear it used to mean ‘strange person’ in my own world. But I do object to it when it is used homophobically, esp in public, which is what vto is doing here. Honestly, why on earth would you use the term to describe a gay man, in a room full of gay people?

              • vto …
                24 August 2013 at 7:21 am

                “So, I don’t have a problem with vto using the term qc in their own world. And I don’t object to it when I hear it used to mean ‘strange person’ in my own world. But I do object to it when it is used homophobically, esp in public, which is what vto is doing here.”

                Weka, appreciate your confirmation around the non-offensive use of the term, but what you say here is simply incorrect. It was not used in a homophobic way – you are making that up with zero basis.

                • weka …
                  24 August 2013 at 3:53 pm

                  No, I’m making an observation. I think you knowingly using the term about a gay man in a room full of gay people who you know will be offended, is a form of homophobia. Bad manners too.

    • Tracey 2.2
      22 August 2013 at 10:44 am

      I hope you get placed on a ban for a few weeks for that comment. It denigrates many, including you and pouts you in the same ilk as the man you criticise.

      • vto 2.2.1
        22 August 2013 at 10:48 am

        you don’t understand it

        [If you google the phrase it does appear to have widespread use – MS]

        • Tracey 2.2.1.1
          22 August 2013 at 10:55 am

          you ought to apologise, afterall you think that is what Finlayson ought to do. Anyone several people here have stated they are offended. Hiding behind a dictionary meaning when you know exactly what you wanted to convey is cowardly. The use of the C-word is offensive and your double whammy was not lost on anyone, even if the moderators have decided it’s ok. They have to live with their decisions not me.

          • yeshe 2.2.1.1.1
            22 August 2013 at 12:00 pm

            i don’t think he is QC is he ??

            • Tracey 2.2.1.1.1.1
              22 August 2013 at 12:08 pm

              I believe he appointed himself one…

              On 13 December 2012, Finlayson appointed himself[4] a Queen’s Counsel due to his role as Attorney-General.

              “Notice Number:
              8344

              Year:
              2012

              Publication Date:
              20 December 2012

              Page Number:
              4463

              Title:
              Appointment of Queen’s Counsel

              Notice Text:
              Appointment of Queen’s Counsel
              His Excellency the Governor-General of New Zealand, acting on the recommendation of the Prime Minister and with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, has been pleased to appoint
              Christopher Francis Finlayson
              Michael Richard Heron
              to be Queen’s Counsel.
              Dated at Wellington this 10th day of December 2012.
              RT HON JOHN KEY, Prime Minister.”

  3. NZFemme 3
    22 August 2013 at 10:07 am

    Finlayson really is a vicious little stick insect. Using his position in the house to denigrate people who are doing nothing more than what is their democratic right, and who have no means to rebutt his assertions in that same house.

    Poisonous, petulant, preening little man.

  4. Winston Smith 4
    22 August 2013 at 10:17 am

    My admiration for Finlayson has gone up in leaps and bounds, hes calling it as he sees it and making salient points about the commentators

    Labour wishes it had the amount of talent National have

    • Tracey 4.1
      22 August 2013 at 10:45 am

      you will agree though that any claim that National doesn’t resort to personality plitics or name-calling or negativity is now hollow?

      Not exactly the behaviour one expects of a QC.. and seems very emotive for someone so sure he is on the right side of an argument.

    • John W 4.2
      22 August 2013 at 10:52 am

      Winston

      Perhaps your judgment excludes many essential considerations such as talent to see what creates inequity and degeneration.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 4.3
      22 August 2013 at 1:15 pm

      Salient points about the commentators? Oxymoron much?

      It’s called the ad hominem fallacy for a reason. The talent just tripped over his dick.

  5. Anita 5
    22 August 2013 at 10:21 am

    “Shrill” is only ever used of women[1], and is best read a complaint that a woman got herself out of the kitchen and involved herself in Men’s Issues.

    Gotta love Finlayson, his sexism is barely veiled

    Anita

    [1] It’s occasionally used as a homophobic slur by insinuating that a man sounds like a woman.

    • NZFemme 5.1
      22 August 2013 at 10:30 am

      Yes, agree. Anne Salmond has more mana in her little finger than Finlayson will ever attain in his lifetime.

    • karol 5.2
      22 August 2013 at 10:42 am

      Yes, Finlayson is indeed a hypocrite and disgusting in his gender slur against Anne Salmond.

    • yeshe 5.3
      22 August 2013 at 12:45 pm

      I detest the sexism of it. Isn’t it odd though that many men will call a man the c-word as a final resort of insult, but I have never ever heard a woman be called the pr..k word ! What can this mean ?

      • Ugly Truth 5.3.1
        22 August 2013 at 1:31 pm

        What it means is that society is unavoidably sexist, and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I don’t mean sexism in the sense of degrading people because of their gender, but rather sexism in the sense of recognizing that men and women have different roles in society. This idea is reflected in language, with differences in meaning of “man” and “person” being much more than a simple matter of gender.

        • weka 5.3.1.1
          22 August 2013 at 1:40 pm

          “but rather sexism in the sense of recognizing that men and women have different roles in society.”

          That’s not sexism. Sexism is when individuals are denied the ability to step out of those roles because of the shape of their body parts, and when that denial is institutionalised. It’s also when gender roles are enforced by a society which thinks that some genders are of lesser value than others, and so tries to control the lesser genders. At the core of that are power imbalances and the use of domination.

        • Anita 5.3.1.2
          22 August 2013 at 8:28 pm

          Ugly Truth,

          I am curious about what you mean by “men and women have different roles in society”, can you give a definition or some examples of the different roles?

          BTW I’m sure you’re seen it before but this is an old favourite on the matter 😉

          Anita

  6. srylands 6
    22 August 2013 at 10:39 am

    I hardly think they are disgusting.

    What is inaccurate about observation on Sir Geoffrey Palmer? He did allow the GCSB to operate with no legislation at all.

    • Tracey 6.1
      22 August 2013 at 10:47 am

      For a person who only recently posted about how people shouldn’t get emotional, this outburst by Finlayson is nothing if not emotional.

      So your reasoning appears to be if Geoffrey Palmer did nothing it’s ok for Finlayson to do something that harms NZ too?

    • Sable 6.2
      22 August 2013 at 10:49 am

      Look who’s back. So srylands no comment on the resounding renunciation of this ugly piece of undemocratic legislation after the Campbell Live poll by your fellow countrymen and women but here you are defending Finlayson. Seems to be if you want anyone to take you seriously you should at least have a consistent argument and show the guts to support it. So far all I have seen from you is pro National tribalism.

      Geoff Palmer is one of the few politicians in this country’s history to actually attempt to enshrine protection of the rights of New Zealanders in law. As to running the GCSB with no legislation back then spying on the public was illegal, I think that denotes the presence of legislation. Now with Keys amendments we have less protection, in effect stripping away laws. That’s not moving forward its moving backward into history, think Stalin, Hitler, Honecker….

      • srylands 6.2.1
        22 August 2013 at 11:00 am

        ” the resounding renunciation of this ugly piece of undemocratic legislation after the Campbell Live poll ”

        Sorry I just don’t have strong views on it. Broadly, I am perfectly happy for a strong surveillance capacity to detect crmiminal behaviour. What the GCSB can now do seems fine. They can read my emails and listen to my phone calls if they like.

        Sorry, I just don’t care.

        • Tracey 6.2.1.1
          22 August 2013 at 11:11 am

          happy to be detained while they do it, without any communication to your family about why?

          How about you post a few of them here for us, to prove you don’t care… or even all of them… we will rely on your honesty.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.2.1.2
          22 August 2013 at 1:08 pm

          Srylands then you’re an idiot.

          Why does Judith Collins regard the intrusion into her personal communications as “chilling”? Do you suppose she’s done something wrong, and if not, do you think she might be onto something?

        • Merrial 6.2.1.3
          22 August 2013 at 6:31 pm

          What’s wrong with the police and the SIS doing that surveillance stuff regarding suspected criminal activity, as used to be the case before 2001? There’s no reason I can see why we can’t return to that state of affairs. Don’t forget that the spooks (SIS then) weren’t able to prevent the Rainbow Warrior bombing. And it was the police, with the help of observant locals, who caught the French agents. Not the SIS.

          I guess you’ll just put it down to experience if the spooks make a wrong assumption about you as a result of trawling metadata and misinterpreting what they find? Or if one of said spooks whose ethical compass is skewiff decides to use your credit card or other financial details to their advantage. Don’t run away with the idea that this is wildly implausible: there’s no accounting for human nature.

        • Martin 6.2.1.4
          25 August 2013 at 12:37 pm

          good so you won’t mind your phone being tapped and your email read then.

      • grumpy 6.2.2
        22 August 2013 at 12:29 pm

        Where was the Campbell Live outrage over the uncontrolled provisions of the 2003 Helen Clark bill?
        TV3 have deliberately set out to misinform the public for political ends. The example Key made of Campbell would be nothing compared to the absolute demolition if Findlayson was let loose on him.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.2.2.1
          22 August 2013 at 1:39 pm

          Would that be the same mendacious wretch who the very next day had to issue a correction statement? And then a clarifying speech?

          Setting the bar to a new low might help Finlayson over it I suppose.

    • NZFemme 6.3
      22 August 2013 at 10:51 am

      Until 2003, every Government since 1977 has allowed the GCSB to operate with no legislative framework.

      • Sable 6.3.1
        22 August 2013 at 10:51 am

        That’s not the same as saying that statutory law does not apply. Nice try, no cigar….

        • NZFemme 6.3.1.1
          22 August 2013 at 11:11 am

          Sable, agree with you. Just pointing out to syrlands that the issue of the GCSB dates back to its formation under Muldoon. Holding Sir G accountable is disingenuous.

          • Ugly Truth 6.3.1.1.1
            22 August 2013 at 1:04 pm

            And even back to the end of the second world war if you look at NZ as pat of the UKUSA agreement. Scapegoating individual politicians serves no purpose, the underlying issue is bigger than that.

            The UKUSA agreement was a response to the perceived threat of communism during the cold war, while today the perceived threat is militant Islamism.

            Both threats were in part manufactured by the US, with the US supplying Russia with nuclear materials via Lend-Lease and al Qaeda developing from US intervention in Afghanistan before the Russians invaded.

            NZ ministers as employees of the Crown have an interest in maintaining the status quo, so taking the conventional political approach can not fix the the problem.

      • Tracey 6.3.2
        22 August 2013 at 10:59 am

        Stop putting facts into the discussion… srylands at least has admitted over on the asset sale (40k) thread that he posted something that he had no factual basis for….

    • yeshe 6.4
      22 August 2013 at 12:47 pm

      maybe you and winston smith can get married some time soon ? like minds and all that .. marriage made in heaven !

  7. Nicolas 7
    22 August 2013 at 11:02 am

    Honestly, I do get slightly annoyed when people evoke Palmer’s authority to justify just about anything.

    I’m probably a bit too idealistic, but I cannot forget he presided over a government which promoted fundamental changes to our socioeconomic framework, creating, in the process, serious problems we are having to deal with today.

    Regardless of Palmer’s attempts to create a supreme Bill of Rights, some of his actions during the fourth Labour government, particularly in respect to the SOE Bill, were, indeed, a fucking disgrace.

    Please, don’t think I’m endorsing Finlayson’s speech; I’m just not comfortable referencing Palmer too much, that’s all.

    • Tracey 7.1
      22 August 2013 at 11:13 am

      I hear what you are saying, however when it comes to constitutional law he is well-regarded and well read. This Act is a constitutional issue.

      • grumpy 7.1.1
        22 August 2013 at 12:31 pm

        He is well regarded by himself and those with no memory of what a stupid, pompous overblown twit he was/is.

      • Ugly Truth 7.1.2
        22 August 2013 at 1:20 pm

        Yes it is a constitutional issue, and Palmer is well read in constitutional law. The problem in referencing Palmer is that he is still a part of the system which ignores the heart out of the rule of law by misrepresenting the nature of the common law. This can technically be described as corruption, perversion, and hypocrisy.

        One possible response to this state of affairs is to stop endorsing the current system by calling their rules “law”. While sovereignty is typically described as being the essential element necessary to make law, the fact that the NZ parliament describes itself as being sovereign does not mean that their rules have force of law.

    • weka 7.2
      22 August 2013 at 2:59 pm

      “Regardless of Palmer’s attempts to create a supreme Bill of Rights, some of his actions during the fourth Labour government, particularly in respect to the SOE Bill, were, indeed, a fucking disgrace.”

      Has he changed?

  8. Winston Smith 8
    22 August 2013 at 11:09 am

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/08/the_gcsb_law.html

    Farrer puts the changes into perspective

    • Tracey 8.1
      22 August 2013 at 11:16 am

      he overlooks one thing… maybe the previous law needed bigger changes?

      Fundamentally he does not address why the PM would not put into law what he says is safeguarded by him? A few words, that’s all it took, but he refused. It is hard to escape the conclusion that he knows the GCSB will want to spy on NZers cyber communication at some point, and he will want the wiggle-room to allow it. Otherwise, he would have added the few words required.

      The PM also knows that no one will know they are being spied upon to challenge the law.

      The PM also didn’t correctly oversee the GCSB before, so he now makes legal something that was illegal to make it alright?

    • Crashcart 8.2
      22 August 2013 at 11:17 am

      All DPF did was cherry pick the parts of the bill he thought he could spin best and ignore everything else. As pointed out in the comments he completely ignored any changes that didn’t suit his argument. All it did was pander to those who are looknig for a reason to be happy with the bill….like yourself.

      • Tracey 8.2.1
        22 August 2013 at 11:26 am

        His is just one view. I don’t know why folks who can think for themselves think that one person can be right about something as complex as this. I have followed Farrar’s musings on this topic but I don’t presume him to have nailed the definitive explanation.

      • Hayden 8.2.2
        22 August 2013 at 11:35 am

        Clark: makes no mention of hand-washing

        Key: Director must wash hands for 20 seconds after using toilet, 30 seconds if Number 2s.

      • mickysavage 8.2.3
        22 August 2013 at 11:42 am

        Farrar’s post is disingenuous in the extreme.

        There is one major difference between the old legislation and the new law. It used to be that “[n]either the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.”

        Now everything is up for grabs. Hear that WS? And it is very likely that the data will find its way to the US.

        BTW National also voted for the 2003 Act.

  9. Adrian 9
    22 August 2013 at 11:27 am

    Finlayson is serously strange, after years of working in law in wellington he appeared to have absolutely no friends. When he tried to celebrate the opening of his vineyard/olive grove/new house in Marlborough he had to pay a half a dozen aquaintances to turn up, airfares, taxis etc. P.s, by the way, the vineyard olive grove went tits up, he couldn’t even run a piss up in a vineyard.

    • emergency mike 9.1
      22 August 2013 at 12:28 pm

      Sounds about right. For me he is one of the most intuitively disturbing, cold, empty, calculating people in NAct. And that’s saying something.

    • tc 9.2
      22 August 2013 at 12:47 pm

      Maybe him and Simon Powers can get together over a few taxpayer funded pinots.

      It’s not strange it’s just what happens when you give kids matches….they burn stuff down and end up hurting themselves.

      An olive grove…ffs doesn’t pay much attention does he a very saturated market with a long term view being required.

  10. wyndham 10
    22 August 2013 at 11:29 am

    I think Mr. Findlayson must be a very unhappy soul. He appears to brim over with poisonous venom which he directs at anyone with differing views to himself. Seldom, when replying to questions in the House or when engaged in debate does he let up from sarcasm, nastiness and insult.

    It was quite unnecessary for him to attack Dame Anne, Sir Geoffrey or Mr. Davidson. In fact he did so deliberately after having concluded the main thrust of his speech. It was the act of a person that actually hates his fellow beings.

    • Winston Smith 10.1
      22 August 2013 at 12:21 pm

      What attacking? He pointed out that Ferguson and Palmer are deeply partisan, whats so wrong with that?

    • grumpy 10.2
      22 August 2013 at 12:40 pm

      Anyone who invoke Godwin’s Law as a sitter (and should be) for attack. Both from Left and Right.

      • Tracey 10.2.1
        22 August 2013 at 12:43 pm

        why? How is it different to calling people communists or commies or pinkos or reds? Godwins law has become a simple out for those not prepared to challenge the assertion with intelligent counter-argument.

        The facists state of Germany absolutely began with this kind of passage of law and more crucially these kinds of tactics to get approval for it.

        Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Just because the “armies” may be shielded by Boardrooms doesn’t mean a threat doesn’t exist.

        • grumpy 10.2.1.1
          22 August 2013 at 12:51 pm

          ….but the “this kind of passage of law ” was passed in 2003 by Labour with no uproar from the Left. This is just a clarifying amendment that actually tightens and clarifies the dodgy bits.

          Are you saying the last Labour government were Nazis? Surely not Helen too?

          • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1.1.1
            22 August 2013 at 1:02 pm

            If this clarifies the 2003 law, perhaps you can point to the various arguments from legal people back in 03 questioning what that law meant, and we’ll compare it the list doing so this time around.

          • NZFemme 10.2.1.1.2
            22 August 2013 at 1:06 pm

            It is really clear from the 2003 debates in Hansard that New Zealand Citizens and Permanent Residents were off limits to the GCSB, There is no suggestion from any of the Parties debating in the house that there was any idea that such a thing was being put forward in the legislation. Not one. The 2003 legislation was voted through under that spirit of understanding.

            If anything needed tightening up, it was the removal of any ambiguity that allowed the GCSB to spy on 88 NZ’s illegally; not by making it legal henceforth, but by removing any doubt what so ever that NZ’s and Permanent residents could be spied on at all.

        • NZFemme 10.2.1.2
          22 August 2013 at 12:52 pm

          *This*

          “The facists state of Germany absolutely began with this kind of passage of law and more crucially these kinds of tactics to get approval for it. ”

          Particularly when it has been those pushing for the amendments who have been invoking the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” mantra, with its direct line to historical German fascism.

          • grumpy 10.2.1.2.1
            22 August 2013 at 1:05 pm

            So, what tactics did Labour use in 2003 to initially pass an even dodgier law? Or was it that because it was Labour, the Left never really cared?

            ….and why did Palmer as a Labour PM, operate the GCSB with no legal restraints whatsoever, was this also because it was Labour, the left didn’t care.

            Seems to be very close to “it’s not what is being done but who is doing it”….and that, my friends is hypocrisy.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.2.1.2.1.1
              22 August 2013 at 1:43 pm

              Bullshit.

              Since you seem to be in too much of a hurry to answer PB’s question: here it is again:

              “If this clarifies the 2003 law, perhaps you can point to the various arguments from legal people back in 03 questioning what that law meant, and we’ll compare it the list doing so this time around.”

              Put up or shut up, authoritarian trash.

        • weka 10.2.1.3
          22 August 2013 at 6:23 pm

          “Anyone who invoke Godwin’s Law as a sitter (and should be) for attack. Both from Left and Right.”

          I can’t actually make sense of that grammatically, but talking about Hitler or Nazis or fascists in the context of contemporary politics is not invoking Godwin’s Law. As Tracey mentioned, accusations of invoking Godwins is now a simplistic (lazy) out (besides which is it usually used incorrectly, as above).

      • Tracey 10.2.2
        22 August 2013 at 12:44 pm

        she also pointed out Key was a hypocrite by quoting him on democracy. YP she’s evil and needs to be personally abused. Finlayson as the face of our justice system is a hero today.

        • grumpy 10.2.2.1
          22 August 2013 at 12:53 pm

          Some people are doomed to being made made to look stupid. They are the ones who start out with an untenable position and/or make wild assertions not supported by the facts or are so partisan and compromised that they lose sense of reality.

          Ferguson, Palmer and Salmond fit into all those categories.

          • thatguynz 10.2.2.1.1
            22 August 2013 at 1:16 pm

            Lol, but you don’t right? Wow, you’re starting to sound like John Key.. You sure you’re not him?

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.2.2.1.2
            22 August 2013 at 1:45 pm

            And the Law Society are wrong too. And the Privacy Commission. Partisan and compromised the lot of them.

            No, wait, it seems more likely that Grumpy is tripping.

            • grumpy 10.2.2.1.2.1
              22 August 2013 at 1:50 pm

              Not the Law Society, just Harrison – another flake.

              • jen …
                25 August 2013 at 4:50 pm

                grumpy, the law society opposes the bill and chose Rodney Harrison as spokesperson The Law Society’s submission was prepared collectively by a number of its members. They have since corresponded with Chris Finlayson standing by their submissions and explaining in some detail why the amendments agreed to by the government
                do not protect New Zealanders and New Zealand companies adequately. Its not just Rodney Harrison who opposes it.

    • Tiger Mountain 10.3
      22 August 2013 at 1:00 pm

      More like self loathing that Finlayson transfers to others, still unpleasant to watch or be the recipient of. MPs all have their reasons I guess.

      How about Richard Prebble twice married to women with multiple children fathered by other men, but never fathered one himself. Gerry Brownlee the calorie king, subject of many jibes yet seems like not much ever gets him down. Hilary whats her name? Calvert whose eyes graced a knocking shop display ad. And so on.

  11. Hannah 11
    22 August 2013 at 4:00 pm

    I thought it was a brilliant speech! Right on the button.

  12. Louise 12
    22 August 2013 at 11:57 pm

    Hannah, right on the button alright, revealed the level of obsequious aquiescence only John Key could demand of his followers. Watching them yesterday,fawning and mincing around John made them look more like a cult than the Government.Phil’s response to Finlayson was inspiring and made more sense than any of the drivel from the Right, what an awful week in politics all around, it can only get better.

    • Hannah 12.1
      23 August 2013 at 2:42 pm

      What labour wouldn’t give for a bit of fawning and mincing around their leader – any leader.!

  13. Delia 13
    23 August 2013 at 1:08 pm

    When I watched Chris Finlayson I must say I was surprised and for a moment it reminded me of Oswald Moseley who led the British Fascists.

    • BrucetheMoose 13.1
      24 August 2013 at 7:10 am

      Not sure why, but has connotations of Himmler where I am concerned. But that’s just me.