Emmerson – flag distraction

82 comments on “Emmerson – flag distraction ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Redbaiter 1

   2 September 2015 at 11:30 am

   Ha, not a bad attempt, but the wrecks lack a bit of substance don’t you think?

   You really need something a bit more substantial to hit Key with.

   Personally, I think the way Key has rigged the flag change issue is disgustingly cheap and dishonest.

   IMHO opinion it has highlighted the fact that the Key govt is all spin and very little substance.

   More should be made of Key’s self serving duplicity in attempting to change the flag.

   See my video here where I expose Key’s pro-change arguments as weak and deceptive.

   Flag change- the video that exposes John Key as a watery eyed charlatan.

   I’m disappointed the Labour party is not hitting Key much harder on the arrogant duplicity he is engaging in in this process.
   • ianmac 1.1

     2 September 2015 at 12:08 pm

     Well done video by Rebaiter. Thanks.
     • greywarshark 1.1.1

       2 September 2015 at 12:33 pm

       Yes a well done clip thanks redbaiter. Emmerson’s John Key – does anyone find it reminiscent to how Prince Philip is drawn, the emphasis on the nose is what I was thinking of. Unfortunately as time goes on Yek seems to become greyer, more anodyne, the man in the grey flannel suit representative of the invisible masses of financial footsoldiers.
   • Graeme 1.2

     2 September 2015 at 12:35 pm

     Good response to his waffle.

     Putting the breaks in there highlighted the shyster’s body language, he’s shaking his head the whole time.
     • Redbaiter 1.2.1

       2 September 2015 at 12:39 pm

       Thank you for the comments on the video.

       It must be some kind of special day when Redbaiter receives any kind of regard on the Standard. 🙂

       I agree with Graeme though, Key’s body language and his delivery is absolutely atrocious.
       • Rosie 1.2.1.1

         2 September 2015 at 3:14 pm

         “It must be some kind of special day when Redbaiter receives any kind of regard on the Standard. :)”

         Well, that video is worthy of some recognition. Some thought went into it. There were perceptive and pertinent points raised.

         I’m just curious going by your comments and those of others on your site that you’re not blindly in love with Key, that you and your readers can see through him and see him for what he is. You’re right wing, but he’s not your man? Are you in a minority or is there a growing awareness among your kind that Key, is in fact a complete twat?

         I was quite intrigued by the commentary. Is it possible for the left and right and those of uncertain persuasions but clear ideas to reach across the divide and hold hands on this matter of the flag?

         BTW, I don’t see posters of The Standard as being a fan base for Helen Clark. I’ve read many varied opinions on her, here, on the rare times she is still referred to.
         The discussion is more individualised than you think.
         • Redbaiter 1.2.1.1.1

           2 September 2015 at 4:14 pm

           Rosie-

           Thank you for your kind words on the video.

           As for your question, its not easy to answer. Let me put it this way. There are those who dislike Key from the left and right, but in between there is a large sector, influenced by his media management skills, who think he’s God’s gift.

           Key has converted many who were left wing into his camp, and he’s converted many who were less left wing into his camp.

           The Standard has been pretty steadily against Key from the get go and Kiwiblog has been just as steady for him. Its become so left wing there I cannot stand the place anymore.

           At least the Standard isn’t overflowing with fawning compromisers, apologists and excuse makers. But Kiwiblog is.

           Many of them just cannot see through Key’s ordinary bloke veneer. To me, he’s always seemed as fake as they come. But many of his supporters will not hear a harsh word against him.

           He’s no kind of ordinary bloke for chrissakes. He’s lived and worked in the rarified atmosphere of international banking and currency trading. He’s detached from the ordinary bloke, and in the end, that’s why he doesn’t get it.

           I suspect that the Key camp is beginning to feel a bit more pressure, and that is based upon the stridency of those who would defend him. I think the realisation may be growing that Key’s “expertise” in managing the country’s economy has just been a game of smoke and mirrors.

           I guess it comes back to the old adage about not fooling all of the people all of the time. Eventually I think Key will be exposed.

           BTW, don’t get me wrong, I’m not on your side. We may agree that Key is a hoaxer, but we probably disagree quite strongly on what needs to happen here to get the country on track. 😉

           I get plenty of flack for being so critical of Key. I put a post up today actually to try and explain my disdain. Not that I care too much. Key sycophants will be Key sycophants and I don’t need their damn approval.

           Why I want John Key gone.
           • Rosie 1.2.1.1.1.1

             2 September 2015 at 4:59 pm

             Thanks. Your comments and post made interesting reading.

             Yes, I’m sure we do disagree quite strongly on what needs to happen here to get the country on track, and those tracks will look quite different to one another!

             I know a lot of right wingers. I was raised among them lol. Our differences in most situations are deeper than mere disagreement and right wing family members have in the past been aligned to and worked along side characters from The Hollow Men (yep, it’s true) while I was working for a Union, and so it goes on. So I’m familiar with the right wing view, from a far too personal perspective to be comfortable.

             All of them, that I know, have fully bought into Brand Key. That fake blokiness you talk about, they love that and fully believe its real, they love his slips up, they defend the indefensible (eg, his behaviour towards Amanda Bailey, as just one example) and remain strangely quiet when he fucks up on a grand scale as he does from time to time. Sychophants as you say.

             They also don’t want to change our flag.

             I find this interesting. It’s their first challenge to their allegiance to Key and I can see it makes them uneasy. He can eat live kittens and they don’t care but change the flag!? No way!
             I think there’s a possibility for this flag referendum to turn into a bit of a shit storm with Key at the epicentre. This time there is no one else to blame, no other hat that he was wearing at the time, no way to say “look over there”. I wouldn’t be surprised if more right wingers, asleep for so long, finally come around to your way of thinking and possibility, just possibly he might be exposed for what he is. And it would be you you guys doing it.

             Go for it!!!
         • weston 1.2.1.1.2

           2 September 2015 at 9:17 pm

           for my money helen clark was one of the best primeministers we ever had if not the best .Shame she was brought down by attack politics .
       • Shona 1.2.1.2

         2 September 2015 at 8:28 pm

         OK to post your excellent video to FB and reach a wider audience???
         • Redbaiter 1.2.1.2.1

           2 September 2015 at 9:35 pm

           Please use it anywhere you want.
   • seeker 1.3

     2 September 2015 at 3:12 pm

     “I think the way Key has rigged the flag change issue is disgustingly cheap and dishonest.”

     Very well put and the video was just superb Redbaiter, thankyou.
     Having observed key’s conning and “rigging” for so long now am beginning to worry that we will soon be renamed New Keyland – home of the ‘had’.
     Videos such as yours are vitally necessary for the truth to be seen.
     • Redbaiter 1.3.1

       2 September 2015 at 4:17 pm

       Thank you for your kind words.
   • Chris 1.4

     2 September 2015 at 11:02 pm

     “I’m disappointed the Labour party is not hitting Key much harder on the arrogant duplicity he is engaging in in this process.”

     Disappointed? Disappointed suggests expecting more in the first place. I’ve given up expecting anything from Labour except nasty neo-liberal attacks on citizens. Labour is just as self-serving and duplicitous as Key and his mates. Helen Clark would’ve been more than capable of initiating a flag change process not unlike what Key’s done. I will never trust Labour again to do anything good. The only time they may do anything good is when it’s self serving. I will never vote for them again ever. The only way we can ever expect to see real and positive change is to abandon Labour to the scrap heap.
2. Clemgeopin 2

   2 September 2015 at 11:31 am

   I am looking forward to the first referendum. Can’t wait! It will give me great pleasure to rank the four options in the ballot with the numbers 0,0,0,0 !

   Those are the identical four simple numbers that I will need to remember! Shouldn’t be too difficult! Bring it on!
   • ianmac 2.1

     2 September 2015 at 12:11 pm

     The spoiled papers are counted but leaves the four flags one of which must win the vote. So even 90% spoiled votes (extreme) still leaves 10% for the four to battle over. Maybe better to pile votes onto Koru so that it gets to the final?
     • Lanthanide 2.1.1

       2 September 2015 at 12:32 pm

       It’s true, but if the most popular result was “informal ballot”, then this would raise a national discussion, with strong calls for the final referendum to be ditched and save the money.
       • Gabby 2.1.1.1

         2 September 2015 at 12:44 pm

         You reckon? A million nonvoters last election must have given Nazianal real pause for thought then. Oh no that’s right – they don’t give a toss. Opting out is just letting them have what they want without having to take it. Forget all the cutesy-cutesy ways of making empty gestures, pull your finger out and use your vote constructively.
         Vote hypnoflag.
         • weka 2.1.1.1.1

           2 September 2015 at 12:56 pm

           a million non-voters are invisible. A big % of spoiled voting papers isn’t, because the govt is forced to count them and the media will report on it.
           • Gabby 2.1.1.1.1.1

             2 September 2015 at 1:21 pm

             At best it will be noted in passing. Possibly it would give rise to sneering.
             • weka …

               2 September 2015 at 1:32 pm

               I think the biggest risk is a low voter turnout. That will confuse things and the media will just revert to the highest % even if it’s few NZers.
     • Graeme 2.1.2

       2 September 2015 at 12:52 pm

       The protest vote would still be reported in the referendum result?

       I’d like to see a critique by a proper flag designer, but I think the Koru is the only one that actually works as a flag. That’s going by my reading of the criteria for design that was on the flag website, There’s this now, https://www.govt.nz/browse/engaging-with-government/the-nz-flag-your-chance-to-decide/resources/flag-design-guidelines/ but there was a very good video about what made a flag design, and explained why the current and Tino Rangatiratanga flags worked. Seems to be gone now….
       • ianmac 2.1.2.1

         2 September 2015 at 2:34 pm

         Maybe this one Graeme. Pinched from Russell Browns blog today.
         Pity that someone on the psuedo Panel didn’t see it.
         The five principles of design applied to a flag. Interesting.
         
         • GregJ 2.1.2.1.1

           2 September 2015 at 4:36 pm

           Pity that someone on the psuedo Panel didn’t see it.

           They should have – it was produced for and uploaded on the Panel’s website!

           Part of the problem with the flags chosen is that they actually look like they’ve been produced by designers. The panel apparently consulted vexillologists although I can see little evidence of that in either the Long List or the final four.

           Vexillogy’s roots are really in Heraldry – good heraldry does follow some of the principles as it’s original and principle purpose was for clear and quick identification.
   • b waghorn 2.2

     2 September 2015 at 12:23 pm

     I’ve always wanted the Union jack off our flag and the red /blue fern works for me ,and as I don’t believe in cutting my nose off to spite my face I’ll be voting .
     There’s far more important things to attack this government over.
     • greywarshark 2.2.1

       2 September 2015 at 12:36 pm

       bwaghorn
       But an easy way to register one’s disagreement. You don’t even have to go out in the rain and protest.
       • b waghorn 2.2.1.1

         2 September 2015 at 12:47 pm

         If key fails to win this one it won’t make a bit of difference to nz politics ,he’ll just come out and be the magnanimous looser .
         I think labour has missed a trick in not being positive on this so they can shake off the tag of opposing everything for the sake of it.
     • Gabby 2.2.2

       2 September 2015 at 12:45 pm

       I’m voting for the Union Jack because I like it.
       • cogito 2.2.2.1

         2 September 2015 at 1:47 pm

         +100

         Keep the NZ flag unchanged.
       • b waghorn 2.2.2.2

         2 September 2015 at 3:33 pm

         Cool its a democracy. I feel know link to great Britain so see no point in keeping there emblem on our flag.
         • cogito 2.2.2.2.1

           2 September 2015 at 5:25 pm

           I would not be opposed to dropping the union jack, but am not in favour of Key’s selected options. There were better designs. If we change to a Key flag, we’ll be stuck with it for years to come. If we hold off now, we could well have the option of a better flag down the track.
           • Clemgeopin 2.2.2.2.1.1

             2 September 2015 at 7:46 pm

             +100. Great point!
3. ankerawshark 3

   2 September 2015 at 11:45 am

   I hope we get a collective response to how to/whether to vote for the 4 options. Some have suggested not voting some have suggested crossing out all 4 options and writing fjk……….
   • Rosie 3.1

     2 September 2015 at 3:01 pm

     Good question ankerawshark!

     How do we approach voting in the referendum?

     There seem to be a few options floating around.

     My plan is to not vote at all in the first referendum (which goes against all my democratic inclinations and feels wrong) and vote to KEEP the current flag, EVEN though I do want to see the flag changed. Even if I attempted to try to decide between a sports logo and really lame koru, I still wouldn’t vote for either, as matter of principle and taste.

     As said yesterday on Open Mike, nows not the right time, for the sake of Key’s vanity project, and for the sake of keys plans for mass distraction.

     Can ideas on how to vote, morph into some form of crystallised suggestion for those who are opposed to all the designs?
   • freedom 3.2

     2 September 2015 at 3:02 pm

     ankerawshark Spoil and Foil might be what you are looking for
     http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/09/02/flying-the-flags-of-discontent-mobilise/
     • ankerawshark 3.2.1

       3 September 2015 at 1:43 pm

       Thanks Freedom and Rosie.

       But I have also heard about the idea of voting for the koru, thus scuppering JK’s plans for the fern………..In some ways I like that idea.

       I am sure there will be more discussion on this as the time draws near
4. photonz 4

   2 September 2015 at 11:49 am

   Wow – a cartoon that the flag debate is a distraction.

   Like that cartoon hasn’t been seen every week for the last year.

   Blatant plagiarism.
   • Redbaiter 4.1

     2 September 2015 at 12:07 pm

     While Key may be happy to have the flag as a diversion, I don’t think that is his main motivation.

     Key spent many years in Singapore, and has often sung its praises. His mission has always been to make NZ a hub of global commerce like Singapore.

     That’s why he is so into multi-culturalism. He wants NZ to be a multi-cultural success story like Singapore.

     That’s also why he wants the new flag. To symbolise NZ’s break with its past and its launch into the “new” global era. The era that John Key takes credit for. Its vain of course, but he still sees it as the right path for NZ.

     Key’s problem is he is too thick to know how to achieve his objective. He doesn’t understand politics or economics well enough to make NZ as successful as Singapore.

     Lee Kwan Yew was a man of steel.

     John Key is a plastic and superficial pretender.
     • cogito 4.1.1

       2 September 2015 at 12:58 pm

       Key is an extremely dangerous latter day brown shirt who is intent on manipulating and deceiving a population that is far too compliant and apathetic for its own good.
       • photonz 4.1.1.1

         2 September 2015 at 1:51 pm

         It this the Standard website, or the secret society of conspiracy theorists?
         • maui 4.1.1.1.1

           2 September 2015 at 2:16 pm

           You’re topping the list of conspiracy theorists so far today.
         • cogito 4.1.1.1.2

           2 September 2015 at 2:19 pm

           “the secret society”
           Where’s the secrecy?

           “conspiracy theorists”
           Where are these theorists?

           Moron.
           • photonz 4.1.1.1.2.1

             2 September 2015 at 2:32 pm

             cognito – that’s funny.

             Someone who has already reached the bottom of the debating barrel – Godwin’s Law – is calling others morons.
             • cogito …

               2 September 2015 at 2:44 pm

               What debating barrel? And when exactly did I reach the bottom of it?

               My description of you has been confirmed as correct.
             • greywarshark …

               2 September 2015 at 6:42 pm

               photonz
               So get out of here then. Or do you like getting low down and dirty. Mud wrestling; your style. Smart arse time wasters = we get old Mr Whatsname’s dogs from the Simpsons to deal with you. Release the dogs!
         • Graeme 4.1.1.1.3

           2 September 2015 at 2:24 pm

           cog may have a point, I had to give way to Joyce and entourage coming out of a cafe in Queenstown yesterday, he was pontificating about “predicting the behaviour of an unpredictable species”…. love to know what that was about….
     • Atiawa 4.1.2

       2 September 2015 at 2:47 pm

       Other than promoting a new flag there is nothing that Key is doing or saying that is an attempt to break away from our past.

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/opinion/71328478/premature-flag-change-another-national-disaster
     • seeker 4.1.3

       2 September 2015 at 3:14 pm

       As just commented above……. New Keyland ……….. heaven help us.

       this is in reply to Redbaiter’s comment @12.07pm 4.1
       • cogito 4.1.3.1

         2 September 2015 at 3:40 pm

         “New Keyland.”

         Good description. Not a land I want to live in.
     • Wayne 4.1.4

       2 September 2015 at 3:36 pm

       Remarkably restrained for Redbaiter. But broadly accurate in respect of what drives the PM, adjusted of course for the fact that NZ is not a city state sitting on one of the central nodes of international commerce.

       It certainly explains the efforts put into wooing Hollywood – it connects NZ into new technology and a global market.

       As for the flag debate, I think Standardnista’s (and by implication Labour) are picking the wrong battle. You are already looking petty and small minded to suggest gaming the referenda. Of course it your right to do so, but is it sensible? After all if you don’t want to change the flag, you have that option in second referenda.

       From what I can see NZers are becoming more interested in the flag debate, now that it is actually upon us. And I suggest that sentiment will grow. There will less interest in whether it is John Key’s idea, and more interest in the choices actually presented.

       Continually banging on about the the depth of the (d)evil John Key does not make you look like an alternative government. cogito below being a good example.
       • maui 4.1.4.1

         2 September 2015 at 3:47 pm

         http://www.hauraki.co.nz/listen/radio-hauraki-audio-vault/jeremy-wells-like-mike-hosking-rant-changing-the-nz-flag/
       • Atiawa 4.1.4.2

         2 September 2015 at 3:52 pm

         FFS if the media gave as much time to other more important issues, especially ones that a proportion of the $26 million spent on the flag change debate would help resolve, NZer’s would be equally as attentive to those matters.
       • cogito 4.1.4.3

         2 September 2015 at 4:36 pm

         @wayne

         Don’t make assumptions. My opinion is my opinion only. I am not a member of any party.
       • Anne 4.1.4.4

         2 September 2015 at 5:45 pm

         As for the flag debate, I think Standardnista’s (and by implication Labour) are picking the wrong battle.

         There goes the typically distorted right-wing mindset again – an assumption this is a battle Labour “picked” to use as an attack weapon against the government. And we are all dutifully getting in behind them and adding our own ad hominem attacks to the anti-flag campaign.

         So, you can’t differentiate between a planned attack and something that has personally angered many people across the political spectrum and for valid reasons? I’m a Labour voter but my dissension against the flag change – and the cynical and obvious motivation behind it – are MY views only! They have in no way been influenced by Labour or any other organisation or person.

         Indeed I’m not sure exactly where Labour stands on this issue. Some of their caucus number support a flag change and others don’t. Therefore your attempt to infer that Labour is conducting a nation-wide anti-flag campaign is obviously wide of the mark. The only aspect I’ve seen commented on is the way John Key is manipulating the issue to his personal advantage and that is plain for anyone to see.

         As for your charge:

         You are already looking petty and small minded to suggest gaming the referenda.

         Now there’s a contradiction in terms. Gaming issues and individuals for political gain is something your own Party indulges in 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. What else are we supposed to do when the referenda is set up in such a way to muddy and distort the playing field to get an outcome that is favourable to John Key’s personal vanity aspirations.

         Pot calling kettle black my friend.
         • cogito 4.1.4.4.1

           2 September 2015 at 6:21 pm

           Very well said, Anne.

           The flag issue has been one entirely created by Key for his own power-hungry purposes.

           If Key succeeds in manipulating kiwis into not only changing the flag but even choosing his preferred option (out of a selection approved by him, of course!), then Key will have demonstrated that he can manipulate kiwis into doing, accepting and voting for just about anything he chooses.

           Democracy RIP.
         • greywarshark 4.1.4.4.2

           2 September 2015 at 6:44 pm

           Hear hear. Anne
         • Rosie 4.1.4.4.3

           2 September 2015 at 8:31 pm

           +1 Anne, and to freedom and clemgeopin below
       • freedom 4.1.4.5

         2 September 2015 at 6:24 pm

         As Anne mentions, this is a topic “that has personally angered many people across the political spectrum”
         I also agree with Anne about your comments on the flag debate being a contradiction in terms. The entire Parliamentary process deciding the referendum bill is a fine example of a corrupt and manipulative government ignoring the people they are purportedly representing, to achieve a preferred outcome. If you can defend the actions of National after the deplorable way they have treated submitters to the bill whilst they simultaneously stood in public speaking of unity and inclusiveness, it says more about your lack of support for the democratic process than a man of your political history should be comfortable expressing in a public forum.

         Having RSA members ignored whilst the graves of our soldiers are pointed to as a reason for change should anger a man who was once Minister of Defence. Or do the views of the survivors not matter as much as the headstones of the fallen?

         And, alongside the others who have responded to you Wayne, my views are my own and have not been influenced one ioata by a single politician’s statement or political party’s policy. That includes your wrongly perceived reflex rejection of the flag change because John Key presented it. Like almost every person I know, I just do not believe this is the time to change our flag.
       • Clemgeopin 4.1.4.6

         2 September 2015 at 7:01 pm

         “As for the flag debate, I think Standardnista’s (and by implication Labour) are picking the wrong battle.”

         You are being silly and disingenuous. The opposition to this whole unasked-for-issue is because it has been used as a distraction from the real serious issues confronting New Zealand. The flag change stunt is forced on the people at great expense, tome and effort. The time is absolutely not right because there hasn’t been any great demand for change. No media polls indicated it. Besides, the whole process has been manipulated by the Key in various ways and is dishonest. He is normally not even a resident of NZ! The opposition to the flag change at this time is from individuals and the people of New Zealand and is not dependent on the Labour party, its leaders or ‘The Standardistas’ as you stupidly claimed.

         Besides, being a Key/National Party guy, what makes you think you can tell us what ‘battle’ we should or should not ‘pick’ anyway as if you have ‘our’ interests at heart!
5. save NZ 5

   2 September 2015 at 1:21 pm

   +1 – a picture says 1000 words.
6. Glenn 6

   2 September 2015 at 6:05 pm

   At least we know where Key and Peters stand however I’m at a bit of a loss figuring out where the other politicians on both sides stand. Our local representatives need to come out into the open and say where they stand.. Or haven’t they got the b.. genitalia to do so.
   Great video…interesting site.
   • freedom 6.1

     2 September 2015 at 6:39 pm

     Glenn, just wondering..
     Why does it matter so much to you what any politician thinks about changing the flag?
     They are just people, like you. Your vote is just as relevant as their vote.
     • Glenn 6.1.1

       2 September 2015 at 7:34 pm

       “They are people just like you”…no they aren’t ,I haven’t sunk that low.
       Seriously though if my MP expects my vote instead of his opponent I want to know where he stands on quite a few topics including euthanasia, drug law reform, TPPA, This flag fiasco, and others. Wouldn’t mind knowing where he stood on the springbox tour of ’81 but he’s probably forgotten like his boss.
       • freedom 6.1.1.1

         2 September 2015 at 8:00 pm

         🙂 well said. and thanks for the chuckle.

         Where they stand is important of course, but on this issue, I believe the time for them to state their views and stand in front of the public whilst doing so was during the Flag Referendums Bill process. Outside of parliamentary debates, which the broader public are increasingly distanced from and the MSM seem reticent to relay, there was an inexplicable silence from far too many MPs. Didn’t help that the MSM were too busy weaving navel lint to bother pursuing it either. The scarcity of public political discourse during that process, especially by members of the government, was a sincere disappointment considering the extremely serious nature of the issue.

         For politicians to be seen and heard now is letting them haggle over installing a new gate as we watch the horses gallop away.
       • HPS2015 6.1.1.2

         12 September 2015 at 2:30 pm

         While the Government makes way especially for social topics such as the changing the flag, more pending matters are waiting to be approached that are in my opinion, socially unjust in the fact that it has not been discussed to the extent of the flag change. Euthanasia is always one of the various themes that people either have a lot to say about or people shy away from in fear of not having the information to make an educated response to the issue at hand.

         A case study that happened this year that I am sure New Zealand is familiar with is the story of Lecretia Seales. Seales, aged 42 died from an incurable brain tumour in June 2015. The tumour had left her both paralysed and blind. During the process of having this disease she approached New Zealand courts to seek out the use of Euthanasia if her suffering became too intolerable. It was ruled that only parliament could make a law change to allow such a step to legally occur. Seale’s family was given information regarding the case in the interim of the process due to Seale’s rapid deterioration so that she could be made aware to whether a doctor could lawfully help her with her right to choose to die.

         It was said that Judge Collins interpretation was that “he could not find aid in dying available to Seales or was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights”. It was also mentioned that it would indeed be an offence under the Crimes Act for her doctor to be able to assist her in dying. Her doctor could have been charged with manslaughter or murder if he had used the fatal drug intending to kill her. Lecretia learnt on her death bed that she had been denied her dying wish.

         I really am in two minds about euthanasia which are that I believe that everyone should have the right to choose how they live and in conjunction, how they choose to die. However, growing up in a family with nurses and doctors I have realised the immense pressure and responsibility that would be put on these medical professionals if they were to administer a fatal drug killing their patient, and ultimately a human life almost instantly. Who are we to play God? Who are we to play God in giving a fatal drug to a patient or telling a patient that is in pain and incurable of an incomprehensible disease that she or he cannot choose the way that she wants to leave this world? Should we really be able to force someone to live if they want to die?

         One thing that I am certain on is that this specific case has been a long time coming and has brought about discussion that is putting emphasis on a subject that has the need and necessary attributes to be discussed further.
         • World Citizen 6.1.1.2.1

           13 September 2015 at 11:57 am

           We can’t play God simple as that. Although I sympathize with this case I think the wider Euthanasia topic should be left alone. How are we to judge who is worse off than others and who deserves to die more? If we have the ability to ‘off’ anyone we see fit, what stops voluntary euthanasia becoming involuntary euthanasia? Because it’s only a better of time. If people really don’t want to live that’s in their whole hands, why must they turn to others to do it for them. I find that rather selfish, now who ever helped them is going to have to live with that for the rest of their lives too. I see your point here, I just see in the long run euthanasia doing more harm than good.
           • Maxattack 6.1.1.2.1.1

             13 September 2015 at 12:06 pm

             Have you ever had someone suffering from something so detrimental landing them at deaths door @worldcitizen? Would you seriously sacrifice someone that close to you their dying wish of passing away pain free? It is not playing God, it is having a little human compassion.
             • HPS2015 …

               13 September 2015 at 12:47 pm

               I understand where you are coming from @Maxattack as I myself have had personal experience earlier this year of not knowing what could have happened and in fact my own mother nearly had to make a similar decision about me but thankfully I woke up. Moving on from this, I think what @worldcitizen was trying to say was on a wider scale what are the implications of legalising euthanasia in New Zealand and how can we decide who qualifies for it. One of my concerns is that last year in Holland (where euthanasia is legal) the number of people being euthanised has tripled since 2012. It is said that it is out of control in the Netherlands. The patients being euthanised are terminally ill or severely mentally ill. I think that some form of structure needs to be created around this so that there is a system in place for who qualifies. If a patient is severely mentally ill, are they in their right mind to pick that decision to their right to die?
               • World Citizen …

                 14 September 2015 at 2:02 pm

                 What system do you believe would actually ensure that euthanasia stay ethical? How would you actually be able to differentiate who has rightful cause to die or not? The evidence in the Netherlands just proves the point. Human compassion doesn’t matter. I understand what you are trying to say but I think you should be more worried about those who will hold the power of life and death if such a law is passed. Because they will see to be a bigger focus point then the patients themselves.
         • Alex 1993 6.1.1.2.2

           15 September 2015 at 12:41 pm

           My view on Euthanasia is that it could be a positive option to those who would appreciate it most. There are plenty of cases in which someone has wanted to decide when they die as opposed to a terminal illness deciding for them. My only crux with this option been made available is that it can also be abused. Euthanasia if made legal, is and always will be a grey area when dealing with a persons right to die. These implications could also include how and also who would be doing the euthanizing. While I think euthanasia should be more heavily considered, when you are dealing with such a dense issue such as euthanasia you have to consider all the various ramifications both negative and positive.
           • HPS2015 6.1.1.2.2.1

             15 September 2015 at 8:05 pm

             Who qualifies as ‘appreciating it most’? How can we measure this? I do agree with it having the opportunity to be abused and that it will always have the consideration to be a grey area. I feel that the people euthanising patients should have to undergo some form of counselling to ensure that their wellbeing is okay after administering the fatal drug. My question regarding this topic is what is the difference to ‘pulling the plug’ and euthanasia? Both options are in another persons hands and both options ultimately end ones life.
             • Alex 1993 …

               19 September 2015 at 10:44 am

               I think people who really need it and can justify why they appreciate and qualify for euthanasia should be allowed to get it. It is such a dense issue and I said there are ramifications that a both positive and negative but I think that most of the impact would be negative. After doing some research on the Netherlands that you talked about @HPS2015 I think that euthanasia should only be used for special circumstances of people who are mentally stable, can prove they need it and aren’t wanting an easy way out. Pulling the plug and euthanasia are basically the same thing in my mind. Both are brought on by someone who has to either turn the power off or administer a deadly drug – both mean fatality. Looking back at your first post I do believe that the flag debate has distracted from topics as important as euthanasia and that NZ should think more about debating these kinds of topics rather than wasting 26 million on a flag change.
               • HPS2015 …

                 19 September 2015 at 10:51 am

                 @Alex1993 The whole idea of this discussion was to bring to light Lecretia Seales amongst all of the debates over the flag as topics like these get forgotten when the government lead distractions such as this. I think that the only way that this can be brought to an agreement is for it to have the opportunity to be debated in parliament properly. Qualifications for euthanasia as well as mental stability of the patients need to be discussed as well as people who believe that they have the mental and physical capacity to administer the drug. If these two attributes can not be clearly agreed then euthanasia should definitely stay illegal within New Zealand.
   • greywarshark 6.2

     2 September 2015 at 6:47 pm

     Has Labour said much about it? Greens? I know there are things being done by the Greens po9licy wise. Perhaps they are busy with the important stuff of getting the country running better.
   • Gabby 6.3

     2 September 2015 at 9:14 pm

     They might not give a toss.
7. Hanswurst 7

   2 September 2015 at 7:38 pm

   Does anybody else thing that the Silver Fern / Southern Cross designs look a bit like a zipper coming undone in thet middle? New Zealand, its flag flying openly, so that John Key’s patriotism can wave about in the breeze.
8. Gabby 8

   2 September 2015 at 9:13 pm

   It looks like a picket fence with a white shadow.
9. dv 9

   2 September 2015 at 9:30 pm

   Challenge for you.
   What would the allbacks be if they were selected by the Flag panel.
   • Hanswurst 9.1

     2 September 2015 at 10:17 pm

     I imagine they’d pick fifteen people who were really good at selling rugby balls and Richie McCaw action figures to soccer fans, to increase rugby’s global reach and profitability.
   • cogito 9.2

     3 September 2015 at 10:00 am

     “Challenge for you.
     What would the allbacks be if they were selected by the Flag panel.”

     Easy.

     They would be props.
10. Carter1001 10

    14 September 2015 at 1:51 pm

    @HPS2015, I do not support the opinion that euthanasia should be brought into our country. I feel this way because in regards to “playing god”, if the government makes the decision to bring in euthanasia or they don’t they are still playing god.

    Looking at the distractions created to blind us from issues like euthanasia, we understand these make shift events will always be present because of the way our media sector is dominated by the need for quick cash. Will it ever end ?
    • HPS2015 10.1

      15 September 2015 at 8:03 pm

      @carter1001 I think these ‘distractions’ will always be current as politics control the media. However, I do not feel that these distractions should blindsight us from detrimental topics such as euthanasia which I feel strongly need to be discussed. Whether or not it is legalised is still a grey area in concern for my opinion as mentioned above I feel that if it becomes legal there should be systems in place for who qualifies, how they qualify and why. Additionally, the cases in the Netherlands do worry me with their carefree approach to using euthanasia on mentally ill patients in large numbers.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS