Hey! Mr Tally Man…

Written By: - Date published: 10:20 am, May 29th, 2010 - 33 comments
Categories: john key, leadership - Tags: , , , ,

Comments by former All Black and Rugby World Cup “Ambassador”  Andy Haden that alledge the Canterbury Crusaders have a limit on the number of “darkies” they have in their team have created more headaches for Key.

After carefully reaffirming his love for the red-neck rump of voters with distasteful comments about Tuhoe – Key’s now faced with the likely need to fire the All Black ‘legend’ that led the Cavalier’s Tour of apartheid South Africa in 1986. And the same people that thought John’s Tuhoe comments were funny will be very unhappy to see Haden go for this.

Haden has remained unrepentant for his comments and isn’t prepared to give up his RWC ambassadorship without a fight. He’s described the reaction to his comments as PC pandering, and I get the feeling there might be more than a few talkback listeners out there who’d be thinking the same.

Haden’s allegations will have to be investigated, if not by Government then by his defence Counsel, which will bring more negative publicity in the lead up to the RWC (and it’ll be interesting to see what the Government does should Haden be proved correct). But regardless of the claims’ veracity you just can’t have a so-called ambassador going around talking like that in the 21st Century. John’s done enough as it is in recent days to make the rest of the world start to think we’re New Old South Africa.

Meanwhile the NZRFU has dug its toes in saying if Haden is to go, it’s the Government’s decision. I think the NZRFU may be a bit pissed off for having to apologise to Maori All Blacks, mirroring the earlier apology from the South African Government, when it was really the Key Government’s apology to give. (Of course John didn’t want the Government to be seen making that apology because that would’ve undone all the great work courting the support of those who thought their Good Ol’ Boy was pandering to “the marries”.) It’s also deeply embarrassing for the NZRFU to suggest to the international community that their teams might still have racist selection policies after only just apologizing for having them in the past.

All very messy, and just a trifle divisive for the red-neck kaiwai heartland Key’s been so desperate to re-connect with. What a tricky business this identity politics can be.

33 comments on “Hey! Mr Tally Man… ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ianmac 1
    29 May 2010 at 10:30 am

    Your reasoning above will not lead to a Key decision/announcement. It will be left to the shadowy McCulley to declare the result.
    I imagine that the Polling machinery will decide the outcome anyway.

  2. Bill 2
    29 May 2010 at 10:52 am

    For a white person to suggest that any institution or part of the establishment in NZ is racist, is in itself racist.

    For a white person to suggest that Maori are cannibalistic is not racist.

    For a Maori person to suggest that NZ either past or present is racist, is in itself racist.

    The Tuhoe comment and the Haden comment are not from the same stable. They are worlds apart.

    I tried to straighten out this particular plate of spaghetti over here.

    The only thing I’d add now is that this whole Haden malarky is probably being played up by Johnny Boy because it removes him from the spotlight. The media will forget the wine shares and more importantly the other shares that Johnny can possibly see benefiting only him and not the rest of us. Most people are quite happy to see no tax extra on alcohol and will see that as good for them rather than some outrageous dodgy dealing by Johnny Boy.

    • the sprout 2.1
      29 May 2010 at 11:01 am

      can’t say i follow all your logic there bill… but i had thought about the distraction element and i’m sure it’s true, but i also think john’s Whitechapple problems are going to burn for a long time yet. this is more a division of his attention.

      • Bill 2.1.1
        29 May 2010 at 11:15 am

        “can’t say i follow all your logic there bill..”

        What bit?

        I’m not claiming all my thoughts are impeccably logical by the way. But on the off chance that the bit you don’t follow is actually logical, I might be able to clarify. Maybe.

  3. ropata 3
    29 May 2010 at 11:42 am

    There probably is substance to what Haden is saying about the Crusaders, at least in the early years. The crowd at least were initially sceptical of Marika Vunibaka and racist chants could be heard in Lancaster park when he was involved in play. However rude comments by boozy idiots is expected behaviour at a rugby match so I don’t know if there was genuine malicious racism there, similar to (for example) comments about Jason Eaton’s mullet

    Also Haden’s comments were in the context of a show about “the browning of NZ rugby”, I suppose NZ rugby followers are looking at Sth Africa for the magic recipe. I think they are mistaken, Polynesian players have taken NZ rugby a long way and given it a lot of flair and power. Anyone remember Jonah Lomu?

  4. coolas 4
    29 May 2010 at 11:47 am

    Being a ‘darkie’ myself I am offended by that term no more (or less) than my red head friends are offended by being called ‘gingas.’ Sticks and stones.

    What is utterly offensive (and illegal) is the Crusaders having a discriminatory selection policy.

    Haden’s assertion was confirmed by sports writer Richard Broock on Close-Up.
    http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/accusations-racism-in-rugby-3571284

    Steve Tew, CEO of Rubgy Corp, was ‘outraged’ and ‘shocked’ calling for Haden’s dismissal. Seems McCulley told Haden not to appear on the programme.

    Let the bun fight begin. Will Big Andy stick to his opinion or crumble? Who will come to his defense? Where do the ‘darkies’ stand? Bring it on Boys.

  5. Adrian 5
    29 May 2010 at 12:01 pm

    The simple thing is that up until quite recently the Crusaders drew most of their playing strength from its feeder sub-unions Canterbury, South Canterbury , Marlborough, Nelson, Buller and the West Coast which did not have any sizable Polynesian population, somewhere around 4-6% and Maori around 10% so the SI teams did look naturally “paler”. I like to think they had more sense than to live and play rugby in the freezing bloody cold so stayed in the NI. This whole Haden bullshit is more about his grumpiness that his beloved Auckland teams are constantly getting their arses kicked by SI teams and it looked like we’re in line to sign up SBW, as well as the fact that Haden’s a class A boofhead.

    • ianmac 5.1
      29 May 2010 at 12:22 pm

      Adrian. You said it all for me. Sums it up very well. Growing up in South Canterbury then in Christchurch there were very very few people other than Pakeha. So, is it surprising that there are more pakehas in the Crusaders? Not at all. Broock and Haden are adding 2+2=7

      • Lanthanide 5.1.1
        29 May 2010 at 2:15 pm

        Christchurch is the asian capital of NZ. We don’t have so many Maori or PI’s, but there are lots of asians here.

        • gingercrush 5.1.1.1
          29 May 2010 at 2:44 pm

          Auckland has far more Asians than Christchurch has. We have a sizable asian population but to say we’re asian capital of New Zealand is patently absurd.

  6. Adrian 6
    29 May 2010 at 12:06 pm

    Beware of quoting Boock on anything Coolas, I don’t think he’s ever printed any sporting prediction that turn out correctly and the number of times he’s been caught making shit up is legend. There are bugger all sportsmen in the country who’ll even talk to him.

  7. gingercrush 7
    29 May 2010 at 12:52 pm

    And as I said on Open Mike. Haden has a reputation as a plonker he is not well regarded by many of his peers. Therefore, the important question is how this guy became an ambassador in the first place.

    —

    Oh and cheers to Iprent for removing the backspaces when one forgets the capcha, so much better.

  8. todd 8
    29 May 2010 at 1:42 pm

    I would find it unlikely that the Crusaders ever had a policy on this.However in rugby circles any coach worth his salt would know that any team with to many pacific islanders playing is not a good balance if you want to win.In the past I have had a captain of a team (a islander) I was coach of tell me to replace one of the back line as he felt uncomfortable playing with 3 islanders in the backs as he said it is a game we must win and could I put in a another player who did not have the same flair but was (he considered) more stable.Mostly while Islanders are great players they can be somewhat selfish and.
    You just need to look at the Fiji sevens team who are fantastic but put 15 on the feild and they are a completly different team,too individual.
    Same thing will happen if you play 3 half backs in different positions in the same team ,while all coiuld be good players again the balance wont be right.

    • frustrated 8.1
      29 May 2010 at 1:52 pm

      todd – are you retarded ?

      Polynesian and Maori players are no more or less stable selfish than players of other hues fuck what is it with you white boys who play rugby is it something to do with your john thomas being the size of a thimble and your iq in the integers that makes you come out with these kind of mental bottom burps.

      • fatty 8.1.1
        29 May 2010 at 2:39 pm

        todd are you retarded ?

        Yes, he is.
        Apparently if you play 3 players who’s ethnicity is from the same geographical region, that is the same as playing three players who play the same position – “if you play 3 half backs”.

        Remember the all blacks in 2006, when they had a good team?
        Including – Rico Gear, Mils Muliaina, Joe Rokocoko, Tana Umaga (captain), Rodney So’oialo, Jerry Collins, Keven Mealamu, Isaia Toeava, Luke McAlister, Piri Weepu, Chris Masoe.

        Back then NZ was defending the fact that they seemed to be poaching Pacific Islanders and that was the reason for their success.

      • Anita 8.1.2
        29 May 2010 at 3:04 pm

        Wow, that’s quite a tirade of primary school rudeness.

  9. Brett 9
    29 May 2010 at 1:44 pm

    Haden’s the manager of a few rugby playing “darkies”.
    I have a feeling it’s more about scoring contracts for the non playing players in his stable than any racially driven policy’s being implemented by the Canterbury rugby union.

  10. mark 10
    29 May 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Of course if any of the idiots who believe there is any truth in Hadens comments actually could count , the debate would end.
    If they had a policy its been broken every year theyve been in existence.
    the only policy the Crusaders have, is picking winning players.
    No one could argue there success in this.
    trying to make this an issue about the PM will be as successful as making an issue of his shares in a winery

  11. todd 11
    29 May 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Fatty.
    So how are you going to prove me wrong?.

    • fatty 11.1
      29 May 2010 at 4:41 pm

      todd; I just did, read again:

      “Remember the all blacks in 2006, when they had a good team?
      Including Rico Gear, Mils Muliaina, Joe Rokocoko, Tana Umaga (captain), Rodney So’oialo, Jerry Collins, Keven Mealamu, Isaia Toeava, Luke McAlister, Piri Weepu, Chris Masoe.

      Back then NZ was defending the fact that they seemed to be poaching Pacific Islanders and that was the reason for their success.”

  12. Brett Dale 12
    29 May 2010 at 3:43 pm

    I dont know why this is story.

    Haden said the crusaders have a policy of only thee non white players.

    That is factually incorrect. Just look at the squad.

    Cant haden count.

    BTW, I dont follow the sport of rugby union and never have done.

  13. vto 13
    29 May 2010 at 3:55 pm

    ha ha what a pile of spaghetti, as someone so aptly put it above…

  14. big bruv 14
    29 May 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Christ!

    You lot get more desperate with each passing day.

    What will be the next breathless claim? “Key responsible for South Island floods”

    As for Haden, he is dead right, the Crusaders and Canterbury teams have always had as few ‘darkies’ as possible, the locals (and Labour supporters) just will not watch a team that is not made up of mostly whites.

    • Armchair Critic 14.1
      29 May 2010 at 11:37 pm

      You’re making stuff up BB. He isn’t responsible for the SI floods. Well, not directly, at least. I heard he had his lawyers arrange the flooding through his blind trust. Bound to be just idle speculation, though.
      As for the rest (and to make sure I’m not too far off topic). Rugby. Yawn. The who-saders?

  15. todd 15
    29 May 2010 at 10:34 pm

    Fatty
    Are you a bit silly,cant remember us winning the world cup?.Did alot of these players last in the next team,didnt think so.In fact McAlister is a a good example of why we lost and what i have been saying.Same with Collins,Masoe gone before lunch.
    This is why alot of rugby people have no time for Henry and his selections.

  16. fatty 16
    29 May 2010 at 11:25 pm

    ….Oh, OK, so those Islander players were responsible for the record of one of the most dominant all black teams ever, that being the 05/06, but its then their fault that NZ lost the world cup in 2007?

    “In fact McAlister is a a good example of why we lost and what i have been saying.”

    1 – Actually McAlister is Maori, your post was only talking about Islanders from what I could see…..so he is not a good example at all.
    2 – McAlister is mixed ethnicity, part Pakeha part Maori…..is it his Maori side that caused NZ to lose against France? If he had no Maori blood, would that drop-kick have gone over?

    Your post at 1.42 pm amuses me, I like the way you stress the fact you chose an Islander to be captain. This is like the person who says “I’m not racist, I’ve got a Maori friend”
    And when you make a point that you think white players are more stable than Islander players, you note that “(he considered)”…..maybe he just thinks that “those players” are more stable than “those players” because they can read a game better…..but you viewed that through your ‘BNP goggles’ to be proof that the lighter your skin, the better the player.

    I really can’t understand how a rugby player is more stable if his skin color is lighter and his ancestors have links to the UK/Ireland…….please run that by me again.

  17. gobsmacked 17
    30 May 2010 at 5:21 pm

    Update:

    Former All Black Andy Haden has kept his post as a Rugby World Cup Ambassador after controversy over his claim the Crusaders had a racist selection policy.

    Rugby World Cup Minister Murray McCully said after a meeting with Haden today that the former player had accepted that language he used when making the claim had caused offence.

    Haden had already apologised, and Mr McCully said as far as he was concerned, that was the “end of the matter”. (from Stuff)

    Later, Andy Haden commented “I have just had John Key’s balls on toast. There are more rednecks than darkies voting National, and he knows it. Offended, blah blah, apology, yeah, whatever.” (that last bit, not from Stuff)

  18. fatty 18
    30 May 2010 at 6:35 pm

    NZRFU are a fuckin disgrace, but this is hardly surprising, they were satisfied with they way they supported apartheid in SA for years until the South Africans apologised. Only then did they bother to think they may had done something wrong.
    The world cup has got off to an embarrassing start, and this is before the world sees our booze tent on the Auckland waterfront, plus our poor planning, traffic issues and shitty stadiums.
    We really are a fucking embarrassment. Too many rednecks here, race relations are a fucken joke. The best in the world? – Never were.
    Hope the world is not expecting for too much from NZ when they come for the rugga next year.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.