Human Rights, Psychos and Opposition

Written By: - Date published: 11:08 am, November 11th, 2015 - 92 comments
Categories: discrimination, Ethics, International, Parliament, Social issues - Tags:

Human Rights are Universal. That means they apply to all humans. It means we don’t choose who those rights apply to and who they don’t apply to. If we did, then we’d all eventually wind up on the ‘wrong’ side of the line.

So when John Key stands up in Parliament and screams how Labour and others are supporting rapists, child molesterers (as he phrased it) and murderers, it’s incumbent upon the Opposition not to shy away, and not to distance themselves from supporting human rights.

New Zealanders are on Christmas Island. Some have been to jail. It does not matter what their crime was. It does not matter whether they are pleasant people or unpleasant people. They have human rights. It would have been nice if Labour and the Greens had broadened the debate to include the refugees on Christmas Island as well as Australia’s other prison Islands, but no.

The members from the left of the house who were so keen to distance themselves from any suggestion of being rape apologists or whatever, that they walked out of the debating chamber – might as well keep on walking. They are of no use.

John Key cynically or cunningly turned question time into a piece of ‘gotcha’ theater. He knew what he was doing. He was banking on ‘the princesses’ from the opposition getting all het up and making a show and dance about the pea he’d placed under their seats. And they did. Like I say, they need to keep walking.

Today, instead of a focus being on why New Zealand’s government will not defend human rights, we have a quiet rumbling on the relative worth of the people whose rights are being violated. That ball; the ball that some in the opposition stand culpable of giving momentum to, is a very dangerous thing to have on the move. I’ll say again to those members who walked. Keep going.

92 comments on “Human Rights, Psychos and Opposition”

  1. Colonial Viper 1

    Labour don’t think of themselves as the Opposition ; they think of themselves as the Government in Waiting. Seriously.

  2. One Anonymous Bloke 2

    Well said Bill.

    Entrench the Bill of Rights.

  3. Sabine 3

    They did the right thing. There are moments in life when walking away from a Fuckwit who screams insults is the only solution.

    They will walk back into that chamber and continue to fight, Kelvyn Davis clearly does not strike me as someone who gives up easily.
    But trying to have a debate with a freaked out Madman who will accuse you or your colleagues as supporters of ‘rapists and child molesters’ seems like a lost cause and should be simply abandoned. Let him froth.

    And with walking away they finally showed that everything has an end.

    It is up to us to make this an issue of human rights, as the National Party yesterday has clearly demonstrated that human rights don’t matter, and are of no importance to them and their supporters.

    I would also like to point out, that some might want to consider that some of the women in parliament, some of the women working there, and maybe even some of the men statistically could have been the victim of sexual assault and then again it can be pointed out that National has supported rapists and child molesterers quite a few time (as Weka demostrated so kindly in an earlier thread.).

    So, for the Labour does it again wrong, and this time the Greens did it wrong too crowd….what should they have done? Stayed there and said no we are not supporters of rapists and child molesteres?

    Thanks to the brouhahah yesterday, this thing is in the news, Marama Fox is on video pointing out that not all of the illegally held kiwis and other nationals are rapists and abusers, some National MP is going on about it taking days or weeks to get these illegally detained kiwis to come to NZ…….on chartered private planes no less, all on the cost of the Tax Payer…….and all Labour has to say ’twas not us, we wanted to support them to challenge the OZ government for their right to stay in what they consider home, with their family, in their houses and working their jobs.

    but then i guess one can not please all.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1

      Labour was caught off guard and reacted. Ideally they should have stayed on and had Key expelled from the Chamber.

      • Sabine 3.1.1

        as a survivor of rape myself, i can’t be bothered with you.

        you want labour to fail. good. have a nice day.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

          To be honest Sabine, I can’t be bothered with you either supporting a zombie party full of careerists.

          BTW Labour already failed millions of NZers starting in 1984, you should catch up.

          • Leftie 3.1.1.1.1

            @CV

            Very serious question.

            Why are you a member of the Labour Party that you clearly hate with such a vengeance?

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Now, that is an excellent question.

              BTW I don’t “hate” the Labour Party, I just think it finished everything that it was initially formed to achieve by the late 40’s/50’s and thereafter has been taking up space and dismantling its own legacy.

              • Leftie

                @CV

                If you feel that way why are you a member of the Labour Party? You didn’t actually answer that question, and I think your comments clearly show that you do indeed hate the Labour Party.

                • lurgee

                  Not just a member, but an occasional candidate. Which really begs some questions, if it has been a dead duck since the 1950s.

                • greywarshark

                  Leftie and Lurgee
                  What are your interests in commenting here? The Labour Party or questioning CV?

                  CV has been doing an analysis of Labour’s progress away from its old principles, which he had hopes of it finding again. Heaven knows we have thought, and analysed methods that would result in a win, that would produce policies that would enthuse the younger voter and the ones who have dropped out. Policies that would have shifted welfare payments to short-term projects, and training and real jobs making real things. It’s finding nothing going on in the penthouse that apparently is Labour’s brain that has resulted in CV’s disillusionment.

                  I can’t see you discussing Labour policy much. Perhaps you could put your mind to some ideas about that and stop being such a wimpy NZr.
                  You know the kind that feels affronted that someone is complaining about something, is annoyed. NZ reaction, ‘Who does he think is, throwing his weight around. If it’s good enough for me, he shouldn’t complain.’

                  • lurgee

                    Did I say it was good enough for me?

                    Since I moved to NZ in 2001, I have voted Alliance, Green, Mana and spoiled my ballot. So I think I can be cleared of the accusation of thinking Labour ‘good enough for me.’ And of being a ‘wimpy NZr.’

      • weka 3.1.2

        How could that have happened CV?

        • Sabine 3.1.2.1

          i don’t know Magic Wand? Expelliamus? Garlic? Holy Water?

        • McFlock 3.1.2.2

          How could that have happened CV?

          nothing short of an extremely precise, personality-changing brain embolism that suddenly afflicts our Speaker with a microscopic modicum of integrity or shame…

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3

        Ideally they should have stayed on and had Key expelled from the Chamber.

        That was never going to happen with the present Speaker. He defends and helps Key and Co to abuse the rules of parliament and needs to be gotten rid of.

    • Bill 3.2

      So, for the Labour does it again wrong, and this time the Greens did it wrong too crowd….what should they have done? Stayed there and said no we are not supporters of rapists and child molesteres?

      No. They should have stayed there, and on message, and said they supported people’s fundamental human rights…possibly adding, whether they were rapists and child molesters or not.

      As I’ve written in the post, we’re now in a bullshit situation where there are rumblings around ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ Christmas Island detainees. That is down to the idiot reaction of some of the mps who sit on the opposition benches. They essentially endorsed the idea that some people on Christmas Island are undeserving of support.

      I’m going to paraphrase here because I’m about to be out the door, but Chris Hipkins spouted some nonsense about how there is ‘nothing worse than being accused of supporting child molesters and rapists’ (like I say – paraphrased).

      The man child is a fucked in the head embarrassment to contend that such an accusation is worse than being stripped of your rights and shipped off to some penal colony in the middle of the ocean.

      You say there is a positive in so far as this thing is in the news. What thing is in the news? That the NZ Government is failing in its duty to back peoples’ fundamental human rights, or that some people are deserving of having their human rights upheld?

      • Sabine 3.2.1

        1. Sometimes, walking out is precisely what needs to be done, Shunning is a very . effective and very old tradition to make a point without speaking. And again, they did walk out when the Speaker of the house refused to do their jobs.

        2. When I say it is positive as this ‘thing’ is now out in the open, I mean as an example Marama Fox being in the news as contradicting the PM by saying that NO not all are rapists. (that in itself is the saddest statement ever).

        3. And honestly if you think you can find something worse than molesting a child i am happy to hear about it. And with it comes the support of someone who would molest a child.

        4.Kelvyn Davis has raised the issue as a human rights issue, he has talked and talked about it, heck he even travelled there, and no one from the media, nor the “labour needs to do better crowd” gave a dime. Now that the PM has made a calculated step of insulting and very cheaply insulting the people and parties that called the PM out on his non actions and his non caring attitude it is again Labour (and even the Greens) that got it wrong.
        Really?
        Really?

        5. Some of us are survivors of rape, some where adults, others were children, and some of us may live with survivors of rape and molestation, and believe me we do not take kindly to be told that we are the Party/ies and supportors of a Party/ies that supports rapists and child molesters when in fact the National Party has spend the last seven years to make rape a very common,nothing can be done about, boys will be boys, was just horsing around and people should just get on with live experience.

        Your post should have been addressed to the National Party and the Speaker, they are at the wrong here, not National and not the Greens.
        Wrong Tree.

      • weka 3.2.2

        “As I’ve written in the post, we’re now in a bullshit situation where there are rumblings around ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ Christmas Island detainees. That is down to the idiot reaction of some of the mps who sit on the opposition benches. They essentially endorsed the idea that some people on Christmas Island are undeserving of support.”

        Actually it was Key that was running that line, it wasn’t a rumbling, it was an out and out attack on the people detained (and it looks to me like Key and Turnbull have had a chat about how to present this). That line would have been there strongly with or without any reaction from the opposition. I don’t see how you can blame the opposition for this when it was Key blatantly dog barking the meme multiple times in parliament. Fortunately the MSM appear to disagree with Key.

        “I’m going to paraphrase here because I’m about to be out the door, but Chris Hipkins spouted some nonsense about how there is ‘nothing worse than being accused of supporting child molesters and rapists’ (like I say – paraphrased).”

        I missed that. Is that in the question time video?

        • weka 3.2.2.1

          Hipkins,

          “there is nothing more offensive than being accused of backing rapists”.

          A subtle but important difference from saying there is nothing worse than being accused of backing rapists (arguably being locked up on Christmas Island is far far worse), but Hipkins says this once, and he doesn’t look particularly vehement. There were a lot of other things that went on in that 15 mins, not just Labour men taking offense at being called bad names.

      • Ovid 3.2.3

        No. They should have stayed there, and on message, and said they supported people’s fundamental human rights…possibly adding, whether they were rapists and child molesters or not.

        Do you remember this scene in 12 Angry Men where the rest of the jury just turned their backs on Juror #10? I think that’s the kind of move the Opposition were going for to demonstrate their deep condemnation.

    • Karen 3.3

      +1 Sabine

    • Ennui 3.4

      I’m totally with you Sabine. I was proud of Labour MPs for the first time in 30 years. Staying to “debate” the issue with a pscho in a forum that only pretends to debate, what use is that?

    • Leftie 3.5

      @Sabine on all your comments

      +1000 Well said.

    • Ch-ch Chiquita 3.6

      +100 from me too, Sabine.
      Finally, the opposition MPs demonstrated their contempt towards the bias of the Speaker and him allowing the government in general and specifically JK to avoid giving information. But allowing him to imply that Labour and then the Greens support the actions of the detainees is appalling. And that is exactly what he did; he created the impression that Labour support the acts criminals do.

  4. Olwyn 4

    As understood it, the walk-out was to do with Key’s breach of parliamentary protocol and the speaker’s failure to act on it. It looks as if they are going to continue the battle, with Little intending to address a select committee meeting in Canberra about New Zealanders in Australia, which he will now extend to speaking about detention and the treatment of detainees.

    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11543206

    • Sabine 4.1

      let the good times begin. 🙂

    • weka 4.2

      That’s how I saw it too Olwyn, that whatever else was going on there was a clear problem for the functioning of parliament with the speaker’s failure to set boundaries for Key. I’m interested to hear from CV how Labour could have had Key expelled, so I’m open to there being other ways that Labour could have handled it, but ignoring it was not the way to go.

      • Bill 4.2.1

        ‘He called me bad names’ or ‘He said I’m something that I’m not’ is no excuse for turning ones back on such a fundamental issue and endorsing the notion that there are some people who do not deserve to have their human rights defended, upheld or fought for.

        From what I saw (I said this yesterday), Andrew Little was on to it. A shame the same can’t be said for those who are meant to ‘have his back’.

        Actually, is the suggestion being made, or do the lines of argument being made imply, that Andrew Little (among others) is somehow lacking in sensitivity or something because he refused to ‘be played’ and because he stuck to the message?

        • weka 4.2.1.1

          “he called me bad names”

          When you frame it very narrowly like that you are avoiding the points that Olwyn and I were making. I just don’t see the evidence that it was solely about hurt feelings.

          I agree that there were things that Labour could have done better eg focussed more clearly on the human rights of all NZers and indeed all people. But ignoring what Key did was not a useful option. They could have done both of course (addressed human rights and called out Key on his behaviour).

          • left for deadshark 4.2.1.1.1

            Maybe Weka it’s the old saying, “give him enough rope and they will hang themselves.
            The more key goes on, the worst he becomes, it’s only a matter of time, Annette King made a good speech this afternoon in the general debate, on those lines, go an have a listen if you have the time.

  5. “The members from the left of the house who were so keen to distance themselves from any suggestion of being rape apologists or whatever, that they walked out of the debating chamber – might as well keep on walking. They are of no use.”

    They walked out because the accusation was fucken offensive and was outrageously backed by the speaker of the house. But good on you for telling those women MP’s how they should feel and act about being accused of supporting rape, Bill. What would they know, eh? As you suggest, they should just keeping walking. Presumably all the way to the kitchen.

    • Leftie 5.1

      @te reo putake

      +1000

    • left for deadshark 5.2

      is this your attempt of a flame war, trp, your only been back five minutes.
      were talking political nous nothing about sexism in Bills comment.

      • I comment as I see fit. As I have done for years.

        In the OP the point is repeatedly made that these useless women should keep walking. If there is some nuance there, I’m not seeing it.

        • Bill 5.2.1.1

          tsk-tsk making shit up there trp…ie, telling lies in an attempt to goad. There is absolutely no reference to gender in the post.

          When a politician is engaged in an effort, through choice and as a part of their job, to stand up for or support peoples’ human rights, they can’t distance themselves from some people and not others. They stand up for human rights.

          And if someone attacks them or besmirches them by suggesting they are offering support to unsavoury characters, they continue to unashamedly stand up for peoples human rights. They don’t – can’t – walk away.

          If need be, they deal with the person who besmirched or attacked after or separately to defending the human rights of others.

          Pretty straight forward I’d have thought, and what makes today’s similar action so utterly different to yesterdays.

          • te reo putake 5.2.1.1.1

            Desperate, Bill. Not only have you been snapped with a bit of thoughtless misogyny, but you’re reduced to lying about my comment. It’s your problem. Own it.

            • Bill 5.2.1.1.1.1

              Laughing a fair bit here trp.

              I make zero reference to gender, and apparently I’m being a misogynist. (I do make one reference to a folk tale with Hipkins and Robertson in mind – y’know the initial reactions?)

              And you, laughingly, who make a charge of misogyny, appear to believe that only women can be be sexually assaulted insofar as you assume my post was about women walking out of parliament.

              I guess it’s going to be same old shit from you – an inability to engage in reasonable debate sign-posted by wall to wall smear, innuendo and ad hominem. A shame really.

              • Yeah, Bill. The shame is yours. You don’t have to specify the gender to be misogynist as you have proved in your rather thoughtless post. You just have to let your bias and or ignorance colour your writing. As you did.

                On the up side, at least I didn’t call you out for your pointless use of the abusive term ‘psycho’ in the post title. So, clearly, I am trying to play nice 😉

                • Bill

                  I guess you might be the only person to be unaware that Gower used the term ‘psycho’ – and so therefor couldn’t have picked up on the intended irony of it being used in the post heading. Although…given the general tone of the post with regards detainees and the criticism being that some in opposition appeared to endorse being somewhat selective in terms of advocacy and in doing so, arguably undercut their own attempt at advocacy…

                  Inverted commas and a link didn’t seem necessary at the time, but hey – if you’re being up front and genuine, then that was an unfortunate oversight on my part.

                  • Cheers, Bill. I was being genuine. And I didn’t know about Gower’s use of the term. I’m probably not alone in that and as you say, it might have been better referenced in the post. Thanks for the clarification.

              • weka

                “And you, laughingly, who make a charge of misogyny, appear to believe that only women can be be sexually assaulted insofar as you assume my post was about women walking out of parliament.”

                This is a good point. So Robertson or Hipkins could easily also be victims of sexual assault. They could also have partners, relatives, close friends who’ve been sexually assaulted. They were the first two MPs to call Key out from what I remember, and it would put their actions in quite a different light than them overreacting to being called bad names.

                I’m talking about day 1 where the walk out was overtly about the way the speaker was dealing with the issue.

                • Bill

                  They could also have partners, relatives, close friends who’ve been sexually assaulted.

                  Indeed they could. But advocacy 101….when someone is hurling invective, they are on the cusp of losing. At that point, it’s simply a matter of not responding to invective etc.

                  Some hereabouts disagree or (maybe) think that the particular charges made by Key are a special case or too difficult to put on the ‘to deal with/to’ list.

                  • weka

                    “But advocacy 101….when someone is hurling invective, they are on the cusp of losing. At that point, it’s simply a matter of not responding to invective etc.”

                    Given this is parliament, the last thing that the opposition is going to do is step back when Key is about to lose.

                    I think your points about humans rights and Christmas Island getting lost are important, but I don’t think the strategy you are presenting would have worked.

                    It wasn’t the particular charges taht Key made that made this a special case, it’s what he did. You’ve framed it as name calling. Many other people have seen it as something much more serious and important to put on the to do list. If it had been left there would have been no other good time to bring it up again, that’s the nature of parliament.

        • Tracey 5.2.1.2

          I didn’t get that from Bill’s post. I don’t agree with him but I absolutely didn’t get the notion he thought the MPs should head to the kitchen or that he otherwise was trivialising rape or sexual abuse of women’s response to it.

    • Ad 5.3

      +1000
      Nonsensical post.

  6. Mike Bond 6

    I agree that there is such a thing as Human rights. However, these criminals took it upon themselves to ignore others human rights. Some of them have destroyed peoples lives. A thought for the victims? The day a person choses to violate another persons human rights, is the day you give up your own human rights. The issue however is whether these criminals can come to New Zealand today or not? The poor reporting we have in this country has the left MSM saying they can’t and the right MSM saying they can. What is the truth? If they can leave and come to New Zealand and wait out their appeal, then they only have themselves to blame. If they can’t leave, then it becomes an issue about the new law that Australia has implemented and not Key or Little or Davis for that matter is going to get that changed. It reminds one of the Bali drug smugglers that the Australian government fought for and they were still executed. The law of a country, no matter how barbaric, is the law of the country and if you chose to live in that country you must abide by that law. My personal view is that Labour keep showing they will back the criminals and to hell with the law abiding, hard working citizen. Where is the Labour party that cared for the hard working middle class Kiwi?

    • Sabine 6.1

      And what about the fact that John Key wants to bring these guys over here, so as to please his Ozzie mates, and that you and I and the other ordinary Tax Payers will be footing the bill for it? Where is the National Party that ‘cared’ for the hard working, law abiding, tax paying middle class Kiwi’s?

      • Mike Bond 6.1.1

        Please explain your comment about ” Key wants to bring these guys over here”? No one wants to bring them here, but they are unfortunately Kiwis so we have no choice in the matter. Get your facts straight before making stupid comments.

        • Sabine 6.1.1.1

          Considering that he does nothing to prevent them from being illegally detained on the Christmas Islands, and is now telling via a National MP that these guys are coming over to NZ within days /week, I can only conclude that he thought it easier to just roll over and give the OZ PM what he wants instead of insisting that Kiwis be given the rights they deserve as residents of OZ and that the discrimination against Kiwi residents of OZ be stopped by the OZ goverment.

          So my conclusion is, that Key wants these guys to be deported back to NZ where they have a. no jobs – future beneficiaries, but hey they be on a job seekers benefit, b. no housing – no worries mate, surely there is a ditch they could live, c. no family – hey they can apply for residence here in NZ …..:). but that is all ok, lest Key upsets his mates in OZ.

          So, while Labour has been asking Key what he was doing to assure the rule of law, and international standards and understanding of human rights is upheld, Key has been twiddling his thumps, and not done nothing. Not that he could do anything, i guess, but that is beyond the point.
          Fact is, what ever crimes these guys have committed, and clearly having an association with a biker group while having no criminal record what so ever is a rather spurious reason to detain and hold someone illegally ofshore without an end to the detention, these guys, kiwis and other nationals alike should have the right to full access to legal representation, they should have the right to access to their families, and they should have the right to a fair trial in OZ not on some rock in the middle of nowhere.

          But I guess, you don’t care about that. Cause rule of law, who needs it, not hardworking middle class kiwis. ey?

          • Mike Bond 6.1.1.1.1

            I stopped reading after your first sentence where you so cleverly state that these people are “being illegally detained”. No such thing. The Aussies brought in a law and these criminals are held in terms of that law. Can we refuse to take them back. NO! Unfortunately. Get your facts straight. In any case, breaking news is that many Kiwis were involved with the rioting and will be charged and most likely receive further prison sentences. Keeps them in Auss for a while longer.

            • te reo putake 6.1.1.1.1.1

              Actually we can refuse to take them back. We could just do what the Aussies did and make a new law that they be refused entry.

            • Sabine 6.1.1.1.1.2

              I do believe, and please correct me if you think I am wrong, that if one is arrested that on should have access to a laywer (even court appointed), that one should be given a trial (speedily if possible), and that one should have right to access to family. This is just to establish that we are still a nation of law.

              IF these guys are to be deported because they now have a criminal record, than that is fairly simply, the Department of Immigration can contact the NZ Consulate, hand over the data of NZ Citizens to be released from prison and organise travel papers and transport, and some sort of help once they arrive in the country, maybe someone from their family that still lives here if so, or maybe the Sally Army that will help this person find its bearings. That would be quick and easy, for everyone involved.
              However, taking them to a rock in the middle of nowhere, far away from legal council, or access to a representative from the NZ Consulate, is not legal.

              And holding someone indefinitely without charging them with a crime, and then granting a hearing in front of a court to ascertain guilt or not guilt is illegal detention.

              Sorry mate, it might be normal in a few more years, but it is still illegal.

              • Tracey

                We also have a system that does not punish you twice for the same crime, the same system which says you serve your time and then are free again.

            • Tracey 6.1.1.1.1.3

              So this issue was your lat straw with Labour aye Mike? Who will you vote for now?

        • maui 6.1.1.2

          If no one wants to bring them here why did Amy Adams just say if they want to come back they can do so, and I quote “in a matter of days, no more than a week”. c’mon mike.

          • Mike Bond 6.1.1.2.1

            We can not refuse them to come back to New Zealand. They are citizens and are entitled to come back to this country. WE can always bring in a law quickly that states any person that is deported from another country back to New Zealand, goes to jail for a minimum of 10 years, but I doubt that will go down well.

            • Sabine 6.1.1.2.1.1

              so someone who gets expelled from a country for driving without a license and maybe a joint or two should spend 10 in prison and you would be happy to pay for it?

            • Tracey 6.1.1.2.1.2

              I wonder why they werent just put on planes days ago bound for NZ.

            • Tracey 6.1.1.2.1.3

              And yet, despite your assertion they haven’t come to NZ, some in fact, last night were flown by the Aussie Government to Perth (which will make the airfares to NZ even more expensive). I wonder why they didn’t just get flown straight to Wellington Mike?? There must be a reason, right?

              Now that this issue has ended your prior support of Labour, who would you vote for if an election were held tomorrow?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.2

      Human rights are universal and cannot be given up. The outcome of the second world war will not change no matter how inconvenient it is to your personal ethics.

    • Tracey 6.3

      You dont actually seem to understand human rights at all based on your numerous posts on this

  7. weka 7

    Leaving aside the fact the opposition did broaden out the debate (esp Davidson, but Fox also from the Mp), this makes me uncomfortable,

    The members from the left of the house who were so keen to distance themselves from any suggestion of being rape apologists or whatever, that they walked out of the debating chamber – might as well keep on walking. They are of no use.

    The centre of the clusterfuck yesterday was Key starting a flamewar using one of our society’s most sensitive trigger points. That Key did this when he is himself a rape apologist is completely and utterly unacceptable and needed to be stopped in its tracks. Did Robertson and Hipkins get caught up in their white man fear of having their names in the same sentence as rape? Probably, I don’t know and I don’t really care. It’s also possible that they decided that it was up to them to address this and not leave it to the women in the room. And as others have pointed out, there were issues of the functioning of parliament and there’s a line that Key stepped over. That alone was enough to stand up to what he did (get that it’s also about what he did not just what he said).

    Key wasn’t suggesting that they were rape apologists, that’s a twisting of what rape apology is. Key doesn’t get to use that political analysis and this is what I am uncomfortable with you using in your argument. Reducing this to some men getting triggered and they should have ignored it actually supports Key’s behaviour and actions.

    Key has some pretty major issues when it comes to women and sexual violence. His dog barking yesterday was much worse because of that, and something needed to be done about irrespective of whatever else was done about the human rights issues. This is not simply about hurt feelings, it’s about the PM, himself a misogynist, being an arch manipulator with no shame and someone needing to stand up to that.

    • Tracey 7.1

      Well said. Mike the until recent Labour voter doesnt seem to have an answer weka. Nor infused. Nor srylands. Funny that

  8. Tony 8

    Sorry but that’s bollocks. They were principled and walked out – good on them. It gets some media attention as well. As for staying to try and get Key expelled? It’d never happen – Carter runs the house.

    I’m tired of The Standard – it’s so destructive that it’s pointless. I have no idea what you guys stand for apart from a bunch of high horsed whinging.

    Go Labour, you’re making progress in a corporate conservative media that gives no time to the left. Ignore The Standard – they’re detached corrosive keyboard warriors who will never be happy.

  9. roy cartland 9

    How about we don’t all take the dead cat bait and keep alive the original dialogue:
    John Key is weak and and his gutless impotency is not diminished by pathetic, panicked shock tactics.

    Seriously, what has he actually done while in office? I mean, what ‘great deal’ for NZ has he made?

  10. b waghorn 10

    To bill and CV you have both had 24 hours to come with you’re this is what labour should done theories, remember the MPs that walked where dealing with a shitty situation as it happened.

  11. weka 11

    This,

    Poto Williams @PotoChchEast

    I have spent too long as a family violence advocate to take the crap that happened in the house today #walkout
    2:35 PM – 10 Nov 2015

    Via Stephanie’s Women of NZpol Twitter,

    https://bootstheory.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/women-of-nzpol-twitter-on-john-key-david-carter-and-using-rape-for-political-gain/

    A bit from Turei’s press release,

    “John Key’s weird outburst in Parliament today was deeply offensive, especially for the many women MPs who have come to politics through their work tackling sexual and family violence,” Green Party Co leader Metiria Turei said.

    “John Key obviously thought he was being macho and clever but he completely overreached when he made the accusation against MPs like Marama Davidson as she questioned his unwillingness to defend human rights.

    https://www.greens.org.nz/news/article/john-key-losing-it

    • Sabine 11.1

      yes, so much this. over and over again.

    • Tracey 11.2

      Thanks again Weka. You too Sabine. For some this seems to be an intellectual game. For others its tbeir very real lives.

    • Ch-ch Chiquita 11.3

      And this

      “Because the debate standards in the House need to improve.
      Because we were asking for John Key to apologise and he did not.
      Because we either uphold human rights or we don’t.
      Because the incidence of rape and sexual violence is damn serious and should never be flung around to distract us away from leadership failures!

      ….and so I got kicked out of the House on my 5th day in it alongside others. I have huge respect for my colleagues as we supported each other.”

      Marama Davidson [https://www.facebook.com/marama.davidson]

      • Tracey 11.3.1

        Which is partly want Bill thought should be done… and now that viewpoint has wide coverage. I am not sure Ms Davidson would have received such coverage had she stayed in the house.

  12. Sacha 12

    The Nats *want* Labour to make this about human rights, Bill.

    Keep the focus on Key’s (lack of) character as Kelvin Davis has done, to get under his skin and dismantle the creep’s unearned reputation with voters as a stand-up guy. Nobody trusts a weakling.

  13. RedLogix 14

    @Bill,

    I’m not going to disrespect your argument for staying and fighting. You are correct in that the ‘walk out’ is a tactic with a pretty modest ‘used by date’ and should be used sparingly.

    I won’t rehash all the responses already made today. Sabine in particular makes a very strong case. In this case I believe the walk-out was the right thing to do, it was immediate, it was authentic and it upped the ante.

    Key made a play he thought he could get away with – and you are right – the short-term he can make his claim that Labour over-reacted. But the problem with dead-cats is that after a few days they start to stink.

    • Bill 14.1

      Today’s walkout would not have been diminished in any way in the absence of a walkout yesterday. Other matters, such as the opposition parties focus on the NZ Government being quite happy to ignore human rights violations would have been stronger and more tightly focused in the public eye without yesterday’s walkout.

      Yes, ‘dead cats’ stink, but I’m troubled that a fair amount of debate is veering towards the relative worthiness and unworthiness of Christmas Island detainees. That stinks too – far worse than any dead cat. And has potential longer term repercussions way beyond that of any ‘dead cat’ or current NZ Government.

      • RedLogix 14.1.1

        but I’m troubled that a fair amount of debate is veering towards the relative worthiness and unworthiness of Christmas Island detainees.

        Absolutely – with each side ‘picking’ alleged examples to make them out as either all slightly naughty and hard done by, or devils incarnate – depending on which side you’re on.

        And that IS the core of the argument here – that regardless of how ‘deserving or sympathetic’ we find these people – that the Govt of New Zealand has a duty to serve and uphold the human rights of ALL New Zealanders.

      • miravox 14.1.2

        The accusations by the Prime Minister were deeply offensive for suggesting that opposition MPs were supporting people who had served time for violence, including rape, instead of the fact that they were supporting the Human Rights of the people retrospectively detained – even those guilty of sexual violence.

        I’m troubled by your take veering towards the idea that the MPs should have ignored the Prime Minister using sexual assault as a political weapon. Opposition MPs had every right to walk away from that. To stop it in its tracks.

        • Bill 14.1.2.1

          I haven’t said that it should have been ignored. What I have said is that during the time when mps are advocating for human rights, that they do not react/bite. Save it. Take note. Deal to them – whether through 2 by 4s or walk outs or whatever – later.

          • miravox 14.1.2.1.1

            “Deal to them – whether through 2 by 4s or walk outs or whatever – later.”

            Generally that would be the way to go, but not for this, imo. They’d have to have let it go entirely. Women revisiting something like this – you’ve gotta know the “Women! Let it go” calls that would entail. Being silenced be the Speaker was so indicative of that. The protest had to be then, or never. I support their actions. I also support fighting for the human rights of the detainees. I think its important to not let the PM get away pretending he’s speaking for victims of sexual violence (especially with his track record of rape culture).

  14. DS 15

    Politics is the art of theatre.

    Frankly, Labour is doing just fine on this point. It is showing the world what John Key (and David Carter) is. And the longer this stays in the news, the more people (including the media) will start seeing this too.

  15. KJT 16

    For once, in my opinion, Labour did exactly the right thing.

    Good on them.

    Human rights are not something you get to pick and choose depending on whether you approve of people or not!

    I hope we continue advocating for the rights of all the detainees. Refugees, minor criminals, or anyone else.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    1 week ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    2 weeks ago