Key, the Kiwi Ken

70 comments on “Key, the Kiwi Ken ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Dean 1

   20 March 2008 at 2:44 pm

   AYB, you’re grasping at straws here. Really, it’s no wonder this blog has gained the reputation as the Key attack blog when this is the kind of foolishness that gets posted.

   None of these statements suggest that Key is changing his tune about his religious beliefs. There are many people who choose to live their life according to christian values while still not believing in any higher power, and not every Jew is religious either – you may be aware that it’s also used to describe people of a particular race as well as religios affiliation.
2. Robinsod 2

   20 March 2008 at 2:47 pm

   So does this mean he’s pro-easter or not?
3. rjs131 3

   20 March 2008 at 2:52 pm

   Well at least he doesnt conveniently forget his religious principles when voting in parliament like well known and high profile muslim MP asaf choudery

   Just because he doesnt believe in life after death or deeply religious doesnt preclude him following christian principles such as following the 10 commandments.
4. all_your_base 4

   20 March 2008 at 2:54 pm

   That’ll all depend on whether or not you are Robinsod.
5. Daveo 5

   20 March 2008 at 2:59 pm

   Dean what’s interesting is what he is trying to portray to each audience – that he’s just like them, even when he’s not.

   John won’t tell a Christian audience he’s an agnostic or a agnostic audience he’s Jewish, he tells them what he thinks they want to hear.

   So if you’re agnostic he is too. If you’re Christian he is too. If you’re Jewish well you know what, he is too.

   That’s not exactly honest, especially when you’re talking about something as personal and deeply held as religion.
6. all_your_base 6

   20 March 2008 at 3:00 pm

   Fair enough Dean but it wouldn’t be the first time he’s been caught “tailoring” his messages to particular audiences would it? That aside you’ve got to admit that the similarity between Ken and Key really is striking. Separated at manufacture?
7. gobsmacked 7

   20 March 2008 at 3:04 pm

   What are his “Christian principles”? How do they differ from humanist principles, or Buddhist principles, or any general moral code? What is the relevance of the word “Christian”, from a non-believer?

   None.
8. gobsmacked 8

   20 March 2008 at 3:07 pm

   “christian principles such as following the 10 commandments”

   That’s Judaism, not Christianity. You’ve got your Testaments mixed up.
9. mike 9

   20 March 2008 at 3:16 pm

   FFS, steve p preaching to me about being shallow and you guys keep posting this immature garbarge
10. Steve Pierson 10

    20 March 2008 at 3:17 pm

    Daveo hits it on the head. Is what Key said in the different interviews mutual contradictory, not quite.

    If you take a kind interpretation he is an agnostic ethnic jew who lives like Christian values say you should live (apart from the camel and the needle thing). But he is dishonest in that he lets each audience see him as quite a different person by hiding aspects of himself from them – he doesn’t say to salient that he considers his lifestyle in accordance with Christian teaching, he doesn’t tell the Christians or the Jews that is he agnostic.
11. smithers 11

    20 March 2008 at 3:19 pm

    You people are pathetic

    Is Labour so desparate that you have to come up with personal attacks
12. BeShakey 12

    20 March 2008 at 3:20 pm

    Icky as it may be I have to side with those defending Key. He may be playing up different things for different audiences, thats a pretty common thing from politicians. The usual difference with Key is that he says different and contradictory things to different audiences (meaning he isn’t telling the truth to everyone). In this case its perfectly possible for Key to not believe in God, but have lived his life by Christian principles (it’d be interesting to know exactly what he means by that), and that he would be NZs third Jewish PM (ethnically rather than religiously speaking).

    Key has um said a lot of you know different I mean to say more than enough inconsistent and not all uh well clearly stated which is to say uh um that there are enough other things to you know attack him on without um
13. Matthew Pilott 13

    20 March 2008 at 3:25 pm

    Smithers, classic post! That was irony right? … No? Oh.. Rught-o then. Well, perhaps you should re-think your “strategy”.
14. Steve Pierson 14

    20 March 2008 at 3:26 pm

    smithers. It’s not a personal attack. We are not criticising Key for being Agnostic, Christian, or jewish – or indeed any of his personal traits. We are criticising him as a politician who presents different faces to different groups.
15. smithers 15

    20 March 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Steve, Matthew if you weren’t so blinded by your relationship with Labour and your bigotry you would perhaps understand that there is nothing wrong with any of these commnets by Key and what’s the different face he’s portraying.

    1. I’m not deeply religious
    2. I’ve lived my life by Christian principles
    3 I’ll be the third Jewish prime minister in NZ

    What is exactly wrong with these comments. I along with probably most of NZ would have no issue with a prime minister that fitted all these categories.

    Helen Clarke probably fits the first two as well if not the third

    Catcha brains stein … now that’s scary
16. mike 16

    20 March 2008 at 3:38 pm

    ‘or indeed any of his personal traits’
    you indeed take the cake SP

    [is this more hollow assertion or do you have examples of us attacking Key on his personal traits, rather than as a politician?, SP]
17. smithers 17

    20 March 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Matthew what I’d like to know is why is there this irrational hatred of John Key on this blog ?

    Do you consider him a class traitor because he came from disadvantaged back ground and has done well for himself?

    Is it because he’s doing well in the polls?

    Is it because he’s relatively wealthy?

    Is it merely because he’s from the opposite side of the political spectrum from Labour?

    Something else or just a combination of the above.
18. Tane 18

    20 March 2008 at 3:53 pm

    There’s no irrational hatred, smithers. Just robust critique. If you want irrational hatred go have a look at Whale’s site, or No Minister, or the Kiwiblog comments section.
19. smithers 19

    20 March 2008 at 3:57 pm

    Tnae

    mmmmmmm that must be it

    So you critique someone for saying

    1. I’m not deeply religious
    2. I’ve lived my life by Christian principles
    3 I’ll be the third Jewish prime minister in NZ

    rearrange please kettle black pot calling the.
20. Murray 20

    20 March 2008 at 3:59 pm

    These lefties are terrified of John Key. And by the way, does anyone here think Annette Kings up shit street ?
21. IrishBill 21

    20 March 2008 at 4:02 pm

    Smithers – it is generally considered to be bad form to post under different user-names. Please choose one and stick with it.
22. Tane 22

    20 March 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Smithers, not my post, but I’d agree with Daveo and Pierson – it’s about presenting yourself as different things to different audiences.

    It’s dishonesty by omission – Hey Christians, I’m a Christian too! Hey Agnostics, I’m Agnostic too! Hey Jewish people, I’m Jewish too!

    John Key – he’s whoever you want him to be.
23. Dean 23

    20 March 2008 at 4:08 pm

    “Fair enough Dean but it wouldn’t be the first time he’s been caught “tailoring’ his messages to particular audiences would it?”

    Oh, come on, you have got to be joking.

    What exactly is wrong with trying to find common ground with different segments of society? It’s not like you’re quoting him talking to a bunch of baby-sacrificing satan worshipping and admitting he likes the odd baby on toast, is it?

    Honestly, this is nothing more than a pathetic beat up. Oh noes! John Key tries to find common ground! Are you sore after the Waitangi day fiasco, and is “haters and wreckers/last cab off the rank” still smarting?

    Hopefully you come back recharged after Easter and can post some meaningful Key critiques.
24. Tane 24

    20 March 2008 at 4:10 pm

    It’s not like you’re quoting him talking to a bunch of baby-sacrificing satan worshipping and admitting he likes the odd baby on toast, is it?

    Now that would be cool.
25. Dean 25

    20 March 2008 at 4:11 pm

    Daveo: “Dean what’s interesting is what he is trying to portray to each audience – that he’s just like them, even when he’s not.”

    No, Daveo, you can choose to see it that way, or you can choose to see it as Key trying to find common ground with different spheres of the population. Either way it’s only a choice, but to portray your choice as fact is laughable.

    gobsmacked:

    “That’s Judaism, not Christianity. You’ve got your Testaments mixed up.”

    Newsflash – christians also adhere to the 10 commandments. You’ve got your religious dogma mixed up.
26. Dean 26

    20 March 2008 at 4:12 pm

    Tane:

    “There’s no irrational hatred, smithers. Just robust critique.”

    That’s generally true of the standard, but this piece is just dribble.
27. smithers 27

    20 March 2008 at 4:14 pm

    Tane

    No what you have selectively quoted is that

    he is quoted to have said (among other things no doubt)

    I’m not deeply religious to the university paper
    I’ve lived my life by Christian Principles to investigate Magazine
    and in the Jewish chronical I’ll be the third Jewish prime minister

    you may be able to spot dishonesty in those statements along with Dave and SP, most people however won’t.
28. Matthew Pilott 28

    20 March 2008 at 4:26 pm

    Now that would be cool. I’d at least respect the man if he said something like that 😉

    Smithers, I think you’re blinded by some form of irrational hatred (you haven’t yet posted anything with enough intelligent content for a casual reader to discern towards what you direct said irrational hatred) to be able to make grand sweeping comments about this site.

    For a start, you seemed to fail to notice that there isn’t a jot of criticism of the views/attributes Key holds, yet you are posting as if this is the main point. Hint – it’s not. It’s his presentation of those points to selected sectors of society, some of which may or may not be entirely constsient with each other. No hatred there…

    Why you direct a series of questions at me regarding your perceptions of the blog’s views towards Key I don’t know, maybe you think I am The Standard itself. Given your depth of understanding shown in this thread I wouldn’t put such miserable deduction skills past you.

    Tell you what – next time John Key comes out with some policy, $5 says there’ll be a post on it. It’s just that it happens so bloody infrequently that there’s a whole lot of space in the middle. Gather you haven’t noticed that either…

    As for your questons. One – no, you’re a sick bastard if you think that someone’s a class tratior if they become wealthy and are from a poor background. How can you even think like that? Seek help! Two – Do polls mean that much to you? Short answer, no. Three – Once again, you’ve got an irrational hatred of rich people you seem to be projecting upon others. See solution in point One. Four – this is too stupid to really justify an answer, but to give you a hint – I generally disagree on political matters with people who are on the other side of the political spectrum. Live a little, son, and you might realise this is a common occurance.
29. smithers 29

    20 March 2008 at 4:43 pm

    MP

    I’m glad your view is that someone’s a sick bastard if they think that a person is a class traitor – however I have seen that terminology used more than once on this very site. I think the entire concept of being a class traitor is absurd.

    Irrational hatred of rich people – no not me. You might want to talk to Michael Cullen about that kind of irrational hatred though.

    Which of Key’s statements in this post is inconsistent with the other can’t see it meself.

    And FYI I have lived a great deal thanks for the advice though.
30. Tane 30

    20 March 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Smithers, I think the idea of being a class traitor (not a term used by any of the authors here that I’m aware of) is not about how much money and power you gain, but about what you do for others once you have that money and power.
31. Billy 31

    20 March 2008 at 4:56 pm

    Yeah, you guys are grasping. One can be an agnostic and live your life by Christian principles (do unto others, anyone?) while contemporaneously being ethnically Jewish.

    BTW, who were the Jewish PMs?
32. Billy 32

    20 March 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Try this: “I am an agnostic who believes that in an eye for an eye. I am proud to be your first maori PM”
33. Steve Pierson 33

    20 March 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Vogel was one of the Jewish PMs (not acutally a PM, a Premier). not sure of the other, not any since the modern two party system emerged (1935) I’m pretty sure. He could be talking about Disraeli.

    and read the above comments – it’s about being whoever his audience wants him to be, not what his actual beliefs are or are not.
34. Dean 34

    20 March 2008 at 5:08 pm

    Steve:

    “and read the above comments – it’s about being whoever his audience wants him to be, not what his actual beliefs are or are not.”

    Once again, no it’s not – it’s about you portraying what he’s said as the person you want him to be. His audience in each case is actually the furthest thing from your opinion.
35. Billy 35

    20 March 2008 at 5:20 pm

    Is it, Steve? Or is it about finding more and more things to criticise him for, no matter how petty?

    I have been wikipedia-ing my arse off, but have only discovered that Francis Bell’s mother was a converted jew (why was that even noteworthy?)

    Maybe we should expect a Standard splash about Key having lied about there having been two jewish PMs. It would be big enoughto rival the whole “I want wages to drop” expose. Ha!
36. andy 36

    20 March 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Please leave the spouses out of politics.
37. Benodic 37

    20 March 2008 at 6:29 pm

    Andy – to me it looks like Bronagh was only brought into it for the alliteration her name creates when put next to ‘Barbie’ and ‘beau’. There was no discussion about Bronagh herself.
38. andy 38

    20 March 2008 at 6:34 pm

    Benodic,

    your choice, IMO it degrades the conversation.
39. Dean 39

    20 March 2008 at 6:52 pm

    “your choice, IMO it degrades the conversation.”

    Watch then froth when Peter Davis is introduced into a conversation. Highly amusing.
40. Benodic 40

    20 March 2008 at 7:00 pm

    If Peter Davis was brought in because the P in his name causes illiteration then fine, I don’t think anyone would complain. The left’s issue with the right’s use of Davis is that his name is invoked usually as part of some Ian Wishart-inspired rumour or to otherwise abuse the man.
41. Weather Eye Of The North 41

    20 March 2008 at 7:13 pm

    Oh Yes…..Tut Tut Tut…..manners and all that but man, doesn’t the Keyster look like a panicking animal in the headlights when it hits him like a sledgehammer that he’s fucked up and exposed his “flakey” ?

    Meanwhile “Pilinglish” sits in the background just “looking-on” wise.

    Because if Key don’t make it FPP style (and he won’t – just like the moemoea Don)……he’s dead. And if by chance the anti-Helen time for a change number really bites, it’ll be a victory by piss-all…..very unstable, unhappy government.

    And Key…..the flake he is…..will fuck up. A Ken-Doll Prime Minister ? No no no ! He’d last 20 months.

    And the Dipton Rose will just sit and wait…..
42. Dean 42

    20 March 2008 at 8:27 pm

    “If Peter Davis was brought in because the P in his name causes illiteration then fine, I don’t think anyone would complain. The left’s issue with the right’s use of Davis is that his name is invoked usually as part of some Ian Wishart-inspired rumour or to otherwise abuse the man.”

    You’ll notice that noone has ever sued Wishart for defamation. I wonder why?
43. mardypants 43

    20 March 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Oh I love this! This speaks volumes about the man. What a totally vapid character! The bloke’s a cypher; devoid of honestly held views or beliefs, he’ll simply reflect your’s. That’s not leadership of any kind. This bloke reminds me more and more of Michael Laws with better managed vanity.
44. AncientGeek 44

    20 March 2008 at 8:37 pm

    Probably lack of assets – no real point in suing someone if the damage has already been done, and it will take two years to get to court, and you can’t recover enough to pay the legal bills.

    Also, I haven’t looked at a lot of his stuff, but you notice that Wishart never actually says ANYTHING substantive. What he does is put a few facts together and constructs a hypothesis, without ever saying if that is what he believes or not.

    In other words he has a knowledge in fine detail of the detail of the law on libel and defamation. It is a bit of a pity that his knowledge of morality isn’t quite as extensive.
45. AncientGeek 45

    20 March 2008 at 8:40 pm

    I’d add that I’ve known Peter for about 15 years. Wishart is a just a muckracking liar in his insinuations.
46. Dean 46

    20 March 2008 at 9:32 pm

    “Also, I haven’t looked at a lot of his stuff, but you notice that Wishart never actually says ANYTHING substantive. What he does is put a few facts together and constructs a hypothesis, without ever saying if that is what he believes or not.”

    Tell that to John Tamihere. I’m sorry, but if you want to represent Wishart as nothing but a muck raker then you’d better be prepared to step up to the plate and provide solid and irrefutable evidence. Otherwise, you’re going to look like just another patsy with an agenda.

    “Probably lack of assets – no real point in suing someone if the damage has already been done, and it will take two years to get to court, and you can’t recover enough to pay the legal bills.”

    Try again. The kind of people Wishard writes about have more than enough money to sue Wishart with, and nevermind the balance at the end. They aren’t motivated by the money, they’re motivated by the fact that they couldn’t win.

    I don’t like Wishart, but please show me once instance of where he’s flat out lied. I mean, the Labour party and associated hangers-on aren’t all exactly squeaky clean are they?
47. Daveo 47

    20 March 2008 at 9:42 pm

    As David Lange found, no matter how much money you have behind you a defamation suit is a gruelling and unrewarding experience where in the end nobody actually wins.

    If Wishart was taken seriously by anyone outside the Kiwiblog right it might be worth suing him. But I’d advise against it. Wishart is a bottom-feeding creep.
48. AncientGeek 48

    20 March 2008 at 9:50 pm

    I never said that he lied directly – what I said was he was a muck-racking liar – a particular type of immoral arsehole that infests some of the tabloid news media.

    What he does is take an innocent fact like a hug on election night, mixes it up with reported rumor (stated as rumor), and then infers the dots together as a bit of speculation. The nett effect is a lie, but the detail isn’t.

    He doesn’t usually directly lie, at least not when it can be proved. He gossips and speculates to his advantage. As I said he knows the legal situation quite well, and is immoral enough to make his livelihood by screwing people over legally.

    Of course that is just my opinion – I’d be happy to question anyone with a different idea
49. Dean 49

    20 March 2008 at 9:50 pm

    “As David Lange found, no matter how much money you have behind you a defamation suit is a gruelling and unrewarding experience where in the end nobody actually wins.”

    David Lange didn’t have a leg to stand on, and you know it.

    “If Wishart was taken seriously by anyone outside the Kiwiblog right it might be worth suing him. But I’d advise against it. Wishart is a bottom-feeding creep.”

    Again, noone sues him because they can’t prove him wrong. You’re right in that he’s very careful about what he publishes and a lot of people hate him for it, but hating someone doesn’t necessarily make them wrong.

    Again, provide specifics, or just admit you’re wrong. Either will do.
50. Dean 50

    20 March 2008 at 9:53 pm

    “I never said that he lied directly – what I said was he was a muck-racking liar – a particular type of immoral arsehole that infests some of the tabloid news media.”

    If this was the case, he could be sued to oblivion and back. Sorry, it’s not the case.

    “What he does is take an innocent fact like a hug on election night, mixes it up with reported rumor (stated as rumor), and then infers the dots together as a bit of speculation.”

    Are you even aware of what constitues defamation?

    “He doesn’t usually directly lie, at least not when it can be proved. He gossips and speculates to his advantage. As I said he knows the legal situation quite well, and is immoral enough to make his livelihood by screwing people over legally.”

    See above. Put up, or shut up.
51. r0b 51

    20 March 2008 at 9:53 pm

    Say Dean, have you ever known a rape victim? A lot of them don’t want to press charges because they don’t want to relive the pain as they drag their lives through the courts. My guess is HC and PD don’t sue Wishart because they don’t want to relive the false accusations and drag their lives through the courts.

    To imply that – because they don’t sue the rumours must be true – is a fine example of the worst filth spread by the Kiwiblog Right. You must be very proud.
52. Daveo 52

    20 March 2008 at 9:54 pm

    If AG’s account of Wishart’s story on Peter Davis is accurate then Wishart hasn’t lied directly, he’s lied indirectly by strongly implying that Peter Davis is gay without saying so explicitly. He knows how people will interpret his story and he does so deliberately.
53. AncientGeek 53

    20 March 2008 at 10:00 pm

    For instance, one could speculate what would have happened if there was a witness to the taped conversation with Tamihere. In particular if they confirmed Tamihere’s version about off-the record. But of course there wasn’t so we’ll never know.

    I understand that Wishart is a confirmed christian, so of course we know we wouldn’t lie – yeah right…
54. Dean 54

    20 March 2008 at 10:13 pm

    Rob:

    “Say Dean, have you ever known a rape victim? A lot of them don’t want to press charges because they don’t want to relive the pain as they drag their lives through the courts. My guess is HC and PD don’t sue Wishart because they don’t want to relive the false accusations and drag their lives through the courts.

    To imply that – because they don’t sue the rumours must be true – is a fine example of the worst filth spread by the Kiwiblog Right. You must be very proud.”

    Rape is the moral equivalent of being accused of, in Peter Davis’s case, of being a closet homosexual.

    Being forced against your will to be a sexual toy is equivalent to being accused of preferring the sexual company of someone of your own sex.

    Thanks for clearing that up for us, Rob. You heard it first here, folks!
55. Dean 55

    20 March 2008 at 10:15 pm

    “For instance, one could speculate what would have happened if there was a witness to the taped conversation with Tamihere. In particular if they confirmed Tamihere’s version about off-the record. But of course there wasn’t so we’ll never know.”

    Tamihere has gone on record as saying that everything Wishart reported was what he said.

    So you’ll have to try again.

    “I understand that Wishart is a confirmed christian, so of course we know we wouldn’t lie – yeah right ”

    Clark didn’t lie about speeding either, right? If you’re going to try and bring someone’s religious convictions into this in an attempt to try and prove your point then you’ve already lost.
56. r0b 56

    20 March 2008 at 11:00 pm

    Rape is the moral equivalent of being accused of, in Peter Davis’s case, of being a closet homosexual.

    Don’t play word games Dean. The equivalence I am pointing out is between
    situations that it would be emotionally traumatic to drag through the courts.

    You have implied that – because they don’t sue the rumours must be true. So come on then, front up. Is that what you believe? Or was it just “clever” word games Dean?
57. Dean 57

    20 March 2008 at 11:19 pm

    Rob:

    “Don’t play word games Dean. The equivalence I am pointing out is between
    situations that it would be emotionally traumatic to drag through the courts.”

    You bring up the old trump card of rape victims and and liken this to accusations of closet homosexuality… and accuse me of word games?

    “You have implied that – because they don’t sue the rumours must be true. So come on then, front up. Is that what you believe? Or was it just “clever’ word games Dean?”

    Of course it’s what I believe. Your accusation of
    clever word games” doesn’t stick, because we both know Clark would like nothing better than to sink Wishart for good.

    You know, just like she did with the police she didn’t know were speeding.

    Look, I’m sorry that you chose to compare the suffering rape victims go through with being accused of the kind of things Wishart accuses people of, but to pretend they are in any way shape or form equivalent is just wishful thinking on your behalf.

    You know as well as I do that if Wishart’s accusations were at all defamatory then Clark and Davis would have taken him to the cleaners, as well as everyone else he’s ever “spilt the beans” on.

    I really don’t enjoy Wishart’s motives or his convictions, but you can’t call him a liar.

    In fact if we’re talking about liars in your chosen camp, you’ll remember Clark has paid out on several defamation suits against her to keep them quiet. Unless of course you buy her line that by definition she cannot leak, in which case you’re just as biased as Wishart. Your choice.

    Your faux moral outrage is only as amusing for as long as you’re prepared to continue peddling it.

    (Not that I normally do this, but captcha was “left salvage”. How perfect.)
58. r0b 58

    20 March 2008 at 11:30 pm

    “You have implied that – because they don’t sue the rumours must be true. So come on then, front up. Is that what you believe? Or was it just “clever’ word games Dean?’

    Of course it’s what I believe.

    Then I’m sorry for you Dean.

    Look, I’m sorry that you chose to compare the suffering rape victims go through with being accused of the kind of things Wishart accuses people of, but to pretend they are in any way shape or form equivalent is just wishful thinking on your behalf.

    Can you read Dean? The equivalence I am pointing out is between
    situations that it would be emotionally traumatic to drag through the courts.

    I really don’t enjoy Wishart’s motives or his convictions, but you can’t call him a liar.

    Mr Wishart is a liar.

    Your faux moral outrage is only as amusing for as long as you’re prepared to continue peddling it.

    Nothing faux about it Dean. Baseless accusations about the families of public figures are despicable, and so are those who spread them.
59. Dean 59

    20 March 2008 at 11:38 pm

    “Can you read Dean? The equivalence I am pointing out is between
    situations that it would be emotionally traumatic to drag through the courts.”

    I think I can read. Your opinion may vary.

    I’m sorry you think that rape is as emotionally traumatic as being accused of being homosexual in any way, shape or form equivalent. I know which I’d have an easier time dealing with, but I guess I’m not as homophobic as I am afraid of being sexually violated.

    I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point, because we’re obviously not going to agree.
60. r0b 60

    20 March 2008 at 11:43 pm

    I know which I’d have an easier time dealing with, but I guess I’m not as homophobic as I am afraid of being sexually violated.

    Cheers Dean but I don’t want to know about your sex life.

    I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point, because we’re obviously not going to agree.

    I think you’ll find that most people agree that baseless accusations about the families of public figures are despicable, and so are those who spread them.
61. AncientGeek 61

    21 March 2008 at 12:40 am

    Dean:

    If you’re going to try and bring someone’s religious convictions into this in an attempt to try and prove your point then you’ve already lost.

    Couldn’t give a piss about it – could have been rugby or his hairstyle for all I care. It is just something that I happen to remember about Wishart. I was using it to illustrate a point by writing a Wishart style comment about Wishart.

    If you go back and read the comment, it is exactly like a synopis of the average Wishat article. A little bit of fact, a little bit of rumor and hearsay, and a dash of speculation. Each statement in of itself is innocuous. But in the end you were sure that I was attacking Wishart for being religous.

    Try suing on that. As I’ve said before the guy has a very low level of morality. It isn’t as if it is hard to do that kind of stuff – you just have to be a social incompetent to want to do it.

    It’d have been as easy to make that comment go the other way and make W look like a shining knight and T as a shifty politician. This set of spin technique has been around for a long time, and with age you get largely immune. It is a standard rabble-rousing technique of them and us. These days mostly expoused by tabloid news.

    Tamihere has gone on record as saying that everything Wishart reported was what he said.

    Yes – but Tamihere has also stated many times that he was unaware that he was being interviewed. He has stated he was unaware he was being taped. T has stated that he thought it was an off-the-record conversation.

    W has stated that he was sure that T was aware it was an interview. However W has no proof of that as far as I’m aware or vice versa.

    Are you even aware of what constitues defamation?

    Done a number of legal courses over the years, plus had to suffer through my ex’s law degree. I’m not an expert, and even lawyers who specialise in the area tend to view it with trepidation in NZ law. It is a rather strange area of law, because the burden of proof is largely reversed, and the defenses are particularly strong and quite complicated.

    Clark didn’t lie about speeding either, right?

    correct.
62. Pascal's bookie 62

    21 March 2008 at 12:23 pm

    I don’t like Wishart, but please show me once instance of where he’s flat out lied.

    His Intelligent design heroes got their arses handed to them in Dover, on account of their weak as piss case, their lies on the stand and the all around fatuousness of their theory as put forward by Behe on the stand.

    Ian responded to this by saying in an editorial that the “darwinists” would be rejoicing the victory handed to them by an activist secular humanist judge. The Judge was a GWB conservative appointee, a life long Republican and a Lutheran to boot. His decision was in no way ‘activist’. It applied the constitutional test directly to the case as presented in court. For the judge to have found in favour of the school would have been activist.

    Ian lied about him because he couldn’t ignore the case, and couldn’t talk about the facts honestly.

    Your welcome.
63. Pascal's bookie 63

    21 March 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Back on topic, I too would be interested in what key means by “Christian Values”. So far we’ve had the ten commandments, ‘do unto others’ and ‘eye for an eye’ as suggestions.

    None of these make sense.

    The Ten Commandments aren’t values for a start, and are for the most part directions about submission to Yahweh more than how to live in society. The ones that are about living are universal things about not murdering, stealing and telling fibs. Hardly exclusively Christian beliefs.

    “do unto others” once again is a well known principle of reciprocity found in most ethical systems, so cannot be described as an exclusively “Christian” value.

    Eye for an eye is explicitly unchristian.

    What values are there that Christians have that are not found elsewhere? Does John Key act on those values, if they exist. Why add the Christian tag to those values that are universal unless you’re just trying to be slippery?
64. higherstandard 64

    21 March 2008 at 1:17 pm

    Pascal

    While I can’t speak for all – in general many Christian’s would define christian values as below.

    Worship only God
    Respect all people
    Be humble
    Be honest
    Live a moral life
    Be generous with time and money
    Practice what you preach
    Don’t be delf-righteous
    Don’t hold a grudge
    Forgive others

    I don’t think Christians claim to own these values and acknowledge that many faiths have them in common. Indeed many Christians would tell you that the most Christian acting person of the last century was a Hindu.

    Apart from the first value which agnostics, believers of different faiths and atheists may disagree on all the rest would make for a better world if we all abided by them more frequently – sorry to be a bit sanctimomius but it is Good Friday after all
65. Pascal's bookie 65

    21 March 2008 at 1:55 pm

    Nothing sanctimonius there at all HS. As an atheist I agree with you completely on all the points except the first.

    I only question why they are called Christian values. Why the Christian tag? It seems a little self righteuos to me, if you’ll forgive me saying so, in that if it means anything at all, it means Christians don’t share these values.
66. Dean 66

    21 March 2008 at 3:51 pm

    Rob:

    “Cheers Dean but I don’t want to know about your sex life.”

    Nice dodge.
67. dave 67

    21 March 2008 at 4:23 pm

    Actually, having met Key and talked to him at length, I can see how Key made all those three statements.

    Being Christian is not the same as being religious. You can be Christian without being religious, and religious without being Christian.

    John Key is neither. You can live your life by Christian principles without being Christian.

    Key has Jewish blood. So in a sense he wil be the next Jewish PM, just like Bolger was the last Catholic PM but never went to church.
68. Pascal's bookie 68

    21 March 2008 at 7:48 pm

    Whoops, when I wrote that last comment I was in a rush, (my sons nap was due to end). I meant to say that by tagging those admirable values as Christian it implies that nonchristians do not share them.

    To me when someone claims that values such as honesty, humility and generosity are Christian values they are saying more than that they are values that Christians should live by.

    I may be misunderstanding the intent but to me it seems that the claim being made is that Christians invented these values or that one can only arrive at the conclusion that they are beneficial through Christian theology. It’s simply not true. They are values that are shared by most people around the world, however imperfectly we all live up to them.
69. higherstandard 69

    21 March 2008 at 10:17 pm

    Pascal

    I think you may be misunderstanding the intent christians term thos values as christian because they believe that Christ modelled/taught those behaviours. I think most Christians would find the notion that people of other beliefs can’t share values like honesty, humility and generosity to be preposterous.
70. Pascal's bookie 70

    21 March 2008 at 10:34 pm

    Fair enough then.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS