Michael Lhaws’ irrelevancy proven

Written By: - Date published: 2:50 pm, February 7th, 2011 - 68 comments
Categories: human rights, scoundrels - Tags: ,

Yesterday, Lhaws’ SST piece called for involuntary sterilisation and reproduction licences (ie. forced abortions). Pure fascism.  Today, no uproar. Once, his stoush with some school kids was news. Now, he offers a eugenic ‘solution’ to the underclass and not a peep. He’s truly a has-been. He won’t have that SST column for long.

68 comments on “Michael Lhaws’ irrelevancy proven ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    7 February 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Interestingly he has been one of the loudest and most voiciferous opponents of “nanny state” but when it comes to the most extreme form of state control over an individual he is suddenly all for it.

    I guess he has no problem if nanny state is applied to the poor as opposed to the wealthy.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      7 February 2011 at 3:09 pm

      “Nanny state”? With Lhaws promoting spading of the poor, we’re really talking a “Vet state”.

  2. Richard 2
    7 February 2011 at 3:04 pm

    I think he rightly sees a difference between a “police state” and a “nanny state”.

    He is just confused about the dangers each pose.

  3. tsmithfield 3
    7 February 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Yet if he runs for NZ First, Labour could soon be cuddling up to him and his ideas.

    • mickysavage 3.1
      7 February 2011 at 3:24 pm

      Hahahahahahahahahaha

      Tsmithfield you are such a crack up some times.

    • Kaplan 3.2
      7 February 2011 at 3:31 pm

      Do you mean in much the same way National cuddle(d) up to Roger Douglas & Hone?

    • NX 3.3
      7 February 2011 at 3:44 pm

      Yeah, my thoughts exactly. The irony.

    • Bright Red 3.4
      7 February 2011 at 3:45 pm

      mark my words – there will never be a deal with Labour and an NZF including Lhaws. He won’t be in NZF for starters.

      • NX 3.4.1
        7 February 2011 at 3:54 pm

        So you’d rather see John Key returned to power than a Goff/Laws/Winnie trio.
        I guess ‘The Standard’ does have a standard after all.

      • tsmithfield 3.4.2
        7 February 2011 at 4:41 pm

        Why should it be a problem for Labour if Laws unites with NZ First? Afterall, Labour seems quite happy to cohabit with Peters who is also a racist. So, whats wrong with one more racist in the mix.

        Labour will sell its soul if it means getting back into power, so I fully expect their to be a coalition between Labour and NZ First if the cards fall that way.

      • Rex Widerstrom 3.4.3
        7 February 2011 at 8:21 pm

        there will never be a deal with Labour and an NZF including Lhaws

        Well they were happy to consider the prospect in 1996, when they knew full well Lhaws was pulling Winston’s strings and indeed Lhaws would occasionally swan into the coalition negotiating meetings, all the while making it clear he had better things to do and was leaving the tedious stuff to his underlings like the Leader and the Party President.

        To their unending credit Mike Moore and Michael Hirschfeld baulked at his demands, and NZF went on to become a nightmare for Shipley. But then neither of them are calling the shots this time, and it’s not as though there isn’t a not-so-faint whiff of desperation emanating from the Goffice.

        As for Lhaws not being in NZF, Lhaws has no principles. He’d join the Socialist Workers’ Party if it had a chance of holding the balance of power, so don’t imagine for one moment any policy niceties, for instance, will hold him back. It wouldn’t be a case of “crash or crash through” so much as “grab the wheel and swerve till we plunge to our deaths”.

        • orange whip? 3.4.3.1
          7 February 2011 at 8:31 pm

          But then neither of them are calling the shots this time

          Neither is Laws. So where are we again?

    • Bored 3.5
      7 February 2011 at 4:05 pm

      Hey TS, how about doing something useful. Like getting some focus on Simon Powers planned changes to the Criminal Procedures Act that will take away your right to silence if charged with an offense, and make you give your defense to the prosecution pre trial. Its the same sort of nonsense as Lhaws spouts but far more dangerous. Methinks you might (as one of their own) be a good person to raise merry hell on this issue with the Nacts.

      • tsmithfield 3.5.1
        7 February 2011 at 4:49 pm

        Its your ex-labour man who first came up with this idea.

        …law commissioner and former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer to come out with the knee-jerk reaction that perhaps it was about time we did away with the right to silence for those accused of criminal offences.

        How can you blame Powers for following this one up when even an ex Labour prime-minister thinks its a good idea?

        • Bored 3.5.1.1
          7 February 2011 at 4:58 pm

          Certainly can. The whole issue transcends party, left or right. Both sides of the fence over the last thousand years have fought for these rights, think of habeas corpus, Magna Carta, etc. They are hard to get, easily taken away. Which is why you might agitate against it on “your” side of the fence.

          PS Palmer hmmmm he was Labour was’nt he? Did’nt seem like one of “ours”.

          • bbfloyd 3.5.1.1.1
            7 February 2011 at 5:45 pm

            palmers tenure was never more than a lesson in how to create a fall guy when it gets too ugly.. lange, by all accounts had twigged asto what douglas and co were really doing, and had decided to pull the rug out from under them. palmer was put up to stop mike moore from possibly reversing the prevailing mood of resentment towards the govt and snatching a win in 1990.

            i think it shows how bad his mental state was by then. personally, and rather a large number of people in my circles at the time, and still recently, think the same, i would have been ready to support a moore leadership. he, at least was closer to real labour values than nearly half the cabinet in the eighties.

            labour lost a hell of a lot of votes purely on the palmer elevation. most old school labourites have never recognised, and never will, geoffry palmer as a labour prime minister. or leader.nonetheless highly competant, intelligent and effective mp regardless.

        • Pascal's bookie 3.5.1.2
          7 February 2011 at 5:10 pm

          How can you blame Powers for following this one up when even an ex Labour prime-minister thinks its a good idea?

          because he’s the minister wots doin it, that’s why.

          Sheese. I knew righty tighties don’t know nuffink bout nuffink an that most of what they say is just lies, but don’t ya’ll pretend to believe in responsibility and shit?

    • Irascible 3.6
      7 February 2011 at 11:56 pm

      Laws has always been more in tune with National than any other political party. He, like Key, is a poser and media spin creation more known for opportunistic appearances than any substance.

  4. Rharn 4
    7 February 2011 at 3:08 pm

    Yep Lord LHaws LHaws is a has been. Just hope Peter’s does not have a bar of him.

  5. NX 5
    7 February 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Yeah, Laws would be quite at home in the NZ 1st party. Which reminds me, aren’t you guys pinning your hopes on a Winnie return?

    • Bright Red 5.1
      7 February 2011 at 3:53 pm

      such short memories. Lhaws was in NZF before he resigned from Parliament in disgrace. Later, Lhaws became an advisor to NZF dissident Neil Kirton, whom Peters sacked. No love lost there.

    • Pascal's bookie 5.2
      7 February 2011 at 4:02 pm

      Laws would be quite at home in the NZ 1st party.

      So NZFirst looks pretty much like a kiwiblog thread then yeah?

      • NX 5.2.1
        7 February 2011 at 4:25 pm

        Yes, every Kiwiblog thread talks about the need for eugenics and castration – particularly DPF.

        • Pascal's bookie 5.2.1.1
          7 February 2011 at 4:31 pm

          Did I say every thread? No I don’t believe I did.

          Did I mention DPF? Again, that would be a nah.

          • NX 5.2.1.1.1
            7 February 2011 at 4:45 pm

            Your original comment is #5.2. DPF is the auther of Kiwiblog.

            • Pascal's bookie 5.2.1.1.1.1
              7 February 2011 at 5:13 pm

              So?

              I said a kiwiblog thread.

              I implied that laws would feel right at home there, in a kiwiblog thread.
              I’m happy to stand by that.
              You don’t seem keen to disagree.

  6. Treetop 6
    7 February 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Contraception is what prevents pregnancy. A womans reproductive life can span 40 years. The cost of preventing pregnancy is unaffordable for some females. I challenge Michael Laws to get implemented by every district health board what MCH have done.
    http://www.3news.co.nz/New-initiative-sees-fall-in-teen-pregnancy-rates/tabid/420/articleID/197172/Default.aspx

    • Lanthanide 6.1
      7 February 2011 at 3:54 pm

      The problem that Laws is trying to expound upon is that just making contraception available isn’t going to be enough. Even contraception + education won’t completely solve the problem because there will always be those who are too lazy, or just too stupid to use it (and a minority that want to use it but can’t for some reason). His solution is to change the default from being “fertile and needing contraception” to “infertile”.

      At present, society sees this as authoritarian and violating human rights.

      • Bored 6.1.1
        7 February 2011 at 4:10 pm

        Lan, you have bought right in. There is no problem. People make choices, most of which I think are wrong….thats my problem, not theirs. If you admit to there being a “problem” you buy into the Lhaws mindset. Its called framing.

        • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1
          7 February 2011 at 6:00 pm

          I never said I agree with Laws at all. I’m just trying to clarify what Laws is talking about.

      • Treetop 6.1.2
        7 February 2011 at 4:11 pm

        I have never met a teenager who does not know what the meaning of free is. There is also no such thing as 100 %.

        Probable solutions which work, need to be used to their full advantage, e.g. morning after pill.

        Regardless of reproductive age, everytime a woman has sex she can fall pregnant, even with the best intention not to. A vasectomy is a good option for a male.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1
          7 February 2011 at 8:32 pm

          We don’t need a 100% effective contraception policy, as treetop implies that is never going to occur.

          But a few simple steps to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies which occur annually by just 2000-3000 would be a miracle of compassion upon humanity.

          • KJT 6.1.2.1.1
            7 February 2011 at 8:37 pm

            Free and easily available contraception would go a long way towards reducing unwanted children.
            Making sure that teenagers have better options than the dole, McD’s or the DPB would do a lot more.

            • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1.1.1
              7 February 2011 at 8:43 pm

              Yep. I know good kids, unable to get into the courses that they wanted to do, either unemployed now or if they are ‘lucky’ working soul destroying jobs for sweet f.a.

              And why are we surprised that we end up with so much bad shit going on in society.

          • Blondie 6.1.2.1.2
            7 February 2011 at 11:17 pm

            I think the Mirena IUS would be quite popular, if it was freely available. It’s been shown to be as effective as sterilsation – although once it’s removed, one can conceive immediately – lasts for over 5 years, doesn’t cause weight gain (like the pill or injection do), and the only noticable side effect is a lack of periods.

            Seriously, if you made this one free, I bet there’d be an awful lot of girls and women who’d take it up just because they didn’t enjoy periods. Probably be a fair few blokes who encouraged their girlfriends to use it too, for the same reason. But – even if you have a bunch of teenage girls who get it inserted simply so that they won’t menstruate for a few years, that’s still a lot of unplanned pregnancies that just won’t happen – WITHOUT taking away any women’s right to control her own fertility.

            • Lanthanide 6.1.2.1.2.1
              8 February 2011 at 12:36 am

              I believe that people can access these devices for free, or heavily discounted. No idea if just anyone can get them or if you have to meet conditions (like not being able to take the pill), but I’m pretty sure it is subsidised to some extent.

              Also, a side-effect of Law’s plan (and this one for IUS) which I hadn’t considered is that you’d get a spike in STD transmission as condoms were now less used.

              • Blondie …
                11 February 2011 at 8:07 am

                Yes that’s true – I suppose there are a lot of people who wouldn’t use condoms if they didn’t have to worry about pregnancy.

                However I suspect that many don’t use condoms as much as they should, anyway? Not when you consider the high rates of STDs in this country – and the abortion rate (it can’t ALL be due to broken condoms, so I’m suspecting a lot of unplanned, unprotected sex).

                Sadly though, no, most women can’t get these devices for free. Some women can get the Mirena free if they have heavy bleeding and are becoming anaemic because of it, but how many women will that apply to – and of those women, how many will be aware of it?

                To be honest it’s probably out of reach for a lot of low-income earners. It cost me about $400 to get mine done (at Family Planning, the cheapest option) – money I consider well-spent, but which many people would consider expensive. The pill is subsidised, but it’s not terribly reliable – if one is sick/vomiting, or on antibiotics it won’t work – let alone if one simply forgets to take it, or takes it late.

                I’m not at all an advocate for enforced sterilisation, let alone enforced abortions – but I do believe that making reliable and effective contraception freely available would enable women to make sensible decisions regarding their own fertility. It’s a real shame if women end up pregnant, not by choice, but because they just couldn’t afford contraception that works.

  7. JS 7
    7 February 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Why didn’t Michael Lhaws apply his philosophy to his own reproductive processes?

  8. Chris73 8
    7 February 2011 at 5:51 pm

    I agree with his article, just because someone can give birth doesn’t mean they should. Why subject an innocent child to days, weeks, months or years of abuse. Go Laws keep up the good stuff (just don’t go with Winnie)

  9. Robert Atack 9
    7 February 2011 at 5:56 pm

    We don’t need eugenics, all we need is an educated breading class, because if most mothers understood how fucked up the future is for their children, they would all be rushing to the abortion clinics.
    The ONLY way to reduce suffering in the near future is to not add another ‘sufferer’
    Our futures look bloody bleak, for the kids it only gets worse for longer.
    Sadly

    Spam word ‘production’

  10. millsy 10
    7 February 2011 at 9:45 pm

    With pricks like Laws around, I wonder whether we fought on the right side on the war (Im sure Rommel would have loved to have the Maori Battalion (or for that matter, the entire 2NZEF) under his command in the western desert…)

    When newspaper columnists openly call for policies such as sterilisation and eugenics and no-body barely raises a peep, or they mumble words in strong support, you know there is something very wrong with our country. His hatred for people who dont fit into the idea representation how New Zealanders should be knows no bounds, and his protrayal of anyone on a welfare benefit with a dark skin as someone who would beat their child to death without a single thought, really needs some serious challenging.

    This is the thin end of the wedge, plain and simple. It is a simple excersise to shift blame of all that is wrong the society and the economy on a group that quite simply can not fight back, and the worse part of it is that people are swallowing his poison like Jim Jones followers did in Guyana back in 78.

    Laws is a hatemonger, plain and simple. If the unions had any guts they would boycott him, and march on his radio studio every day until he resigns.

    +++

    The irony is, that he left the National Party way back when Ruth Richardson and Jim Bolger decided that they would get the money that they used to bail out the BNZ off the poor by slashing their benefits, and off sick by killing one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Hell, he even appeared on Alister Barry’s doco, Someone Elses Country, you can see it yourself by using your mouse….>>>>>

    • Chris73 10.1
      8 February 2011 at 6:45 am

      “We fought”:, yeah right since when did you ever serve your country?

      We fought so that people have the freedom to express their views no matter how distasteful they may be to some (yet to others are right on the money)

      If you don’t like freedom of expression (as long as its the same as your own views) then piss off to some other country where its not allowed

      • The Voice of Reason 10.1.1
        8 February 2011 at 7:00 am

        You’re not too bright, are you Chris? Millsy’s use of ‘we’ refers to NZ, not himself personally. Given your obvious functional problems, don’t you think you you should do society a favour and kill yourself? It’s the only reasonable thing to do, given your parents complete irresponsibility in allowing you to be born, when it must have been obvious how you would turn out.

      • lprent 10.1.2
        8 February 2011 at 10:30 am

        An interesting rewrite of history. If you bothered to dig around in actual history rather than the mythology that you seem to prefer, you’ll find that ‘freedom of expression’ was way down on the list of motives for any war. We don’t have an unfettered freedom of expression and are unlikely to ever get it – just look at the legislation in NZ to find the limits. But even better look at the limits that we place on ‘freedom of expression’ here to ensure that there is an capability to argue without getting shouted down by unfettered trolling.

        I’d say that the overwhelming reason for participation in wars from moderately democratic societies (and many other societies) is the concept of self-determination of that society. Internally that means there is a lot of argument from various groups and a determination that it is an argument inside our societies ‘family’. But I suspect that subtlety of that argument will escape you.

        And as a person who has served in the army along with many past and current family members, I’d have to say that any arsehole like yourself who tries to use that particular argument deserves to spend time as a helper to the aged or at one of the soup kitchens. You clearly don’t understand the concept of service to your society, and that is a pretty good way to find out.

        • Chris73 10.1.2.1
          8 February 2011 at 5:57 pm

          As a former serving soldier myself (as well as other family members) I would like to say “Fuck You”

          You don’t like/want dissenting views on these blogs, well tough shit, not everyone thinks like you do.

          And for the voice of reason; you’re a big, tough guy on the net, did you get a raging stiffy when you typed that?

          • NickS 10.1.2.1.1
            8 February 2011 at 7:54 pm

            And for the voice of reason; you’re a big, tough guy on the net, did you get a raging stiffy when you typed that?

            You did say something utterly fucking stupid, so yes, you expect to be cluebatted with some vigour you moron.

            As for Lynn’s analysis, he’s quite fucking right, wars over recent history have never been fought for “freedom”, rather stripping away the rhetoric used to justify them, resources come up as one reason, perceived threats another, ranging from the political (government legitimacy, civil disorder etc) to being attacked by another actor, and plain old human stupidity. But hey, it’s not as if soldiers are required to think beyond the rhetoric and orders feed to them.

            You don’t like/want dissenting views on these blogs, well tough shit, not everyone thinks like you do.

            Get back to your hugbox. Have you been banned for having a different opinion? No, because unlike much of the RWNJ blogs, here you can disagree, as long as you don’t be a complete fucking douchebag. It’s spelled out in the rules, and it’s basic shit, that you should have already picked up on, and had enough nonce to not be a schmuck like you’ve been above.

            Sheesh, next you’ll be telling us WWII was fought to save teh Jews…

          • lprent 10.1.2.1.2
            8 February 2011 at 8:47 pm

            Chris: Don’t be a idiot. If your comment had required moderation under the guidelines then you’d have gotten it quite clearly in moderation mode. It didn’t.

            What you got was several comments opining about your opinion and you. Clearly you don’t like it. Obviously you’re too thin skinned to be capable of intelligent argument. Either that or you are incapable of arguing your position. Or both.

            Figures. You sound like bit of a braggart who prefers to bullshit rather than being able to participate in a discussion.

          • The Voice of Reason 10.1.2.1.3
            8 February 2011 at 9:23 pm

            “Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own.”

            Jonathan Swift.

      • millsy 10.1.3
        8 February 2011 at 9:10 pm

        Chris, do you even know what WW2 was about?

        From 1939 onwards, the Allied governments threw EVERY resource they had into defeating Nazi Germany. They knew what was at stake (Im going to stick to the simple version, Im going to leave the other issues and thoughts to the revisionists at the moment), they were fighting a regieme that held the white 6 foot, blond haired and blue eyed aryan as the master race. EACH AND EVERY OTHER RACE was in their eyes fit only for extermination or slavery.

        The Nazi government came to power on a platform of blaming minorties, etc (esp. Jews) on Germany’s post WWI misfortune, amongst a period of global economic uncertainty, and excessive hyperinflation. And that is what exactly is happening at the moment with the likes of Micheal Laws, Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, etc.

        Everytime I hear him blame Maori for our child abuse rates, blame the poor for dragging the country down, blame gays for what every, I make no distinctions between him and the thugs in brown shirts who roamed around Berlin smashing jew owned shops and roughing up old men.

        Laws is a facist. Plain and simple. The only good thing is that he is a coward who sits behind his pen and his mike slagging off brown people. I would love him to go and some of our poorest areas and say what he says.,

  11. North 11
    7 February 2011 at 10:45 pm

    Laws is a narcissistic would-be fascist. He is a has been though. Thank The Lord. That don’t mean he won’t have a foray but can you see the madness not travelling with him……..wherever he ends up ?

    He’d shit in his own nest……..just like his far less strong willed cuzzy bro’ Paul Henry. Eventually………get found out. Anyway, as much an unreasoned wild card as Old Winnie can be………. I can’t see him inviting the viper into the nest for a second time.

    Hey, I reckon he thinks he’s something of the elder statesman. Enjoying watching him actually.

  12. orange whip? 12
    7 February 2011 at 11:17 pm

    Laws is a saddo.

    A while back (after the Paul Henry business) Laws on his radio show made a sad little joke out of repeating Henry’s “looks and sounds like a NZer” comment, prefacing it with something along the lines of “just in case the broadcasting standards people are listening”.

    It was a desperate cry for attention, saying “hey I’M an offensive loudmouth bigot too, don’t forget about ME!”

    But no-one cared. It was just sad. So in a further desperate plea he started using the recording as a promo for his show, playing it a few times a day. They might even still be using it for all I know.

    And still no-one cared. It only served to underline the fact that even in the realm of complete fuckwittery, Laws has no original material.

  13. Lanthanide 13
    8 February 2011 at 12:38 am

    For interests sake:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/International/us-woman-pays-british-addicts-kids/story?id=11916808

    “An American charity that pays drug addicts to get sterilized has expanded its operation into Great Britain, and while it has so far paid only one British man to undergo the procedure, it has triggered a storm of criticism.

    Barbara Harris, the founder and head of Project Prevention, shrugs off the criticism of her group, which has paid 3,600 American drug addicts $300 each to get sterilized or undergo other long-term birth control procedures.”

    • Chris73 13.1
      8 February 2011 at 6:48 am

      If I had the money I’d help set that up here

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        8 February 2011 at 11:17 pm

        You shouldn’t bother, you’ll just get a load of rich people who have structured their affairs so they have low/no income come to you, to get you to pay for their vasectomies.

  14. jcuknz 14
    8 February 2011 at 11:03 pm

    The article contains a lot of non-PC common sense yet misses the major reason… that of the world’s population explosion. People want a responsible society but are not prepared to behave in a responsible manner. There are too many people on earth for irresponsibility to be tolerated.

    • Rosy 14.1
      8 February 2011 at 11:15 pm

      With as much supposition as you’ve just demonstrated (people breed because they are not responsible) it’s clear that the way to reduce population growth is to educate women and ensure people’s financial security not only immediately, but in times of crisis (e.g. health) and also in old age. The countries of old Europe and Japan are perfect examples with their declining birthrates. Now that’s common sense.

  15. millsy 15
    8 February 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Im not really keen for society to be forced into your crappy little 1950’s box, jcuk. You know, where spousal rape was legal, gays were kept in the closet and relentlessly bullied, and children were taken from the poor and brought up by rich christians.

    Piss off old man. Your time has been and gone. A new future where everyone is allowed to be themselves without being bullied or lynched by people like you is a desireable.

Links to post

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