My two cents on Garrett

52 comments on “My two cents on Garrett ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Anita 1

   21 June 2009 at 3:14 pm

   OT, but Garrett’s “I’m probably the only Member of Parliament who has been an oil rig worker for ten years” made me suddenly miss Peter Brown. Am I the only one with occasional moments of wishing that some of the NZF characters were still around?

   (Perhaps I should explain that Peter Brown often told the House anecdotes from his seafaring days)
2. jason 2

   21 June 2009 at 3:27 pm

   My two cents on Garrott. He made me choke.
3. Pat 3

   21 June 2009 at 3:34 pm

   “Worth was known as a man women steered clear of around Parliament. Even back at Simpson Gierson.”

   How do you know this? Or is this just bullshit.

   BTW Judge Judy is a reality TV show.
   • Zetetic 3.1

     21 June 2009 at 3:52 pm

     I know what Judge Judy is, genius.

     ‘How do I know this?’ Because that’s what people have been saying around the traps. You don’t have to believe it if you don’t want. It’s that nature of the word around the circles in the know. You always assess it for yourself. It’s always hearsay. You read this blog to find out the inside word on politics. Don’t have a cry when it’s not nice about your hero Worth.
     • Pat 3.1.1

       21 June 2009 at 4:04 pm

       In other words, you made it up. Thought so.
       • Zetetic 3.1.1.1

         21 June 2009 at 7:31 pm

         No. In other words I was told about it by a person I trust who supplied details. That’s good enough for me. I don’t give a crap if it’s not good enough for you.
         • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1.1

           21 June 2009 at 8:53 pm

           nah nah Z.

           If god didnae write it down on a golden plate in angel language, and have a little cherub drop it on yers from a hight; didn’t happen.

           “A person told me”. Sheesh mate. What sort of rightwinger is going to believe that? When rightwingers know something, they don’t tell it to anyone else without changing it and adding little juicy made up stuff to make it interesting. On account of what rightwingers know mostly being boring.

           Which is why when you tell a rightie ‘someone told me’, they hear ‘must be bs’.

           When they claims you must be fibbing, the correct epistemological response is “well how come no one’s sued me then smartarse?’. Thus an obvious and known piece of untruth, becomes an unconfirmed probable truth.

           This routine can be leveraged into a publishing ghetto that while ludicrous, batshit insane and adding only negatively to the sum total of human knowledge, can actually be profitable.

           Which confirms it’s truth.

           Sick eh?
   • Anita 3.2

     21 June 2009 at 4:13 pm

     Pat writes,

     How do you know this? Or is this just bullshit

     What evidence would be adequate for you?
4. felix 4

   21 June 2009 at 3:50 pm

   Sorry Garrett but you’re responsible as an individual for all of your actions.

   That’s you, Garrett, and you alone – not your background, not your circumstances, not your old job, not your upbringing, not your culture, not your generation.

   One law for all. Zero tolerance. Does that not apply to you or was it just bullshit all along?
   • James REad 4.1

     21 June 2009 at 4:41 pm

     I agree with Filix that David Garret must accept responsibility for his own actions and not blame them on others. However, whilst finding his behaviour in this instance offensive, he has not committed any criminal offence. He is certainly not the first N.Z. politician to behave in an inappropriate manner, those of the Victorian era would in several cases have been kicked out of their party if they lived a century later. Several Kiwi heroes would certainly lose their halos if they were alive today. I hope he stays in Parliament and it is then up to Act’s board as to where they place him on their List in 2011.
     • Anita 4.1.1

       21 June 2009 at 4:44 pm

       I thought it was up to the Sensible Sentencing Trust?
5. illuminatedtiger 5

   21 June 2009 at 4:04 pm

   See, tories never change.
   • Daveski 5.1

     21 June 2009 at 5:37 pm

     Neither does Trevor. So what’s you point apart from showing what a crock generalisations are?
6. Redbaiter 6

   21 June 2009 at 4:21 pm

   Yeah, only amongst the intelligentsia frequenting the Standard can a former oil rig worker metamorphize into a Tory.

   So dogmatic.
   • mickysavage 6.1

     21 June 2009 at 9:34 pm

     It is sad when an oil rigger goes downhill …
7. Hilary 7

   21 June 2009 at 4:27 pm

   Why was it OK for the Tongans to put up with such behaviour? Patronising.
8. Anita 8

   21 June 2009 at 4:27 pm

   Does anyone have a CV or biography of Garrett floating around? I can’t make the math work, but it might be what I’m working with 🙂
   • Anita 8.1

     21 June 2009 at 4:50 pm

     Ok, I think I’ve fixed the math (thanks to an archive which contains a Herald bio), tight but do-able.
9. gobsmacked 9

   21 June 2009 at 6:34 pm

   Let’s not lose sight of the real issue here. Is the complainant a saint?

   If this so-called “woman” didn’t respond to sexual harrassment forcefully, by kneeing Garrett in the balls, she is totally to blame for allowing this to happen. How could poor David know?

   Of course, if she did respond by kneeing him in the balls, then clearly she is a nasty man-hating d*ke, and is totally to blame for allowing this to happen.

   So let the witch hunt begin …
   • mickysavage 9.1

     21 June 2009 at 9:35 pm

     I can hear the dog whistles already …
10. Luksus sommerhuse 10

    21 June 2009 at 7:25 pm

    My two cents on Garrett really true, Garrett need to take responsibility for his actions and this very offensive. I cannot simply react on this totally, I need to dig more information about the issue. It was shocking to know of what had happen if it is really true.
11. toad 11

    21 June 2009 at 7:26 pm

    There is another incident I have been advised of re Garrett making an inappropriate comment to a Green Party staffer whom he didn’t even know. Not sexual harrassment in that instance, but a racist comment.
12. serpico 12

    21 June 2009 at 7:46 pm

    Shall we let a few green secrets out of the bag toady?
13. Rex Widerstrom 13

    21 June 2009 at 8:34 pm

    So we’ve had:

    “All homosexuals are paedophiles”

    and

    “A bit of anal rape is all part of your punishment laddy, even if you’re only inside for non-violent offences”

    and now this.

    Look Rodney, if you’re unsure of the correct response in this situation, here it is set to music.
    • Anita 13.1

      21 June 2009 at 8:40 pm

      Garrett was the price of support by the Sensible Sentencing Trust and their allies. What is the cost to Hide of replacing him?
    • Pascal's bookie 13.2

      21 June 2009 at 9:06 pm

      “Look Rodney, if you’re unsure of the correct response in this situation, here it is set to music.”

      Ha 🙂

      I was thinking it would be more like this .
14. Redbaiter 14

    21 June 2009 at 8:59 pm

    This is just Paul Henry and the moustache lady all over again.

    Leftists using political correctness to denigrate and attack people they don’t agree with.
    • Macro 14.1

      21 June 2009 at 9:05 pm

      You are even “funnier” than Paul! So predictable.
    • Zetetic 14.2

      21 June 2009 at 9:10 pm

      Yeah that’s why Garrett ‘unreservedly’ apologised to the woman (then made excuses on Q+A). That’s why Hide ‘tore strips’ off him.

      Spin has to be credible to work Red.
15. Rex Widerstrom 15

    21 June 2009 at 9:03 pm

    Excellent question Anita. I don’t think the benefit was in direct numbers (I doubt the SST can command votes head in a particular direction in the way that, say, Grey Power could at its height) but rather in image.

    Being embraced by the SST was a shorthand way of communicating to the electorate that Act was going to be “tough on crime”, thus ticking a box that many voters wanted to see ticked.

    However the tactical geniuses who formed that alliance didn’t foresee the effect it would have on the classical liberal supporters of Act, who – while by no means soft on criminals – are smart enough to realise that a “Sheriff Joe” approach simply doesn’t work. And whose personal sensibilities are offended by the Garrotte.

    Only Act’s Secretary knows the number of resignations or non-renewals they’ve had, but even those will be merely indicative of the people whose support they’re losing whilst they give this bigot a platform.

    And it’s not just the liberals. For instance even the most knuckle-dragging would-be lynch mob member knows that male-on-male rape is a crime (and, since most of them are men, a crime that they find particularly unpleasant to contemplate) and thus can see the hypocrisy of someone who’s supposedly tough on crime condoning it.

    The conservatives thought it all sounded great because they want a return to “traditional values” (whatever those are). Yet their concept of traditional values includes respect for women, albeit in a sexist 1950s “Mad Men” kind of way.

    And so on. There’s pretty much no one he hasn’t alienated bar those who would see Garth McVicar our first head-of-state-for-life.

    In short, so long as Rodney makes the right noises on law’n’order and replaces him with someone seen as being tough (John Boscawen comes to mind) I suspect it’d be negligible.

    Anyway, with “Crusher” itching to emulate Sheriff Joe by keeping inmates in shipping containers it may be that the Garrotte finds this Parliament ain’t big enough for two black hats.
    • Pascal's bookie 15.1

      21 June 2009 at 9:12 pm

      I was wondering if the SST brought a mailing list of committed dupes who could be tapped for donations to the party myself.
      • jarbury 15.1.1

        21 June 2009 at 10:08 pm

        Weren’t there questions about SST’s funding as well. For some reason they haven’t declared themselves to be a charity organisation, even though it would be to their tax advantage to do so.

        The main advantage of not declaring yourself as a charity organisation is that you don’t have to say who your donors are.

        What do THEY have to hide?
        • Anita 15.1.1.1

          21 June 2009 at 10:15 pm

          I’m pretty sure you don’t have to declare your donors, but you do have to provide your annual accounts which shows your turnover.

          This page, for example, has a link to Family First’s return for last year.
16. Redbaiter 16

    21 June 2009 at 9:45 pm

    Quote-

    So we’ve had:

    “All homosexuals are paedophiles’

    and

    “A bit of anal rape is all part of your punishment laddy, even if you’re only inside for non-violent offences’

    Unquote

    If you cannot show me a reliable source for those quotes Rex I will have no conclusion left other than that you are a cowardly liar.

    You of all people should know about the evil of false allegations.
    • Zetetic 16.1

      21 June 2009 at 10:37 pm

      He said it on Eye to Eye when he came on drunk. Thought you knew all there was to know about political happenings in this country, monkey brain.

      This Redbaiter dude’s a sucker for punishment eh?
    • Rex Widerstrom 16.2

      21 June 2009 at 11:31 pm

      I do indeed Redbaiter, which is why I’d never make them.

      The “all homosexuals are paedophiles” rant was made in a drunken stupor on television and is referenced here.

      Because of his inebriated state (in itself conduct unbecoming an MP in a live TV context) I accept there’s some doubt as to just what he was trying to say. It’s since been suggested to me that it might have been more of a lament that “unnatural behaviour” was gradually becoming acceptable in society… thus “30 years ago homosexuality was considered a sickness, now it’s accepted but paedophilia is considered a sickness, so just think what will be acceptable in 30 years…”

      Either interpretation draws parallels between homosexuality and paedophilia and shows a mind both narrow and, more importantly, utterly ignorant.

      The “anal rape is just a side effect of prison time, so tough luck” quote is undoubtedly what he intended to say.

      There’s a place for Garrett’s views and I’m sure he represents some people when he gives vent to them – you includerd, it seems. I’m not arguing with his right to display his curious, ill-conceived bigotry or to seek support for them.

      I’m merely questioning whether Rodney Hide, Heather Roy, John Boscawen et al feel comfortable being identified with them.
      • Redbaiter 16.2.1

        22 June 2009 at 12:09 am

        “I accept there’s some doubt as to just what he was trying to say. ‘

        and

        “The quote is undoubtedly what he intended to say.”

        This is an admission that David Garret did not ever say the words you attributed to him, and perhaps said nothing even close to them.

        The words you placed in quotation marks were completely false. Never said by David Garret.

        Sorry Rex, your posturing does not cut it. This is a disgraceful and cowardly misrepresentation. I seldom attack people using their actual names, but frankly, this is an appalling distortion of fact and you have well earned whatever criticism comes your way. Amazed really that you would stoop to this.
        • Rex Widerstrom 16.2.1.1

          22 June 2009 at 1:08 am

          Rape is a crime wherever it occurs, and can be dealt with in the same way as any other offence committed in prison. The fact is if you don’t want to be assaulted – or worse – by a cellmate, avoid prison by not committing a crime [my emphasis]

          How is that not saying “anal rape is just a side effect of prison time, so tough luck”?!
      • Anita 16.2.2

        22 June 2009 at 7:38 am

        Garrett wasn’t an MP (or even a publicly announced candidate) when he went on Eye to Eye and expressed drunken bigotry. Not that it makes it any better, but it raises real questions about the fact that Act selected him and gave him a winnable list position after he behaved like that.
17. toad 17

    21 June 2009 at 9:54 pm

    ‘baiter, go to g.blog. I’ve linked all the sources from there..
    • mickysavage 17.1

      21 June 2009 at 10:01 pm

      Redbaiter

      “If you cannot show me a reliable source for those quotes Rex I will have no conclusion left other than that you are a cowardly liar.

      You of all people should know about the evil of false allegations.

      So red what do you conclude now?
18. Redbaiter 18

    21 June 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Toad, I’ve seen your sources, and the quote in the Herald in no way backs up your story.

    I find it appalling that you would enter into this campaign of lies and denigration against the fellow merely because you disagree with him politically, and he has refused to succumb to the speech and thought control strategies of the Progressives.

    You do nothing but attack free speech, freedom of political expression and democracy, and are therefore yourself a much greater threat to civilized discourse than David Garret will ever be.
    • Zetetic 18.1

      21 June 2009 at 10:38 pm

      You should have watched the show like we did monkey brains.
19. Redbaiter 19

    21 June 2009 at 10:44 pm

    “You should have watched the show like we did monkey brains.”

    I have not a shred of doubt that the quotes provided by Rex Widerstrom are completely fictitious.

    Disgraceful really.
    • Zetetic 19.1

      21 June 2009 at 10:48 pm

      Yeah, your powers of reason are disgraceful really, monkey brains.

      If you had some connections you would be able to get a copy of the Eye to Eye show and check it out for yourself but you don’t. Plus why do you need proof when you’ve got stupidity.
    • Zetetic 19.2

      21 June 2009 at 10:56 pm

      Some people like a challenge. Not me. I like Redbaiter. Arguing with him is kind of like playing a shoot ’em up game and setting it to easy. You get to win over and over again without breaking a sweat.
      • felix 19.2.1

        21 June 2009 at 11:24 pm

        I think of it as holding the forehead of a midget who’s trying to punch and kick you for all he’s worth.

        And you know what? I’ve never seen him successfully bait anyone. Not even once. In fact he takes the bait himself without fail every single time.
    • Rex Widerstrom 19.3

      21 June 2009 at 11:37 pm

      So… the quote is definitely not fictitious but you’re disputing my interpretation of it (to which I say fair enough).

      That’s rather like disagreeing with my policy, but stooping instead to personally attack me as a liar.

      Disgraceful really.
20. IrishBill 20

    22 June 2009 at 7:47 am

    What pisses me off is the excuse they’re putting up is that he was a rig-worker. Just when did being working class provide an excuse for being a bigot? Perhaps Act view it as some kind of disability.
    • Philonz 20.1

      22 June 2009 at 10:10 am

      Fair point Irish. However (I can’t believe I’m writing this), as one who has worked in small towns in rough jobs I can understand the environment he has come from. We might not like it or agree with it but not everyone out there is as enlightened as us big city folk. Bigotry, sexism etc is accepted and even encouraged as a way of fitting in and simply saying “bad working class, we know better!” is not going to change attitudes. I’m not claiming that all the “working class” (I hate that term) are bigots but I grew up in a small town where these attitudes were accepted (not by my family admittedly). Of course this behaiviour is unacceptable but if you went and spent some time working in a freezing works you’ll soon learn that a lot of people live by a different code than we do in the cities. With a proportional electoral system we now include these people in parliament instead of simply pretending they don’t exist.

      Now is your cue to rip me to shreds.
21. The Voice of Reason 21

    22 June 2009 at 8:32 am

    Good point, Irish.

    It’s classist crap to assume that a roughneck is also a redneck. I’ve met quite a few oil industry workers and they are most often well travelled, thoughtful and more than capable of holding an intelligent discussion. Garrett is the exception, not the rule.

Links to post

1. How many strikes does he get? « g.blog: posted on 21 June 2009 at 7:15 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS