Open Mike 02/12/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, December 2nd, 2017 - 139 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

139 comments on “Open Mike 02/12/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    2 December 2017 at 7:16 am

    In the context of Robertson’s speech to business yesterday, a very nice line from Fran O’Sullivan this morning that encapsulates this challenge of this government:

    “Ensuring the country buys the argument that the Government is simply out to introduce fairness will not be easy, after New Zealand has enjoyed being part of the global market for nigh on three decades.”

    • Ed 1.1
      2 December 2017 at 7:27 am

      Translated means.
      Rich New Zealanders,banks and large corporations have made billions as NZ’s assets were sold under their citizens’ feet.

    • AB 1.2
      2 December 2017 at 7:41 am

      What Fran means is “redefine ‘fairness’ to mean the status quo or I will foment trouble just like I did in 2000”

      • Bill 1.2.2
        2 December 2017 at 9:06 am

        Robertson doesn’t need to redefine “fairness”.

        When a government’s committed to “opportunity” (as this NZ Labour led one is), it’s ”fair enough” that you wind up fucked up – because bad choices and all of that jazz.

        This government is the bride, the groom and the church of “status quo”.

  2. Andre 2
    2 December 2017 at 8:59 am

    You will never unsee this. Talking Heads will never be the same again.

    https://youtu.be/nSuregWhlWk

  3. garibaldi 3
    2 December 2017 at 9:08 am

    Here we are entering the silly season and the weather is great at last, but there is still the gloom and doom of impending nuclear war and accelerating, unmitigated climate change. However there are positives out there for the Left at the end of 2017…..

    1. NZ. The new govt is off to a good start. The opposition, for all the biased media support, just looks to be negative, tired, yesterdays men.

    2. Aus. Turnbull is on his last legs.

    3. Brit. May is on her last legs.

    4. USA. Trump is doing as predicted (pre election) and destroying America. I find it interesting watching the USA unfolding on a daily basis.

    5. The AngloZionist Empire ( USA, Israel, NATO Countries) plan for world ownership is being successfully challenged by the likes of Russia and China.

    6. The Middle East. The Iran/ Syria/Hezbollah/ Russia bloc are successfully holding up the Saudi/ ISIS/ Israeli/ USA bloc.

    7. Nth Korea. Maybe all they want is recognition as a World Power and a bit of respect.

    Have a great summer everyone and be careful out there. The New Year promises many challenges.

    • cleangreen 3.1
      2 December 2017 at 2:21 pm

      Here here Garabaldi and the best to you too, we enjoy your input.

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2
      2 December 2017 at 3:42 pm

      5. The AngloZionist Empire ( USA, Israel, NATO Countries) plan for world ownership is being successfully challenged by the likes of Russia and China.

      By their own ownership plan.

  4. Sanctuary 4
    2 December 2017 at 9:09 am

    Oh! oh! Oh! Rush to your radio comrades! Kim Hill is interviewing Don Brash on the use of te reo….

    Highlight of the morning.

    • ianmac 4.1
      2 December 2017 at 9:21 am

      Very funny though Brash giving as much as Kim is giving him.

    • garibaldi 4.2
      2 December 2017 at 9:21 am

      Yes, he is proving he is a tired, negative, yesterdays man ( and a silly git to boot).

      • ianmac 4.2.1
        2 December 2017 at 9:40 am

        Don says we shouldn’t have Te Reo (Guyon) on National Radio because no one understands it.
        Kim says therefore we shouldn’t have business report on National Radio because no one understands it.
        Ha!

        • Kay 4.2.1.1
          2 December 2017 at 9:42 am

          Bloody brilliant! But I felt even Kim had given up on Brash as a total lost cause at the end…

          • mpledger 4.2.1.1.1
            2 December 2017 at 10:26 am

            I think she realised he was never going to give up his position using logical arguments because it’s a political position that has nothing to do with logic.

            The only way he would change his mind is if his position no longer had political utility.

            But the good thing is that after his performance he may find his position no longer has political utility.

            ~~~~~~~~~~
            As an aside, it shows the power of the baby boomers – their weight of numbers means that airtime could be given over to a cultural perspective that belongs to the distant past.

        • mary_a 4.2.1.2
          2 December 2017 at 2:23 pm

          ianmac (4.2.1) … she’s good, bloody good that Kim Hill.

        • cleangreen 4.2.1.3
          2 December 2017 at 2:27 pm

          True that ianmac –

          ‘Bussiness report; doesn’t belong on our “public service radio’ bussiness belongs on commercial media not the radio NZ non commercial media.

          Though we want Goyon Espiner gone as heis a national biased supporter and unfit to show balanced reporting.

          • greywarshark 4.2.1.3.1
            2 December 2017 at 2:40 pm

            I strongly disagree that business does not belong on non-commercial radio.
            It is at the basis of a modern advanced society and everyone should realise it.

            It was thinking that business could be constantly pressed for more money that brought the severe hatred of the business class to do away with unions. If the WEA had spent more time teaching workers about business, turnover, not-for-profit, co-operatives, profitsharing and the role of worker involvement in them we would not have been so easily sidelined by Labour 1984.

            Business is everyone’s business. We need intelligent approaches to it, to how much efficiency, how much time off, how to manage markets and not allow ourselves into a race to the bottom for wages and conditions and export prices. Too much complacency. No one is promising us a rose garden, a nice lounger for all. A holiday is not even offered to those that business won’t employ, just ceaseless striving for a job.

            But business, work, that we want and want to do. Circulating money with many inputs, and many payments – at present business is poorly and needs a boost from the bottom-up.

            • cleangreen 4.2.1.3.1.1
              2 December 2017 at 3:26 pm

              greywarshark,

              I say this because RNZ s now so cash trapped that the CEO has sent us a letter after we asked them why we in HB/Gisborne has no reporter here now for two years to cover our regional community RNZ media issues of deep public concern to our communities.

              For instance, like loosing our rail services in 2012 as many bussiness owners are requesting we push government now again for rail to return, and RNZ said they have no staff now to cover our rail issues.

              The RNZ CEO said we have no reporter in our HB/Gisborne region and offered no assistence.

              So you are happy that we miss out on our regional “public affairs” media coverage while Bussiness gets to cover all their own issues everywhere else now?

              That is the logic that drove our community’s wild to reject private bussiness interests taking our last RNZ media coverage dollars for their interests and denying us the funding for a regional reporter for HB/Gisborne?

            • Ed 4.2.1.3.1.2
              2 December 2017 at 4:19 pm

              We need business news on RNZ – just in a totally different format, where the present high priests of the economic ideology of neo-liberalism are challenged, not simply given an amplifier. I don’t want or need to hear the unquestioned views of the CEO of one of the 4 Australian banks. Instead I expect them to be interrogated and their arguments and actions put under the blowtorch. In its present format, all we get is neoliberal propaganda.

              We should be presented with alternative economic voices and philosophies.

              • cleangreen …
                2 December 2017 at 4:44 pm

                agreed Ed, Thanks for that. 100%

                The current ‘RNZ Bussiness news’ is just a copy of CNBC, and smells of Steven Joyce all over again.

                We need the labour model of “corporate environmental & social responsibility” but of course the corporates dont want that as it hurts their shareholder bottom line eh?

                We object giving the corporates a free ride on ur public service money while our provinces loose their voice as a result of corporate greed using RNZ for their ibenefit and stopping our community public vioces.

                Maybe this was their intent to make the mioney dry up so regional environmental and social issues can’t get RNZ media coverage on our only voice on public radio?

              • greywarshark …
                2 December 2017 at 5:27 pm

                Yes and unbiased reports of how the economy is going and the reason and hopes for whatever policies are being pursued with concrete examples of where the good will land instead of just saying it will be good for NZ.

          • Graeme 4.2.1.3.2
            2 December 2017 at 3:22 pm

            “Though we want Goyon Espiner gone as heis a national biased supporter and unfit to show balanced reporting.”

            I heard the same sentiments, but from exactly the opposite side of the political spectrum in 2014 when Guyon Espiner took Key to bits over DP. Had an ex Nat Minister in the gallery (he’s a regular who admires one of our artists) the morning after the interview saying some very uncharitable things about Mr Espiner and his political preferences.

            • cleangreen 4.2.1.3.2.1
              2 December 2017 at 3:39 pm

              Graeme, Thanks for that flashback, as I remembered it so very well.

              I recall that day when John Key looked at Guyon Espiner as if he was about to put out a contract to kill him; – as Keys ‘rivetting’ glaring stare’ he sent to Espiner even sent a chill down my spine too.!!!!!!!!

              After that day we saw Guyon never try to tackle Key again and since then, Espiner has flipped to being the ‘verbial trumpet-chorus boy’ for English, Joyce, Bridges, Bennett, Maggie, Collins, Brownlee and co.

              So we suspect Espiner just lost his will to fight any further against the Key Government that day.

              • Graeme …
                2 December 2017 at 5:36 pm

                It was expressed to me that Mr Espiner had to understand his place in the scheme of things and show due respect to the office of Prime Minister….

                • Pat …
                  2 December 2017 at 7:49 pm

                  lol…Mr Espiner’s problem is not a political bias (imo) rather it is his inability to think on his feet and consequently he misses so many opportunities to explore issues in greater depth…superficial would best describe him.

      • greywarshark 4.2.2
        2 December 2017 at 10:17 am

        OWG Why do we have extended lives these days? Too long of Don Brash – white – and Robert Mugabe – black.

        • James 4.2.2.1
          2 December 2017 at 7:28 pm

          So what – you wish them to die. That’s is pathetic and disgusting.

        • bwaghorn 4.2.2.2
          2 December 2017 at 7:29 pm

          the barstards are to miserable to die

          • greywarshark 4.2.2.2.1
            2 December 2017 at 8:09 pm

            bwaghorn
            So true. They have a contract with God that they wrote out themselves that says they are entitled to whatever they want throughout life and in their declining years to the end.

            As for us at The Standard, I think we are on a Mission from God like the Blues Brothers.

    • Sanctuary 4.3
      2 December 2017 at 9:44 am

      OMG. He is a carbunkled caricature of the most grostesque sort of 1970s white settler racism. The idea he was giving as good as he got is nonsense to my mind. Kim Hill was giving him the rope to hang himself, which he ultimately did by claiming the Moriori were the first settlers of NZ.

      At which point Kim Hill terminated the interview, having removed all doubt in any intelligent pesons mind that the guy is a superannuated crank and a crackpot fringe merchant.

      Still, Don Brash would probably still win a seat in Queensland. Or Alabama.

      • OnceWasTim 4.3.1
        2 December 2017 at 10:05 am

        Indeed!
        The whole theme being that although he proclaims constantlt that he doesn’t believe in separatism, that is exactly what he advocates.

        • mpledger 4.3.1.1
          2 December 2017 at 10:13 am

          And even worse he proclaims to speak for 99% of white people.

          Maybe 99% of the white people he meets i.e. the stale, pale, males …

          … and he only thinks they agree with him because they don’t argue with him
          …. and they don’t argue with him because their wives give them the “no, please not here” look.

          • Ed 4.3.1.1.1
            2 December 2017 at 2:09 pm

            Maybe that’s because 99% of the voices on the corporate media are pale, male and stale.

        • Bearded Git 4.3.1.2
          2 December 2017 at 10:44 am

          He can never take that Orewa speech back. Amazing that he would have been PM because of it but for walking the plank and the racing car pic.

      • Anne 4.3.2
        2 December 2017 at 10:16 am

        Wasn’t able to listen to it all but agree. Kim Hill did a masterly job providing him with the rope etc. He talked about encouraging people to speak their own languages among themselves. Indians need to talk Indian. Chinese need to talk Chinese. Laplanders need to talk Laplandese and so on. And of course he encourages Maori to learn to speak Maori. Yes folks, he thinks that’s a good thing. He supports that.

        Okay my paraphrasing is a bit naughty but that was the essence of what he was saying.

        How patronising can one be…

        • OnceWasTim 4.3.2.1
          2 December 2017 at 12:57 pm

          “How patronising can one be…” ?

          For Don Brash – very easily!

          He comes from the “I’m not racist BUT……”, and “How can I be racist – I married an Ayeshun myself” and emotion, culcha, ambition and opportunity all measured in terms of cost, and “it’s not fair because they’re getting more than me for my hard-earned tax payer dollar” mindset. “No such thing as sussoighty” all expressed in his most practiced WASP eggsent thinking he has the tone of authority, whereas “the truth is” (as they say in best neo-liberalese), he’s a worn out, pompous, holier-than-thou, bitter old queen who probably spends most of his time worrying about how he’s going to take his [supposedly hard-earned] luxuries in life across to the other side. And the most insulting thing to my limited level of intelligence is that he’ll have an expectation that I should feel sympathy for the prick when that happens. I hope I last long enough to be able to piss on his grave (which is likely to me some kitsch monument to his ego).

          There’s a lot of it about. There might be a gene or two missing. And of course there’ll be a rw troll along shortly to remind me of how unkind and uncaring I am – no doubt. Not unlike that Whaleoil Mr Creosote that called someone from the West Coast ‘ferral’. Pots and Kettles

      • gsays 4.3.3
        2 December 2017 at 11:06 am

        Or epsom.

      • UncookedSelachimorpha 4.3.4
        2 December 2017 at 3:38 pm

        Or Epsom

  5. Morrissey 5
    2 December 2017 at 9:12 am

    Heroes
    No. 2: GIDEON LEVY

    Gideon Levy is the most hated man in Israel – and perhaps the most heroic. This “good Tel Aviv boy” – a sober, serious child of the Jewish state – has been shot at repeatedly by the Israeli Defence Force, been threatened with being “beaten to a pulp” on the country’s streets, and faced demands from government ministers that he be tightly monitored as “a security risk.” This is because he has done something very simple, and something that almost no other Israeli has done. Nearly every week for three decades, he has travelled to the Occupied Territories and described what he sees, plainly and without propaganda. “My modest mission,” he says, “is to prevent a situation in which many Israelis will be able to say, ‘We didn’t know.’” And for that, many people want him silenced.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/is-gideon-levy-the-most-hated-man-in-israel-or-just-the-most-heroic-2087909.html

    Gideon Levy is a Haaretz columnist and a member of the newspaper’s editorial board. Levy joined Haaretz in 1982, and spent four years as the newspaper’s deputy editor. He is the author of the weekly Twilight Zone feature, which covers the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza over the last 25 years, as well as the writer of political editorials for the newspaper.

    Levy was the recipient of the Euro-Med Journalist Prize for 2008; the Leipzig Freedom Prize in 2001; the Israeli Journalists’ Union Prize in 1997; and The Association of Human Rights in Israel Award for 1996.

    His new book, The Punishment of Gaza, has just been published by Verso Publishing House in London and New York.
    https://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/gideon-levy-1.402

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-QNP4Zw-KQ

    “Heroes” is a series devoted to those courageous and brilliant people who show us that, in a world seemingly run by crooks, abusers, scoundrels, mass murderers and liars, there are still reasons for optimism.

    No. 1 Edward Snowden

  6. Morrissey 6
    2 December 2017 at 9:23 am

    Here’s your chance to meet a real hero

    Gideon Levy will deliver a public lecture tomorrow (Sunday) at the Mt Eden War Memorial Hall, 487 Dominion Rd, Balmoral, Auckland

    Sunday 3 December 2017 3:00pm – 5:00pm

    https://www.eventfinda.co.nz/2017/gideon-levy-public-lecture/auckland/balmoral

  7. Ovid 7
    2 December 2017 at 9:28 am

    This video popped up in my feed yesterday and with the recent brouhaha over Golriz Ghahraman I can recognise the same techniques at play in New Zealand.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA

    Don’t forget that the left won the election. The right is desperate. Don’t let them make us play defence.

    • BM 7.1
      2 December 2017 at 9:47 am

      Winston Peters won the election and has rather demonstrated a glaring weakness in the MMP system.

      It doesn’t work particularly well unless you’ve got at least three independent parties of a similar size, the current mix of two large parties(I consider lab-green one party) hands a disproportionate amount of power to whoever can get the bigger party across the line, which in this case is Winston Peters.

      Also, Golriz Ghahraman backstory has more holes than a rusty colander.

      • ianmac 7.1.1
        2 December 2017 at 10:12 am

        Straight out of Ovid’s video!

        BM: “Also, Golriz Ghahraman backstory has more holes than a rusty colander.”

        Now we are supposed to leap into explanations and defend of her.

        BM treats us like a cheap sport. Drop a short punt into the pot and watch the boil.
        When that dies down BM will drop in another prompt.
        Don’t fall for it people.

        • BM 7.1.1.1
          2 December 2017 at 10:29 am

          Now we are supposed to leap into explanations and defend her.

          You don’t have to do anything.

          My personal view from what I’ve read is that she’s rather embellished her backstory to make herself more marketable for the Greens.

          Having said that I don’t really care what she did or didn’t do, I’m sure she’s got some skills that might be useful in parliament.

          • ianmac 7.1.1.1.1
            2 December 2017 at 10:40 am

            Bullshit BM. You pull the legs off spider to see if they can still walk and giggle at your cleverness.
            You put up short little claims that are usually false. Then giggle over the fallout as good people try and explain/defend.
            Hard luck BM. Try somewhere else.

            • Nick 7.1.1.1.1.1
              2 December 2017 at 12:45 pm

              Yes ianmac, bm is a waste of space, never got anything worth reading, you summed bm up exactly.

          • Tautoko Mangō Mata 7.1.1.1.2
            2 December 2017 at 10:44 am

            Try reading these, BM.
            New Zealand Bar Association statement on the criticism of Golriz Ghahraman https://www.nzbar.org.nz/news/nzba-responds-criticism-lawyers-defending-war-criminals …

            Press statement from the NZ Criminal Bar Association on Golriz Ghahraman http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1711/S00347/nz-criminal-bar-association-defends-golriz-ghahraman.htm …

            and from Philip Matthews today:

            DRAIN THE SWAMP
            Remember Dirty Politics, the Nicky Hager​ book that exploded like a noisy but confusing bomb during the 2014 election? The premise was that Right-wing bloggers were doing the former government’s para-journalistic dirty work. It went underground after that but with a new centre-Left coalition in place, it was bound to rear its ugly head again. Which it certainly did this week when new Green MP and former refugee Golriz Ghahraman​ was targeted by the usual cabal of critics and stirrers over claims that she had deliberately misrepresented her legal career. Her calm response to every hostile interview and accusation, even a petty one from blogger David Farrar that she had not really seen anything traumatic during the Iran-Iraq war, was a masterclass in seeing off a minor political crisis while her critics looked small and obsessive. The final score: Golriz 1, dirt peddlers nil. 
            https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/99428911/week-in-review-the-filth-and-the-fury

            • Et Tu Brute 7.1.1.1.2.1
              2 December 2017 at 11:00 am

              Both those articles completely miss the mark. Outside of an outraged fringe, the problem isn’t that she defended an accused in a court of law. That is an unreasonable standard to hold a lawyer to. To say that’s the problem is creating a strawman argument easy to knock down. From my reading of most commentators, the problem is the way Golriz [allegedly] marketed herself. Personally I don’t think it was deliberate. Plenty of people have said she talked about it before the election. I think she was just very loose in the way she sometimes phrased things, a bad habit for a politician and a lawyer.

            • alwyn 7.1.1.1.2.2
              2 December 2017 at 11:33 am

              Perhaps both the Bar association and the Criminal Bar Association have had second thoughts.
              I get 404, page not found for both the first two links.
              I think they may have realised that the defence they were providing had absolutely nothing to do with what people were complaining about.

              Her sin was to not come out at the beginning and say that she had been doing defence as well as prosecution work and also to enormously exaggerate the level she was operating at.
              Would she really have been ranked so highly on the party list if the members had seen a truthful CV?
              Poor old Mojo.

      • Ovid 7.1.2
        2 December 2017 at 10:13 am

        Like I said, desperate.

      • Psycho Milt 7.1.3
        2 December 2017 at 10:22 am

        Also, Golriz Ghahraman backstory has more holes than a rusty colander.

        Also, BM molests goats. It’s a fun game anyone can play!

      • Psycho Milt 7.1.4
        2 December 2017 at 10:24 am

        Winston Peters won the election and has rather demonstrated a glaring weakness in the MMP system.

        The government reflecting the voters’ choices isn’t “a glaring weakness,” it’s “democracy.”

        • BM 7.1.4.1
          2 December 2017 at 10:34 am

          No, it’s not Peters got far more concessions then what his 7% party vote was worth

          Labour basically gave him whatever he asked for, Christ the old prick might end up as PM, that not democracy!

          • ianmac 7.1.4.1.1
            2 December 2017 at 10:42 am

            Here we go again. BM is baiting – again. Ignore him. He will not concede a scrap. He will just try a new dig.

            • BM 7.1.4.1.1.1
              2 December 2017 at 10:54 am

              The truth is in that 36-page document “the most transparent government ever” refuses to release.

              • NewsFlash …
                2 December 2017 at 5:46 pm

                33 page, in 10 font now, if it’s reduced to an 8 font probably around 25 pages, so how many pages should it be?

            • Ed 7.1.4.1.1.2
              2 December 2017 at 1:50 pm

              We are not allowed to move on the offensive or we get banned.

              • weka …
                2 December 2017 at 6:07 pm

                I’m seeing people going on the offensive all the time and they don’t get banned. There are limits to that, but there’s no reason why you can’t attack BM’s arguments.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  2 December 2017 at 6:16 pm

                  BM mostly traffics in bullshit. The few arguments he presents don’t belong to him.

          • Bearded Git 7.1.4.1.2
            2 December 2017 at 10:50 am

            @BM Labour and the Greens were more than happy to go along with things like the $1 billion regional investment fund-fitted fine with their policies.

            To date there have been no meaningful ructions between the 3 coalition parties-these are all in the minds of the Nats.

            Please stop talking this bollocks that Winston might be PM-that was always a fantasy of the Right to try to drive NZF under 5%….epic fail.

          • NewsFlash 7.1.4.1.3
            2 December 2017 at 2:35 pm

            National offered up far more concessions than Labour, but Winnie was just “Taking the Piss”, good on him, Billshit Bill deserves all the crap that lands on him, if you live by the gun, you die by the gun.

            • alwyn 7.1.4.1.3.1
              2 December 2017 at 6:53 pm

              “National offered up far more concessions than Labour”
              You have some evidence for this claim do you?
              Something other than the deep recesses of your imagination?
              Come on. Out with it or we can just assume you are under the influence of some powerful hallucinogen.

            • James 7.1.4.1.3.2
              2 December 2017 at 7:32 pm

              So what were the concessions that national offer Winston in negotiations?

              You make a statement of fact to form a naritive – but you are all bullshit.

              How about posting some evidence to back up your claim – or are you just a bullshiting liar ?

              • adam …
                2 December 2017 at 8:21 pm

                See how simple it is to make stuff up, and spread half truths james. You should remember those feeling you are having now james, as you make people feel the same way when you make stuff and peddle half truths.

                Which by the way, you do quite often. So you really don’t get the moral higher ground.

                • NewsFlash …
                  2 December 2017 at 9:55 pm

                  And the extra ministerial seat National was offering Peters over what the coalition was offering? funny how ppl forget the details of these negotiations though, no harm rubbing it in.

                  I watch these guys spew their BS and then 20 retaliatory comments follow to defend the position of the left, hit and run, peddling BS, the Goritz argument was a classic example, arguing semantics. Goritz’s response exemplifies the real politician that she is, all the BS hadn’t fazed her and the diplomacy was inspiring.

                • James …
                  2 December 2017 at 10:33 pm

                  That’s not a 1/2 truth – I think it a total fabrication- and it’s not unreasonable for them to be called up on it.

          • Pete 7.1.4.1.4
            2 December 2017 at 8:20 pm

            The concessions Peters got were what the market determined were necessary. The free market at work I’ve heard about a zillion times, is a thing of beauty.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 7.1.5
        2 December 2017 at 11:00 am

        Nick ‘swimmable rivers’ Smith, Steven ‘pretty legal, fiscal hole’ Joyce, Judith ‘Oravida’ Collins, Bill ‘discovered poverty last week’ English, Paula ‘put ’em in motels’ Bennett, John ‘no legacy’ Key…

        Natz MPs, and cheerleaders for the National ‘no mates’ party are coming across as embittered victims of a NZ1st hit job. I think Winston chose what was, on the face of it, a less straightforward coalition because of nine years of neglect, corruption, lies, and growing inequality in NZ. “Time for a change.”

        Cheer up BM, you’re just experiencing a small measure of the hopelessness the NZ left felt over the last 9 years.

        ‘Good, I can feel your anger… Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!’

        • BM 7.1.5.1
          2 December 2017 at 11:13 am

          Nah, Labour rolled over and gave him all the power.

          http://act.org.nz/labour-nz-first-the-missing-five-pages-free-press-monday-27-november-2017/

          NEW ZEALAND FIRST GOVERNMENT

          1. Foreign Affairs budget to be increased and Mr. Peter’s Foreign Affairs budget requests cannot be vetoed. Mr Peters can spend his budget how he chooses.
          2. All budget requests from New Zealand First Ministers that have been approved by Mr Peters must get priority.
          3. As Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Peters has the sole right to nominate all Ambassadors and other diplomatic posts not just Washington and London but he cannot be stopped from appointing his mates to be consuls as he tried with Owen Glenn.
          4. As Minister of SOEs Mr Peter’s has the sole power to appoint all the chair and directors of every SOE. Dozens of appointments.
          5. New Zealand First can nominate over three years six people to be knights and its nominations will be favourably considered for other honours.
          6. New Zealand First will appoint the next Chief of Defense.
          7. A provision requires all Ministers to refer any request from or to a New Zealand First Minister to go through Mr Peters office.
          8. The PM has agreed that she will not dismiss any NZ1 Minister, MP or appointee without Mr Peters approval and the PM has also agreed to dismiss any NZ First minister, MP or appointee if asked to by Winston Peters.

          LABOUR/GREEN GOVERNMENT

          1. The government budget must be submitted to NZ1 (Winston) for approval
          2. Labour has agreed to a 10 percent a year increase in the Foreign Affairs budget.
          3. Labour has agreed that NZ1 manifesto promises will have priority. The Northland port and railway.
          4. NZ1 nominations will be approved. For example to the port inquiry.
          5. No concessions can be made to the Greens without prior approval from NZ1
          6. No new policy not contained in the coalition agreement can be advanced by Labour Ministers without NZ1 approval.
          7. All government appointments must be approved by NZ1
          • Bill 7.1.5.1.1
            2 December 2017 at 11:17 am

            from a usually reliable source

            ffs BM. This is one of those instances where the source has to be named, or the info becomes rendered useless.

            Any bullshit artist could have scribbled up that wee shopping list of conjecture and (probably) nonsense.

          • dv 7.1.5.1.2
            2 December 2017 at 11:28 am

            Is that even the right font size?

          • Ed 7.1.5.1.3
            2 December 2017 at 1:50 pm

            T
            R
            O
            L
            L

      • patricia bremner 7.1.6
        2 December 2017 at 11:23 am

        BM …. Yes definitely bloody minded.

      • Bill 7.1.7
        2 December 2017 at 11:28 am

        Also, Golriz Ghahraman backstory has more holes than a rusty colander.

        If that’s a reference to her work in and around the UN where, some would insinuate, she refused to fight on the side of “the good guys” and for “the forces of good”, then you might want to consider that the UN has more holes in its integrity than would take to fill the Albert Hall.

        Not something many liberals are comfortable to contemplate mind.

      • cleangreen 7.1.8
        2 December 2017 at 2:39 pm

        Nada BM = that just bullshit.
        BM says

        MMP doesn’t work; – quote – “It doesn’t work particularly well unless you’ve got at least three independent parties of a similar size,”

        In your dreams as you right winers always rejected MMP right from it’s inception, as you still suffer from the “born to rule syndrome” poor you.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.1.10
        2 December 2017 at 4:58 pm

        MMP works fine. You RWNJs are just pissed that you didn’t win and you’re blaming MMP rather than the fact that you’re unelectable.

        • James 7.1.10.1
          2 December 2017 at 7:34 pm

          You cannot say that of all right leaning people.

          I’ve always agreed that the government we have is the government that won and that’s mmp.

    • Morrissey 7.2
      2 December 2017 at 9:52 am

      National has only one strategy: TATTY.

      That stands for Trivializing And Tantrum Throwing Yobbery.

      “Bloody yobbery, morning, noon, and night!”—Victor Meldrew

      “I’ll get me coat…”

    • ianmac 7.3
      2 December 2017 at 10:06 am

      Bluddy good video Ovid! Very fitting of what happens on The Standard. Must watch.

      John Key was expert at putting critics in boxes. Therefore he could just dismiss Nicky Hagar.
      English/Joyce accuse Labour. Robertson spends long time with long explanations. Joyce is wrong but wins the popular vote. Almost won an election.

      The Right Wing Trolls here do it all the time. Short pithy accusation. We spend many replies to refute. Troll shifts ground to a new point without ever conceding the original one. We spend many replies in hopeless refution. Troll wins.

      Now National and Media henchmen are pouring on the accusations so that the Left must explain. No smoke without fire?
      Except Jacinda knows. Her best response when a critic was quoted to her? “He’s wrong.” End of story.

    • Ovid 7.4
      2 December 2017 at 11:12 am

      Heh. I say “Don’t let them make us play defence” and BM immediately goads us into playing defence. Hats off to you, man. You’re certainly skilled in this.

    • Grey Area 7.5
      2 December 2017 at 11:41 am

      Excellent link Ovid. I’ve already watched this and one other. Very helpful.

    • Bill 8.1
      2 December 2017 at 11:09 am

      So not a link of our cultural shift from treating authority with healthy irreverence (eg Keystone Cops) to one of (arguably) unhealthy reverence (eg – all those cop shows of cops saving us from our despicable selves). Ah well…

  9. Et Tu Brute 9
    2 December 2017 at 11:13 am

    Contrary to my reputation as a rwnj, I do sometimes try and be a good human being. I’d like some advice. Growing up white, upper middle class in tidy neighborhoods with white picket fences and any problems kept strictly behind closed curtains, I’ve never really been exposed much to drug use. Recently, a young mother who fate made us meet, has been begging for help. She’s a drug user. She goes for periods of being clean, then for a week or two spends all her money on substance abuse. Now I’m a comparative stranger, but she keeps asking for money and rides to pick up drugs. Obviously that’s a no, though I have driven her home twice near midnight when she threatened to walk herself home and I couldn’t in good conscience let her do that. I’ve encouraged her to see a drug counselor, which she claims to have done. But she still now asks for money for food/or just food.

    Anyway, long question medium, how can one assist such a person (or anyone; so hopefully the replies may help others, such as family members), without enabling them. If kids are involved, it makes it even harder. Can’t let them starve, but can’t enable them with food and gifts when they spend all their money. NB not so much interested in what government can do, I want practical advice for individuals and whanau.

    • Bill 9.1
      2 December 2017 at 11:20 am

      Some people want to take drugs. Some don’t. Some can be helped out. Some can’t.

      And everything’s subjective and personal. There is no “rule book” or “Ten Point Plan”.

      • Et Tu Brute 9.1.1
        2 December 2017 at 11:23 am

        When you spend your entire income on meth and can’t look after or feed your kids, we’re a bit beyond the “some people take drugs” defense.

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          2 December 2017 at 6:02 pm

          If you don’t want to get involved then it’s probably none of your business. Give her some food at least though. That’s not enabling, that’s called helping another human being eat and not starve.

    • Zorb6 9.2
      2 December 2017 at 11:24 am

      Try and get her to try a rehab programme,and whatever you do,don’t have sex with her.

      • Et Tu Brute 9.2.1
        2 December 2017 at 11:35 am

        Agreed. Limit to what I can do as I don’t actually want to get too close to the situation. Won’t go into her house, won’t talk to her any longer than necessary. Don’t really “want” to help, but then this is a human with kids involved.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.3
      2 December 2017 at 2:28 pm

      practical advice for individuals and whanau

      Stop supporting governments that increase inequality and defund mental health services. If you know anyone who voted for a government that increased inequality and defunded mental health services, make it clear that they are social lepers.

      • Et Tu Brute 9.3.1
        2 December 2017 at 3:46 pm

        Good grief come on – asking an honest practical question here on what we as individuals do. We can have opinions about government till the cows come home, but sometimes we as individuals are called (or put in a position) to do something. Telling them to vote Labour in three years (assuming their enrolled) isn’t going to a) help the addiction now, or b) put food on the table. So up front – what would you do for them, besides refer them to rehab (which as far as I can tell is voluntary)?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.3.1.1
          2 December 2017 at 4:48 pm

          Nah, you made your bed, and now you want everyone else to lie in it for you. What if your stain doesn’t wash out?

          Given that you vote for human rights abuse, I think the best thing you can do for those kids is leave them alone and let the government get on with cleaning up after you.

          Otherwise I’d suggest you adopt them.

    • DH 9.4
      2 December 2017 at 5:43 pm

      “Anyway, long question medium, how can one assist such a person ”

      Short answer is you can’t, well probably not anyway. If they hit you up when they’re stoned you’re wasting your time and when they hit you up when they’re straight they’re probably hanging out for a hit.

      It’s a deadly spiral and a wise person would keep a respectable distance IMO, you can buy yourself a lot of trouble walking into a scene like you’ve described.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.4.1
        2 December 2017 at 5:45 pm

        However, if you want to buy the conditions that create the scene you just described, you can do that at the organisation previously known as Cabinet Club.

      • Et Tu Brute 9.4.2
        2 December 2017 at 6:57 pm

        A lot of trouble yes, but then when someone comes asking for money or food, I’m not the sort of person to easily turn them away. Running into a burning house to save someone also can bring a lot of trouble. But people do it. I dunno. Maybe an optomistic side of me thinks redemption is possible. The other side is a cynic. Or as weka said it is none of my business, so turn a blind eye, refuse charity and hope the government does it’s job (well weka said give food but I feel that allows her to spend her money elsewhere).

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.4.2.1
          2 December 2017 at 7:07 pm

          That’s a pretty good illustration of the obscenity of charity: the very people who helped create the conditions for poverty and inequality, debating amongst themselves which of their victims deserve help, and in doing so, justifying poverty.

          Of course, anyone who points this out to them is being mean and insulting.

        • DH 9.4.2.2
          2 December 2017 at 9:50 pm

          It’s not about turning a blind eye it’s about using a bit of street nous and not inserting yourself into a scene you know nothing about. Meth is a class A drug, it could be your friend there is mixing with some people that you really don’t want to know about,

    • savenz 9.5
      2 December 2017 at 5:55 pm

      This is an American site about Meth,but maybe someone knows a NZ equivalent.

      http://somechicksblog.com

    • Macro 9.6
      2 December 2017 at 9:41 pm

      The drug foundation has some useful info:
      https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/info/helping-someone/
      You are doing a good thing.
      Remember:
      Alcoholism or addiction is a disease. It isn’t necessarily about the quantity consumed, but the behaviour. The good news is it’s treatable.
      Telling a person dependent on alcohol or drugs to just “stop” won’t work. The abuse is typically a symptom of mental illness.
      And as weka suggests above, when they have spent their money on drugs – food is the best help you can give, then an ear, and and finally when they are ready, encouragement to try again. They need to find the trigger that causes the relapse.

  10. adam 10
    2 December 2017 at 12:15 pm

    Meanwhile, whilst your back was turned. Fighting for scraps from the masters table, or being incremental – Slavery is back. How progressive we all are, how truly wonderful human beings.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/outrageous-reality-libya-171201085605212.html

    http://fortune.com/2017/11/29/libya-slave-trade/

  11. John up North 11
    2 December 2017 at 12:34 pm

    I read somewhere that BM molests goats. I find this behavior detestable and as a goat owner am now fearful for my goats. Being a nom de plume, I have no idea who this BM is, but by his general tone and writing I’m gonna assume he’s an older, white male. As there’s a number of those round these parts, I’m rightly concerned for my goats. I think BM should stop his indecent actions, seek help and be more forthright and honest about his awful nature as these habits aren’t natural and the goats (or any of gods creatures) should never be subjected to BM’s sick ways.

    Shame on you BM.

    • Nick 11.1
      2 December 2017 at 12:48 pm

      The goats are bm mentors

    • NewsFlash 11.2
      2 December 2017 at 2:42 pm

      Wasn’t it mentioned a few weeks ago about how TROLLs live under bridges and eat goats, relates very closely to him.

    • James 11.3
      2 December 2017 at 7:38 pm

      So is this the standard of comment that is acceptable on this blog these days ?

      Can we accuse anyone we like of being a goat fucker?

      • In Vino 11.3.1
        2 December 2017 at 10:19 pm

        I think you started it with that rubbish about a colander, and got a deliberately exaggerated example of what you like to dish out. Fair enough, too.
        Work it out for yourself if you aren’t playing the innocent. (Which I suspect you are.)
        I look forward to the day when you disappear from this blog.

        • James 11.3.1.1
          2 December 2017 at 10:40 pm

          In Vito.

          I think you are obviously a moron. I haven’t said anything about a colander at all. Far from playing innocent- the fact is you are just wrong.

          • McFlock 11.3.1.1.1
            2 December 2017 at 10:55 pm

            In vino is just getting their tory trolls confused. Easily done.

          • In Vino 11.3.1.1.2
            3 December 2017 at 12:30 am

            Yes, James – almost inclined to apologise: it was in fact BM (Bullshit Mountain?) who made the inane comment about the colander, so you are in fact innocent of that bit of trolling. But then again, you are both so alike…
            And apologising to somebody silly enough to misspell Vino, then throw childish insults just doesn’t seem right. So I am not sorry, even if I was wrong on that point. You remain what you are.

  12. The Chairman 12
    2 December 2017 at 3:58 pm

    Has Labour got their priorities right when it comes to building more homes?

    Mr Twyford says trade-offs may have to be made (state homes vs KiwiBuild homes) with a priority on KiwiBuild.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/top/345178/government-pledges-to-build-more-state-houses

    With people living in cars and what not coupled with the expected upward pressure on rents due to Labour’s Healthy Homes Guarantee Act, do Labour need to commit to building more state homes a year?

    • Et Tu Brute 12.1
      2 December 2017 at 4:02 pm

      Yes.

      I can see the political reasoning though. Voters will be dazzled by the numbers, and KiwiBuild will be cheaper.

      • The Chairman 12.1.1
        2 December 2017 at 4:26 pm

        Alternatively, voters will be appalled Labour are going to prioritise housing those that are already housed rather than housing those in dire straits.

  13. eco Maori 13
    2 December 2017 at 4:23 pm

    BM if it looks like ____ and smells like _____ than it is bulshit .
    These people think I just dropped out of the sky yesterday I see they are using someone in Pukekohe to try and use my son in laws origins against me . I say to the these people stop pissing in the wind and find a real crim to waste your time on you no I no that your shit stinks to Ana to kai Pukekohe is nice a lot friendly Maori people this is the true nature of Maori please take care of my daughter and my moko.s We will be back in January when our daughter is due for her 4 child . Ka pai

  14. NewsFlash 14
    2 December 2017 at 5:26 pm

    Here’s a little story from yesterday about how politics is going across the ditch for the federal Liberal party and in particular, Malcom Turnbull, it’s quite amusing, and in stark contrast to politics in NZ with regard to coalition partners.

    https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/38112814/deputy-premier-john-barilaro-urges-malcolm-turnbull-to-resign-before-christmas/

  15. Ed 15
    2 December 2017 at 6:22 pm

    Film coming in 2018.
    I became vegan this year.
    It is the biggest thing you can do for your health, the planet and for animals.
    Don’t believe me. Research the topic with an open mind.

  16. Morrissey 16
    2 December 2017 at 7:20 pm

    Duncan “Vyshinsky” Garner’s laughable attempt to intimidate Golriz Ghahraman
    FULL TRANSCRIPT
    three a.m. show, Thursday 29 November 2017,

    Duncan Garner tries to be harsh and cold and aggressive, but he doesn’t really have his heart in it. Someone obviously wrote his questions for him, and told him to “get” Golriz, but it’s clear that he early on recognizes Golriz is far brighter than him, as well as holding the moral high ground over him. This clip finishes a bit early, unfortunately, and doesn’t include the very interesting back and forth between Garner, Mark Richardson and Amanda Gillies, immediately after this travesty. All of them acknowledged that Golriz had done nothing wrong, and Amanda Gillies did not hide her distaste for what Garner had been instructed to do…..

    DUNCAN GARNER: Green M.P. Golriz Ghahraman has come under criticism for failing to mention her work defending a war criminal convicting of inciting genocide IN RWANDA. Around eight hundred thousand TUTSI are estimated to have been killed during the nineteen ninety-FOUR ethnic cleansing, uh, by the Hutu EXTREMISTS. Ghahraman was involved in the deFENCE, and she joins me now, Golriz good to have you on the program, really apPRECiate it. Why didn’t you just tell us? Why hasn’t this been OUT there before?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I did. It was out there. There’s been a number of journalists that have come forward, Kirsty Johnston from the Herald, Vice New Zealand’s released a transcript, I did a number of interviews before the election where I talked about this. I went around, um, various law schools, I’ve talked about this in the past. My C.V. was online and completely open. Um, so it’s not a problem for me at all, it’s not a problem for any lawyer, and the U.N. is certainly really proud that we now have these trials where there is a defense and a prosecution. It’s about returning communities to a rule of law model, to a human rights model.

    GARNER: Okaaaayyy. Okay.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: So it is actually about stopping the cycle of violence. Having the defense ensures that, so either side can’t say, you know, it was victor’s justice, you just came in and arrested our people. Um, so it’s something that I’m really proud of, and I’ve put it out there, there’s been a number of articles, um, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to hide it—

    GARNER: [brusquely] I put it to you that you HAVEN’T, actuallyyyy. I put it to you that the GREEN Party, you see the GREEN Party WEBSITE said, uh, “Golriz worked in Africa, The Hague, and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power.” It DOESN’T SAY that you DEFENDED these war criminals.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: So in the context of all of these articles that I’ve done and all of these talks that I’ve given, and making my C.V. public well before the election, there’s just this ONE line that people have gotten a hold of and—-

    GARNER: [interrupting] Quite CRUCIAL, it’s quite CRUCIAL, Golriz.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Well, I would, I mean I would suggest if the Green Party was trying to hide this, someone would have brought me up and said you’ve got to stop doing Herald interviews about this work, it would’ve been a no-brainer, um, for someone from the party to pull me up and say, Stop, stop doing these interviews about it, um, and it di–, it hadn’t occurred to me, I mean the reason it’s come up NOW is because, again, there was a Herald article where they said to me, What’s a defining era in your life? And I said, well actually this was the difficult, you know, this was the thing that was really life-changing for me is when I first went in to the U.N. system, um, it was working for the defense and, what do, you know it really made me think about—

    GARNER: [interrupting] Weeeell, I, I READ some of the articles.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —-and that—

    GARNER: And I’ve READ some of these articles, Golriz, and—

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: It was me that brought it up, I mean it wouldn’t have occurred to me to hide it.

    GARNER: Yyeeah. But it HAS been hidden by the GREEN Party. Why was, so let’s, okay, so the media might have SAID it, but what about your own Green Party, it wasn’t on your website and you’ve since CHANGED that of course which is the right thing to do.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Oh of course I asked them to change it immediately. I had, ha–, I hadn’t even, er, looked at that, I don’t think, but I mean—
    GARNER: Well hang on, hang on, lemme test that, lemme TEST that. You say you hadn’t looked at it, you DON’T THINK. Did you know that it said it, or it didn’t say it?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I, to be honest, would have skimmed it at some point, but I would’ve gone Yep, it’s got the places I worked, moving on. I mean, those trials are ABOUT the defense being there as well. Otherwise we wouldn’t have trials, we’d take people out the back. You know, it’s, as a law student, I was inspired essentially by the Nuremberg Trials, you know, when we went, okay, you’re not above the law, genocide IS a crime, but we’re not gonna sink to your level, we’re not gonna be tyrants, we’re gonna have these open, transparent, fair trials—

    GARNER: [interrupting] So the GUARDIAN—

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: It’s so INSPIRING as a lawyer—

    GARNER: Hmmm.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: You know, I wouldn’t have, there’s NO WAY I would have hidden something like that, that’s why I was doing the articles about it.
    GARNER: Did you complain to the Guardian, ‘cos the Guardian, ahh, three weeks ago, doing a tri–, a piece on you, a really good piece on you too, said that you “represented the U.N. in tribunals, prosecuting some of the world’s worst war criminals, including perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide.” They said that you PROSECUTED THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE!

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Yeah I understand our comms team has written to the Guardian. I understand they have written to the Guardian. I mean, yeah, that’s blatantly not what I’ve ever said in interviews. And I mean, the Vice article was all about the defense work, um, Kirsty Johnston’s came forward and said that the latest Herald piece was all about the defense work, and that’s ‘cos I wanted to talk about it. I think it’s an important conversation actually, um, and it IS about the human rights framework—

    GARNER: [interrupting] Do you acCEPT—

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: It’s not about denying genocide. That’s what I find offensive. Because we’re all there, the United Nations is there because we want to say genocide is a crime, but we will have a process, we’re not going to have cycles of violence, um, continuing. So that’s the part of it that’s really offensive to me.

    GARNER: Okay. And some people might be offended at, in your maiden SPEECH, in parliament, in recent weeks, you talk about your WORK, and this is in your own words, you no doubt wrote your own speech, you talk about this criminal justice system internationally on the front li-i-i-ine, where you went out the-e-ere, y’know, you fought hard for what you di-i-id, and you worked in Africa, worked alongside these genocide trials, and you saw it at the Rwanda tribunal, you saw it at the Hague, and when you PROSECUTED the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, you “held politicians and armies to account for breaching their powers, giving voice to women, and minorities.” You don’t ONCE [brandishing his notes accusingly] describe it in your OWN words, in your OWN maiden SPEECH in parliament that you were DEFENDING some of these people!

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: That IS putting people on trial. I mean, everyone in that trial is putting those people on trial. It’s not the prosecutors putting them on trial—

    GARNER: [interrupting] But you don’t say you were deFENDing them, Golriz. You’re happy to talk about PROSECUTING.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: My maiden speech is all about being a DEFENCE lawyer. I raised the fact that I defended a child MURDERER at the Auckland High Court. It’s— my maiden speech talks about human rights in terms of defense work. I mean, to isolate a line out of it, is just, it’s just wrong. And I mean you have to—

    GARNER: [interrupting] See I think you’re MINIMIZING it.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: You have to take it in the context that for the entire year of the election I was doing these interviews about both the defense and the prosecution work that I’ve done. So to me it’s VERY public, and it SHOULD be very public, we should be really proud of adv—-

    GARNER: [interrupting] So why didn’t you sa-a-a-a-yyy…..

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —of advocating for a justice system that has both.

    GARNER: Why didn’t you saaaay, why didn’t you SAY in your maiden SPEECH that you learned a lot—

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: But why did I make all these Herald articles about the defense work?

    GARNER: Can I just finish the question?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I mean—

    GARNER: I, I’ll just finish the question if I CAN, Golriz, because I’ve let you finish, I, if I could just please finish this question.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Go for it.

    GARNER: Why didn’t you in your maiden speech say that you defended some of the world’s most evil men? Like the BUTCHER of Bosnia.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: No, I never had anything to do with that trial. That’s patently wrong. That’s the Mladić trial you’re talking about and I’ve never had anything to do with the Mladić trial at all.

    GARNER: You didn’t do any pre, pre-TRIAL work?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: That was on the Karadžić trial, so that’s a completely different defendant.

    GARNER: But the same sort of THING, though, isn’t it!

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: What happened in the Karadžić trial, I can explain that, is that that defendant was self-represented, and in the pre-trial stage the court needs lawyers to actually make the legal arguments when you’re coming up to, you know, defining the crimes and defining, um, the, essentially the spectrum of the trial. Um, and so there are lawyers that work on that, it’s to assist the trial, because actually the prosecution has lawyers, and a self-represented defendant doesn’t, so you can’t have a fair trial without those legal points being hashed out properly. That’s what I did for about five or six months, before I went to prosecutio—

    GARNER: [interrupting> Right so obviously he was an EVIL man, okay, a convicted war criminal. Did you morally STRUGGLE with any of this?

    …[Here there are a couple of seconds of silence as she tries to deal civilly with the imbecility and insolence of that question]…

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I don’t want us to resort back to, we take people out back and shoot them. These are, this is what these trials are about, and like I say, from Nuremberg onwards we’ve said, No, we have the moral authority. You ARE criminals, I don’t care if you’re the head of the army, I don’t care if you’re the president of a country, but we’re not gonna resort to what YOU resorted to, we’re gonna put you into a fair process, this community gets to see exactly who’s responsible, we’re not denying that genocide happened, but we wanna know exactly who did what, we want it to be transparent, we want the evidence to be tested and the historical record to be set right. Every lawyer in that system is proud to be involved in that, as was I, and as was I of my prosecution work. Is it difficult work? Totally. It’s REALLY hard to act on the defense in those trials but you’ve got to be really, really committed to that human rights-based process.

    GARNER: Mmmkay. Ah, d-, have you EVER deFENDED anyone in New Zealand, say a Rwandan refugee who’s linked to that brutal reGIME?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Ah, I’ve defended a Rwandan refugee that’s been accused of being linked to, not the regime per se, but yeah that’s something I’ve spoken to on radio before as well. It was around the confidentiality measures of the refugee process in New Zealand that we were challenging.

    GARNER: Hmmm. And he was—

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: So it was about, it was about people who were trying to disprove claims being able to go back in to a repressive regime and get witnesses and for us to protect those witnesses.

    GARNER: [interrupting> Wasn’t he 2-i-c?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: And I’ve—

    GARNER: [interrupting> Wasn’t he 2-i-c in the regime? Okay, so—

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —I’ve openly spoken about that.

    GARNER: So who WAS he?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Sorry?

    GARNER: Okay, so wha-, wha-, wha-, so who WAS he? Wasn’t he 2-i-c in the regime?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Um, the problem with that case is that actually the courts have suppressed a lot of the information, but I’ve spoken about the legal point that we were taking before on radio, which was about the confidentiality measures. Um, in terms of the details of the case I don’t wanna, I don’t wanna be breaching any of the suppression orders that the court imposed. That’s an ongoing case which I’m not on any more.

    GARNER: So WHY did YOU get involved in THAT?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: But you can talk to Deborah Maning about that, you know, refugee lawyers who’ve, um, previously defended people like, you know, Ahmed Zaoui, and it’s a similar case to that—

    GARNER: [interrupting> This is a guy that LIED. This is a guy that LIED on his refugee, ahmmm, application to come—

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Ooh, I’d be careful there. That’s all been disproven. [laughs derisively] So, yeah.

    GARNER: You tell me what ‘e DID.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Sorry?

    GARNER: You tell me what ‘e DID.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Ahmed Zaoui?

    GARNER: No, not Zaoui. No I’m talking about—

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Oh I’m sorry.

    GARNER: I’m talking about this RWANDAN, ahhhmm, who was here in New Zealand that you were—

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: That’s an ongoing case and there’s suppression orders around it, but he’s being accused by the Rwandan government, um, and sought for extradition. So it’s an extradition case, um, and we were trying to get a fair process around it HERE, so that everyone could present their witness evidence, essentially.

    GARNER: Right. Where did you— so you were in AFRICA. You LIVED in Africa, did you?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: In Tanzania, sort of on and off when I worked on cases, yeah.

    GARNER: Right. Have you been to RWANDA? Did you go in there and have a look?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Yeah I’ve been into Rwanda, yeah, but the court isn’t in Rwanda, so you go into Rwanda, you speak to witnesses or, y’know, I mean you’re next door, so you go into Rwanda a lot, yeah. But nobody lives in Rwanda and works on the trial.

    GARNER: No, sure. Um, and just, just finally, did you ever have a choice, I don’t know how this works, I mean did the U.N. ever give you a choice and say, Golriz you don’t HAVE to work on this if you have any issues with it, y’know morally or ETHICALLY. Did you ever have a choice to say, I don’t WANTA defend this, y’know, this man?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I certainly don’t have any moral, ethical choice, as does NO lawyer that works on criminal trials, in terms of working for either side. You are there to make the process fair. So to say that there’s a moral problem, you know, to suggest that all of these United Nations lawyers, where the U.N. requires that there is a defense and a prosecution, are somehow, um, you know, morally repugnant, um, is just, it is actually offensive, to be honest. I mean, nobody there is denying that a genocide happened—

    GARNER: [interrupting] What SOME people—

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: We’re there because we KNOW a genocide happened.

    GARNER: Course. Yeah. And what some people are also saying that THEY’re offended by the fact that y-you, y-y-you are in PHOTOS, sort of you know, like a SELFIE with, with some of these WAR criminals, here you are standing with one of these RWANDAN guys who was convicted. Y’know, like a, like a HOLIDAY SNAP!

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Yeah, he was convicted, but I, well, we believe in innocent till proven guilty, right? So when you go over and you’re representing someone, you don’t treat them like they’re guilty. That would kind of subvert the whole process.

    GARNER: But do you take HOLIDAY SNAPS with a mass MURDERER?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I can absolutely see how it’s jarring to people. But if you actually believe in the system you’re not going there and going, You’re a mass murderer. The minute you start representing them that would be you making the decision for the Court. So it’s not, it doesn’t work that way.

    GARNER: Mm.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: But I can totally see how it’s jarring. And, I mean, it’s a process that not many people would wanna be involved in, but to me it’s really important, as my prosecution work was important. It’s really important that we make sure these trials are fair, so that community can actually rely on those verdicts and move forward.

    GARNER: Okay, look, um, Golriz, um, we’d better GO-O-O-O. I appreciate you coming on the program. Do you REGRET any of, any of your approach, or the lack of coming FORWARD in terms of the public stuff on the Green Party website and your maiden SPEECH? Do you regret that you could have been fuller?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I mean, I’ve had the Green Party website fixed, but I don’t think, because I’ve been so open and I’ve done all of these interviews, coming out to the election, I think taking all of that in context it was all VERY public. But the thing is, I’m glad we’re having this conversation, because we DO need to have a conversation about what fair trials mean, and what justice means to us. Um so, no, let’s, you know, let’s keep talking about it.

    GARNER: That you don’t think you have anything to apologize for?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: No, as I don’t think anyone working in our justice system has anything to apologize for. We’re all there making the process fair.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/11/i-ve-been-so-open-golriz-ghahraman.html

  17. Morrissey 17
    2 December 2017 at 7:31 pm

    Duncan “Vyshinsky” Garner’s laughable attempt to
    intimidate Golriz Ghahraman: FULL TRANSCRIPT

    three a.m. show, Thursday 29 November 2017

    https://morrisseybreen.blogspot.com

    Duncan Garner tries to be harsh and cold and aggressive, but he doesn’t really have his heart in it. Someone obviously wrote his questions for him, and told him to “get” Golriz, but it’s clear that he early on recognizes Golriz is far brighter than him, as well as holding the moral high ground over him. This clip finishes a bit early, unfortunately, and doesn’t include the very interesting back and forth between Garner, Mark Richardson and Amanda Gillies, immediately after this travesty. All of them acknowledged that Golriz had done nothing wrong, and Amanda Gillies did not hide her distaste for what Garner had been instructed to do…..

    DUNCAN GARNER: Green M.P. Golriz Ghahraman has come under criticism for failing to mention her work defending a war criminal convicting of inciting genocide IN RWANDA. Around eight hundred thousand TUTSI are estimated to have been killed during the nineteen ninety-FOUR ethnic cleansing, uh, by the Hutu EXTREMISTS. Ghahraman was involved in the deFENCE, and she joins me now, Golriz good to have you on the program, really apPRECiate it. Why didn’t you just tell us? Why hasn’t this been OUT there before?

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I did. It was out there. There’s been a number of journalists that have come forward, Kirsty Johnston from the Herald, Vice New Zealand’s released a transcript, I did a number of interviews before the election where I talked about this. I went around, um, various law schools, I’ve talked about this in the past. My C.V. was online and completely open. Um, so it’s not a problem for me at all, it’s not a problem for any lawyer, and the U.N. is certainly really proud that we now have these trials where there is a defense and a prosecution. It’s about returning communities to a rule of law model, to a human rights model.

    GARNER: Okaaaayyy. Okay.

    GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: So it is actually about stopping the cycle of violence. Having the defense ensures that, so either side can’t say, you know, it was victor’s justice, you just came in and arrested our people. Um, so it’s something that I’m really proud of, and I’ve put it out there, there’s been a number of articles, um, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to hide it—

    GARNER: [brusquely] I put it to you that you HAVEN’T, actuallyyyy. I put it to you that the GREEN Party, you see the GREEN Party WEBSITE said, uh, “Golriz worked in Africa, The Hague, and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power.” It DOESN’T SAY that you DEFENDED these war criminals.

    …..Read more, if you can bear it…

    https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2017/12/general_debate_2_december_2017.html/comment-page-1#comment-2090955

  18. NewsFlash 18
    2 December 2017 at 9:13 pm

    Morrissey

    I watched the reply from Golriz, what wonderful candidate, if only we had more politicians like her, articulate, intelligent, well spoken and most importantly, a true diplomat, hadn’t seen her before, but with ppl like her in Govt, the countries on a winner.

    This whole topic is already dead, just a few stupid, arrogant men, who are struggling to adapt to a change in the style of politics think they can control the narrative by “click baiting” to gain attention, only the stupid are sucked in and we all know who they vote for.

  19. Draco T Bastard 19
    2 December 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Uber’s use of encrypted messaging may set legal precedents

    There is nothing inherently unlawful about instructing employees to use disappearing messaging apps, said Timothy Heaphy, a lawyer at Hunton & Williams and a former U.S. Attorney in Virginia.

    However, companies have an obligation to preserve records that may be reasonably seen as relevant to litigation or that fall under data retention rules set by industry regulators.

    Anybody else see the contradiction in those two sentences?