Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, January 12th, 2024 - 118 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
I noticed Weka linked to this story (day before yesterday): https://www.scotsman.com/regions/edinburgh-fife-and-lothians/female-spaces-need-better-protection-after-trans-woman-sex-assault-on-girl-say-campaigners-140883
Since it's the first incident brought to my attention that I've been expecting ever since the Greens censored an elderly feminist for warning everyone about the danger (in consequence of which I ditched my Greens membership again), I appreciate the info!
So now the danger is real, and leftists remain too stupid to figure it out. Not all, you will claim, and you'd be right to. The point is that the generalisation reflects the broad effect of mass belief in the political arena. I noticed Weka wondering why this unsavoury status quo is persisting. I see it as merely due to the chronic slow-learning capacity of the left, collectively. Of course the right are even slower, but that's a red herring.
The point is that public policy needs to be realistic – seen as such by most people usually works well. Any law privileging sickos who offend in women's toilets while pretending to be female is morally wrong. The left ought to promptly suss this out!
The danger was always real, when statistical likelihood was considered.
The breaking of single-sex provision was always non-consensual.
All men – including those we trust and care for – are excluded from female single-sex provisions.
And it is most often those men that we do trust that understand why, and support the protection of those provisions.
Unfortunately what happened to that girls is neither new, nor an isolated incident. The bigger immediate problem is the intentional policy of No Debate by gender identity ideology activists and TRAs (trans rights activists) whereby anyone not agreeing to TWAW (trans women are trans women) and taking that literally all the time, is ostracised in various ways and to various degrees.
In the UK, women and men have lost jobs and careers when they've spoken out about this. There is nothing left wing about a movement that routinely advocates and acts on removing someone's ability to make a living.
The original tweet I posted is now removed, because the account has been suspsended. Maybe it broke some serious twitter rules. Or maybe it was just saying stuff like this and the TRAs on twitter mass reported it (also not new, uncommon, or isolated). The account may get reinstated.
Here's what it said,
https://twitter.com/FreyaManslayer/status/1744524603257422208
That format in the tweet was being used using quote tweets, so each tweet was a reply to someone using that format and you could click through to see other examples. You can see the effect of No Debate, because all that work is no inaccessible to us, whereas a couple of days anyone here could have gone and read the examples.
For what its worth I'd suggest that most people, on the left and right, probably agree with you but unfortunately politicians and corporations haven't yet realized that social media is not representative of the general public and until they do the craven, gutless cowards will continue to bend the knee lest the social justice media mobs come for them
Something social media mobs and paper tigers come to mind
There is a lot more stuff around about "Katie" Dolatowski. A dangerous predator with a propensity for violence whose "identity" gets him access to women's spaces.
https://news.stv.tv/north/trans-woman-katie-dolatowski-jailed-in-mens-prison-low-moss-after-breaking-court-order
Speaking of red herrings.
If the left is slow learning, and the right even slower learning then, interpolating this scientific data, the sensible centre must be somewhere in-between.
A bit slower than the left and slightly quicker than the right.
Useful advocacy of rational reasoning. Could help to keep the 18th century enlightenment ethos alive a wee while longer…
I'm not sure your framing of this is correct. Gender critical viewpoints find their voice across the spectrum of political views. They can come from a place of social conservatism just as comfortably as amongst feminist progressivism, which is why this issue often unites unlikely allies.
The bigger problem is what Weka describes as the 'no debate' 'policy'. There has been a deliberate and coordinated targeting of those with gender critical views, from Maya Forstater to JK Rowling. This targeting takes many different forms, but it frequently attacks a persons career and income. In some cases, the targets of these attacks have the wherewithall to fight back, as eg Maya Fostater did. But I suspect that many just keep quiet. Thankfully not Holly Lawford-Smith, who wrote
"Silencing women whose feminism is based in material reality is like silencing atheists because of the demands of a fringe religion. It is the suppression of competing ideas, masquerading as a civil rights moment."
The Digital Deplatforming of a Gender-Critical Feminist – Areo (areomagazine.com)
I agree with you that those other dimensions are part of the big picture. The mass psychodynamic will likely escalate until the reaction is sufficient to shift everyone toward a solution to the problem. Taken several years already, so I guess activists on this front aren't well-organised enough yet.
Thank you Denis and those other men on this site who have realised the danger that the gender ideology movement represents to women.
We don't know which men are sex offenders and people are often shocked when they find out that their friendly next door neighbour (just an example ) is. But the reality is that men in women's change rooms automatically enables and legitimizes two sex crimes , voyerism and flashing.
Unfortunately politics usually requires human sacrifice (victims) before so-called progressives pull their finger out & actually eliminate a social problem. So I expect the trend to worsen before it gets better. Actual violent assaults seem necessary to shift activity in the neuronal spaghetti of (most) leftist brains.
To some extent this is understandable though. There achieved notoriety in the 1960s something called the `it can't happen here' syndrome. Zappa & the Mothers did a cringeworthy song about it in '66. Oh, I see it originated 30 years earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here
No, that risk of self ID was always a known.
Supporters of gender ID, rather than sex based ID faced two roadblocks – the (risk of harm from) transition of minors and self ID (enabling predators and sporting grifters) creating safety issues for those of the female sex.
To use a geo-political metaphor, MacArthur went to the Yalu and then American forces returned to the parallel. The political pendulum.
"It places her in a very viscidus position,” Wilson said."
Viscidus?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/133549684/golriz-ghahramans-political-career-in-danger-experts-say-she-should-front-up
You need to brush up your Late Latin obviously.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/viscidus
(admission – I had never heard it in my life, had to look behind the world of warcraft results to find it….what a weird word to use)
Amusing it was used by a communications expert.
I thought Wilson's SpellCheck had mangled "invidious" 🙂
Suspect you are quite correct (although it may be a spellchecker at the Stuff end)
However, the whole story is a beat-up by Wilson – with no added information.
Self-promotion? (wanting to be in on the story-of-the-moment) Dirty politics? (desire to put the boot into the Greens) Who knows.
Tricky would be my take. Tempting to wait for the cops to work through their process. However Joe & Josephine Public will be wondering why Golriz is refraining from telling folks what actually happened.
I mean tell her parliamentary colleagues first, despite public interest. Then those Greens would have to decide whether to tell the people.
Truth is often important in public life (tho some would point out it's as real as a unicorn). In our current low point in the media cycle, Golriz will be focus of media interest until something better comes up. Weka's point about the DP dimension is valid too – muckrakers get traction when folks toss them muck to rake…
How is it tricky?
If it is a misunderstanding then just issue a statement saying what happened ie medical drugs made me forgetful, the silly season made me distracted, we've all been there (I mean I personally haven't but I can understand that things sometimes happen) and that they'll clear it up with Scotties
The longer a statement takes to come the more theories people will come up with
Yeah Robin, I share your common sense view. She may have made a mistake due to meds clouding her consciousness at the time – but that theory seems weak the longer she delays giving her side of the story. However she's a lawyer, right?
So common sense isn't prevailing. The parliament/law interface will dictate how it all plays out. The establishment defeating common sense is the tricky bit. To allow, or not to allow? A Hamletesque question…
Whether any explanation is made now, or not, has no bearing on what happened and why.
The obvious problem with discussing the issue in public is, it is not the place of politicians to place pressure on complainants, or police.
Depends how much the Greens want to allow the situation to tarnish their brand. I suspect they will adopt the Hamlet stance collectively if they haven't already done so. Better to be pc than morally right – a felt compulsion in leftist political circles…
Why left and not (also) right?
Relevance to topic…
So just a compulsion to snipe at the left then …
Negative feedback is used by humans to correct errors.
Trained in the law, but doesn't currently hold a practising certificate, although she had one before entering politics. That's according to today's Post. (No link, sorry – only seems to be in the print edition.)
Her lawyers will be telling her to keep quiet. And if you think that is from a position of guilt watch this illuminating video from a defence lawyer who recommends never talking to the police even if you are innocent.
(It's from an American perspective so it's over the top but the underlying sentiment holds.)
Traditionally MP's are bound by the no bribery and corruption imperative and declaration of financial interests.
There does not seem to any other specified ethical code for MP's, as per being drunk in a public place, accepting free gifts, being accused of shoplifting (leaving without paying) and the like.
https://www.parliament.nz/mi/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/parliamentary-practice-in-new-zealand/chapter-4-members-conditions-of-service/
Stuff appears to be the only major outlet to comment on the story today. It contains nothing new apart from a couple of reckons from two "experts". Their claims she should be talking ignores the fact she's overseas and might well be in a part of the world where communications are difficult and perhaps also dangerous – especially if she is in the Middle East.
Any woman with a track record of political prominence is likely to seem a sitting duck in the ME so hope she hasn't ventured there!
When I rejoined the Greens in 2014 & attended the provincial meetings she was female Co-Convenor & always did it well. However parliament imposes a warp factor onto character – toxic consequences are the potential…
" However parliament imposes a warp factor onto character "
Does it?
Have you examples?
Well some MPs get more warped than others, but I don't mean to imply that it differs from any other high-pressure social group. Some capitalists get more warped by their culture than others.
Any examples?
Judith Collins sometimes seems reasonable and nice.
Theres a second accuastion up on the herald now and a little bit more detail about the first. 15k in clothes since returned!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/golriz-ghahraman-allegations-mp-allegedly-identified-in-second-shoplifting-incident/UR5V6VROWNGPDATS2FWVBVUXUA/
Given the drip feed its definitly an organised hit job and looking more and more like a career ender. Im wondering if the lack of comment was down to a bit of cat and mouse to try a flush out any other accusations in the pipeline.
It'll turn out to be a sitcom like story of wacky mix ups and hilarious hijinx which we'll all laugh about later
Almost as though some investigative journalism would be a good idea. Creating a scenario of repeat offending does seem like DP but no actual evidence of the earlier incident. Folks will wonder if she got addicted to bling fashion or something or has a negative personal attitude to the shop/ owners. Expect more media to jump on the story though…
A hit job? Shes alleged to have committed more than one crime (a minor crime) so the story isnt , this is a hit job, but how many current Green MP's knew she was stealing but kept quiet.
you need to pick one username and one email address and stick to it. Write them down if you need to. You’re commenting privileges will be withdrawn if you don’t reply to this comment acknowledging and agreeing.
Come on now, we don't know she was stealing, these are only allegations at the moment
Until we hear something from the lady herself we should all refrain from thinking is there any more to come and let this run its course and for what is likely to be a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this
Which I'm sure will be forthcoming
The accusations are one thing, the way theyve been presented reeks of a political hit job designed to create as much damage as possible.
It seems very likely theyve waited till the accused is overseas so as to create a time lag in any communication between the green party leadship and Gohlriz which helps create a vacuum.
Then drip feed details and other acusations to create further uncertainty and keep the story in the news cycle.
Id imagine there is video footage from the store in someones hands as well.
Assume Green party leadership havent seen it that creates further difficulties that probably leaks at some stage in the next week or so if theres not a fullsome mea culpa.
How the failure to heed and or protect whistleblowers led to Snowden being left with no other alternative.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers
Probably a coincidence:
https://twitter.com/nzfirst/status/1745203052750197229
Interesting on many levels.
Restoring Law and Order in handwritten, comic-sans like font, mixed caps and lower case. From a design choice point of view this says either they don't take restoring law and order seriously, or the statement is satire.
Stock background image featuring justice bingo; a courtroom, a gavel, a law book, and the scales. Indicates we mean business! I hope they paid for the stock image.
NZ First either claiming credit for this particular part of the coalition agreement, or distancing itself from it. Hard to know which.
Coalition Commitments (underlined twice) has been formed into some sort of official looking logo at bottom right. If they are amending the Sentencing Act it is really a government order of business, not an order from this new body called Coalition Commitments (underlined twice).
A company shipped Iranian oil, despite sanctions, then got caught and agreed to send it onto the USA to be hand over the oil – forfeiture.
Then it tried to use the ship to transport Iraqi oil to Turkey and this happened. I'd hate to be their insurer.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67948119
And so it begins.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/301038601/un-security-council-demands-houthi-rebels-stop-red-sea-attacks-in-vote-that-implicitly-condemns-iran
UNSC Resolution details.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/01/1145382
Hooton vs Clark on international politics and the rules based order.
On the particular, protection of freedom of the seas Hooton 1-0, but then he imagines that a rules based order is only possible where it is imposed by a unilateral imperial power and Clark's position is based in anti-americanism. So he loses 1-2. And this is before Clark makes any refutation.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/matthew-hooton-helen-clarks-anti-americanism-on-show/UTSVJNM2MVC5LADYQVMWQSN7GA/
Rules based international orders have traditionally been maintained by hegemonic powers (think the mediterranean during the time of the Roman Empire, or the 19th century during the height of Britain's imperial pretensions), but you're correct that this doesn't necessarily need to be the case.
However, we have a tiny sample size of two serious, legitimate attempts to build a truly global and multipolar rules based international system of trade and law: neither of which have been totally successful.
The UN could be it, but is more or less impotent in the face of the veto wielded by the big 5.
Someone or a collection of someones needs to have both the means and motivation to play policeman and back up the rules with force, otherwise the system will tend to collapse under the weight of everyone's contradictory interest.
Rome never had an international order. Nor the British empire.
The only serious effort has been since 1945 (the absence of the USA, USSR and the continuance of empire discounts the LON).
A successful international organisation would not be compromised by a singular nation behaving like a coercive imperial power, or a cartel of regional hegemon's claiming to be an opposition to that doing the same.
It needs some real good diplomats to prevent "fires".
Then what else would you call nearly 500 years of being the arbiter of disputes and de facto (Latin irony intended) policeman of the Mediterranean world?
I agree with you there SPC, but diplomacy sometimes need to be backed up. Even by force.
It's important that those of us that support a rules-based order follow Thedore Roosevelts maxim of "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
Otherwise, it's far too easy for bad-faith actors to simply ignore or subvert the system a la Japan, Italy and Germany in the 20s and 30s when they thumbed their noses at the League of Nations.
In fact, you could argue the failure of the League came down to the lack of a strong enough power cough cough the US cough willing to back up the high-minded principles it was founded on.
I was seeking to distinguish international (as in world) order from regional hegemon – there has never been been a world empire as such, only regional empires with their surrounding area of hegemony.
Only since 1945 has there been a serious attempt at an international rules based order.
Depends on your definition of "world" and "empire" 😀
But I can definitely see (and accept) your point!
There were certainly Empires which established regional "order". The Great Khanate established the "Pax Mongolica" in the 13thC under which it was stated that "a Virgin seated on a sack of gold could travel from Sarai in the west to Karakorum in the east without molestation". This facilitated the travels of explorers and traders like Marco Polo who no longer had to deal with various warring tribes and bandits.
More likely the charade will persist due to inertia. The control system is still effective. Allowing warfare here & there is traditional.
Doesn't really matter that it makes the powers that be look like a bunch of clowns – we've had several decades of that already. Thank democracy for that, not god.
However it remains theoretically possible for competent players to change the game at the top. The ball is in the court of younger generations (who seem adept at dodging it). The solution has long been obvious: the UN must adopt a method for SC over-rule. An agreed number of non-SC countries must be given the right to provide a positive alternative to SC failure to do what the UN was established to do!
So, convince turkeys to vote for Christmas and hope all three of our past and wannabe global hegemons suffer from a spontaneous outbreak of goodwill?
I agree that's an entirely logical and desirable reform, but I can't see any of the big 5 letting it happen.
They could terminate their UN membership, perhaps. Would freak the UN bureaucrats out but everyone else would adapt. Fun watching hegemon threatening would-be hegemon while the UN is irrelevant? Dunno. I suppose as usual it depends on the global level of disgust with the status quo – each passing crisis prods the tipping point but we ain't there yet.
Consider humanity as a self-organising system: at the global level of complexity, state changes are always possible while being inherently indeterminate in timing. So a UN reform movement just needs to design the optimal solution to the problem & wait for the collective impetus to shift into it.
You mean, what's happening now?
The problem is that both the current Russian and Chinese regimes are pretty much immune to domestic public opinion, and the USA ran out of f$%*cks to give about what the rest of the world thought of its foreign policy sometime in the 60s.
You're right, not that much different to now really – though I wouldn't discount the renegade factor since it would affect the mass psyche. Putin would be dead keen to see the US & China jump the UN ship – – `look, they're no better than me'. Moral parity due to lack of authority…
Is global governance as charade better than a test for consensus on the basis of the common interest of nations? I doubt it.
Helen Clark was right 20 years ago when GATT was fresh, the NZ-China FTA was a good thing, and the UN was still effective.
But now, GATT and Fonterra have diminished this small state, the NZ-China FTA has been a siphon to suck us dry, and the UN is in decline.
Only the weak and small need rules, and sadly New Zealand is weak small state in a world where international rules are falling apart.
Of course an international rules based order is one that nations can withdraw from supporting.
Pat Buchanan whose foreign policy position informs that of Trump, suggests there is no no reason to aid Ukraine. And questions support for ex Warsaw Pact nations, or the Baltic states formerly of the USSR and even Finland and Sweden.
https://www.creators.com/read/pat-buchanan
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2024/01/us-would-never-help-if-europe-was-under-attack-donald-trump-reportedly-told-eu.html
If this became the USA position, then of course it would take us back to 1950 and Dean Acheson (as per Korea). If the USA would walk away from NATO members (and their concerns as per Ukraine and them maybe next) why not its security alliance with Oz?
The US backed international order would implode fast. So would the global dollar economy.
NATO would become like the TPP, sans US membership. It would negotiate a European order with Russia. The post 1945 American dominance of international organisations would end. The UN would most likely find a new base. The US likely to leave and become the empire of 50 states – till it broke up. The world would do to the American tech monopolies something breaking bad and all their tax evasion would end.
Maybe the basis of a novel to read next summer …
Obama, Trump and Biden have all retreated from the uni-polar power position, and frankly COVID was a stronger test of global trade orders than the current wars are.
NATO is not a trade deal; it is a defence pact. Trump's threats helped the defence ministries of many EU countries to wake up, gear up, forget previous neutralities, and prepare for the Russian invasion.
So let's say Trump wins the White House this year.
That does not mean that European retreat or even detente with Russia is inevitable. In fact it may even make EU military war with Russia more likely since the US is the handbrake.
A Trump win would be a good thing for regional sovereignty. For example it would focus South East Asian military cooperation (including NZ and Au) to get very strong to protect sea lanes very quickly.
And it will only take one military incursion into South Korea for the US to wake up to what its military bases are actually there for.
And it might well be sans US membership, like TPP, if Trump wins.
The EU (and UK) would continue NATO policy on support for Ukraine, but more as the basis for a negotiating position for talks with Russia. Russia wants the end of sanctions (over occupation of the Donbass and Crimea).
More a threat of a regional hegemony and some sort of subordinate co-existence. Could ASEAN deter the South Sea atolls as part of China claim?
Why would POTUS Trump commit to the defence of ROK or Taiwan and not NATO nations? White race axis GOP?
You should do a whole post.
Certainly people like John Bolton are saying that Trump would actively collapse NATO.
I would not dare to speculate further on the consequences of a Trump II presidency. It's too dark.
NATO won't "collapse." It needs to be disbanded. If Trump and Bolton actually believed their own rhetoric, and did do something about pulling apart that warmongering coalition, then reasonable people would vote for them.
So collective security is great, unless you actually organise it. Then it's warmongering. Because reasons?
Riiiiiighhht.
So, what should Europe do to contain Russian revanchism and expansionism and the multitude of other security threats facing Europe?
Ask noted respecter of international and human rights law Vladimir Putin if he could pretty please stop interfering with and invading his neighbours out of the goodness of his heart?
Provoking Russia by funding Nazis like the Azov Brigade, which the U.S. was doing even before the end of World War II, and by siting military bases all around Russia is not "collective security" except in the minds of madmen like John Bolton and the "neocons" who destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq.
"provoking Russia"…
russia "provokes" itself to invade various neighbours often, doesn't need any help. They invent whatever reasons suit them at the time.
You seem to have mistaken Russia for the United States or Great Britain or Israel or France.
No.
If the USA chooses isolationism, NATO (the EU defence group + UK) would negotiate with Russia.
If the USA chose to continue with multi-lateral collective security, the alternative to current arrangements would be for USA/Canada/UK Norway to be the residual of NATO and the EU block to have defence co-operation with NATO and Russia, once there was agreement on a post Ukraine war Europe.
The sort of arrangement George Kennan would have advised in the 1990’s.
With what money? With who's army, navy and air assets?
China has a massive and almost insurmountable head start in terms of military capability and technology that will take truly epic and lengthy investment to even start closing. Assuming it's even affordable.
For example, look at the Australian nuclear submarine programme.
They're anticipating maybe buying three Virginia class boats in the 2030s while waiting for their 8 subs to be delivered sometime in the 2050s and 60s. The cost? Something like $350 billion AUD.
Whereas the PLAN already has 11 nuclear powered attack submarines, with at least 3 more under construction. On top of its already large conventional sub force. God only knows how many more they could construct by 2055 if they felt like they were in a regional arms race.
In that scenario, we, along with much of your militarised ASEAN alliance, would be no better than passengers.
Let's face it: as uncomfortable and frustrating as they are as allies, our security, and that of the rest of the region relies on the US maintaining the strength and will to counterbalance Chinese pretensions.
The thing is most Americans don't want their government funding Ukraines or Israels military.
Poor, young, working class, black and latino voters are particularly against money going out of their country while their public services and social safety nets are being cut…
Funding these wars has made Joe Biden the most unpopular president in modern history.
If Joe Biden continues funding Israel or Ukraine they might as well not have the election because Trump will win all three houses in a landslide because Trump now wins with young, black and Latino voters.
You can't force Americans to pay for it.
As for Nato, it's definitely well past time the other members all increased their military budgets to make up for the eventual American cut backs, the rules based order shouldn't rely solely on one country, it’s unfair to that one nation and it’s people.
The EU really ought to start pulling its weight.
NATO determined in 2014 to have its members meet a 2% GDP defence budget by 2024. While Obama was POTUS.
America is not a large scale funder of the Israeli military – it is however an important consumer of American military supplies. What support it provides has stayed the same for decades (diminishing in real value over time) with a similar amount of aid to Egypt and Jordan. And the reason for it was to play the neutral peace broker – for diplomatic reasons.
The GOP is stronger on support for Israel, than the party of Biden (albeit weird reasons, bible fundamentalists see Israel as proof of the fulfillment of prophecy and their hawks appreciate regional military allies).
There is currently no large scale funding of Ukraine by the USA because it has been blocked by the GOP in Congress. The same GOP majority in Congress is not proposing any of that money in ways useful to the young, blacks or Hispanics. They are the party of public services and social safety nets being cut.
America is not a large scale funder of the Israeli military…
And thirty beheaded babies. And those hospitals deserved to be destroyed. And NATO is a "defence" alliance. Got it.
So no evidence that the US is a large scale funder of the Israel military.
You're not a serious person. I'm not going to waste any more time on your inane false statements.
US aid to Ukraine was 0.33% of GDP in 2023, most of which was spent in the USA employing Americans. 11 other countries contributed more as percentage of GDP.
US aid to Ukraine has little to no influence on the USA's ability to pay for public services etc – that is more to do with internal neoliberal policies. The "pay for services, not for Ukraine" narrative is an important russian propaganda point, heavily promoted by the russian disinfo machine.
You could decently argue that far from being subsidised by US taxpayers, the Israelis are doing a fair bit to prop up the American military-industrial complex.
They don't need U.S. financial and diplomatic support. And they're stabilising the region for us. Right.
The US backed international order would implode fast. So would the global dollar economy.
The "global dollar" seems to be part of the problem. That's why a number of countries are endevouring to set up BRICS.
Has Martyn Bradbury fallen out with Chris Trotter? Bomber seems fairly pissed about Trotter's alignment with NZ First. I agree with Bomber, it is pretty disappointing, but Trotter has a track record of inconsistency and going off the rails. Maybe in 2016 Winston First showed some support of meat and potatoes working class issues, but that's a faint memory now and Winnie has laid down with the conspiracy crowd, and gotten fleas.
Why Right are suddenly frightened at the backlash to their hard right racist Government and how LINO incrementalists are helping them | The Daily Blog
Leftists disagreeing with other leftists is classic leftism. The syndrome is well-documented as originating in the late 18th century, compounded internationally during the 19th century, raised to the status of political art in the 20th. You just spotted an attempt by a couple of late runners trying to keep up with the bunch.
Seems accurate analysis, but punters may come up with proof to the contrary so I'll keep an open mind on his assertion. Reality is real hard to detect sometimes.
I don't blame them for their gamble – times are when we need progress. Will a semblance suffice? No, and that's where the Labour strategy went wrong. Substance is usually required. If they had common sense, they'd know that already.
No, Trotter's piece merely shows that the Atlas Network's propaganda campaign succeeded in portraying Labour a certain way and he's (eloquently) expressing the false impression that a couple of years of FUD and lies can produce.
Trotter wallpapers over the rank misogyny of anti-Jacinda rhetoric and unabashed racism from anti-3W arseholes.
And there’s no mention of the NAF coalition’s tolerance, or even tacit endorsement, of fringe theories about Covid and the WEF and 15-minute cities and global warming, etc
Trotter makes the coalition of bullshitters and shysters seem reasonable, mainstream, moderate. That is a shame and a failure of journalism.
Trotter has a history of siding with the powerful, no matter how depraved and unsavoury they are.
In July 2013 he was laughing at the suffering of a political prisoner, then a few minutes later he was admonishing people who criticised the Florida jury that let Trayvon Martin's killer…
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19072013/#comment-664870
A few months later, Trotter was windily defending the misogyny of those talkback clowns "Willie and J.T."…
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28112013/#comment-735713
Bradbury keeps complaining about the absence of 'broad church' activism, but doesn't have an answer for NZFirst getting 8 seats when three months before the election they were going to get nothing.
There's 8 seats out there begging for the left to get.
Far better to understand how to win them, than slag off commentators figuring it out.
Well Trotter has certainly figured out how to jump in bed with NZ First and whitewash their shabby record
Well thats not good:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/golriz-ghahraman-allegations-mp-allegedly-identified-in-second-shoplifting-incident/UR5V6VROWNGPDATS2FWVBVUXUA/
Probably all just a big misunderstanding
The explanation is clear from an article in the Herald.
She doesn't only have problems with MS. She may also be suffering from Chrometophobia.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/the-rare-condition-that-leaves-people-terrified-of-spending-money/YPN7VGI2PZCZJLVJVEVI2BW57Y/
Well I for one would certainly not like to speculate as to her motives and of course even thats assuming this is nothing more than a comedy of errors easily explained
I only tossed the comment in because it was the second time in one day I came across a word I had never heard of before today.
First Robert's "viscidus" and then "chrometophobia". I've never heard of either of them.
Psychologists trying to convince us that they are part of traditional medicine by using Greek words?
Chrometophobia – people who want free stuff but are cookied out of public places?
Well, that should distract the public from the court case on Israeli genocide…
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/yemen-us-uk-launch-air-strikes-houthis-red-sea-shipping-attacks-gaza-solidarity
I'd be interested in the relationship between Scotties owner Sonja Batt and Philip Crump/Thomas Cramer.
And also between Sonja Batt and Gloriz Ghahraman.
Bet she wishes she'd shown the Scotties employee the contents of her bag that first time when asked
Looks like the Houthi Rebels are getting their beans at the moment. About time IMO.
The capitalist economies of the West rely on uninterrupted trade to maintain their hegemonic and exploitative agenda. Suez and the Red Sea are strategic weak points in this house of cards and the self-appointed global police have been bound to act.
Big ups to the Palestine freedom fighting Houthi rebels who have managed to focus attention on the injustices of colonialist powers.
Firing missiles and hijacking commercial ships is a bit different to marching down the street waving placards don't you think?
It sure is, but marching down the street waving placards is not going to force the issue of a Palestinian state and eject Israel out of the West Bank.
Direct action is the only way to do this and direct action in that region is necessarily militant. No one listens otherwise.
Green Party co-leaders make a public statement.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/01/green-party-co-leaders-reveal-what-they-knew-about-golriz-ghahraman-shoplifting-allegations.html
Well I'd have to say that's cleared everything up, nothing more to see here
What's the word that describes this style of commenting from Robin the Goodfellow?
It's not "Obsequious", or "passive/aggressive/servile".
It's something else.
I've seen the same behaviour in a Tom & Jerry cartoon.
Supercilious, maybe?
The Herald's take had headline: Green Party knew of shoplifting against Golriz Gharaman last year. (My bold.)
Yeah… 27th Dec 2023 when the news rooms were effectively shut down. They've changed it now to "last month", but the inference is the same… the Greens have been hiding the story from the public.
This is one big effing dirty political cop out!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/golriz-ghahraman-shoplifting-allegations-green-party-knew-of-claims-against-mp-last-month/IPWXRSTVANDSTEOMXILPDWA3EE/
Edit. Someone closely associated with Scotties or works for them is supplying ZB Plus with the inside info.?
Just to clarify:
By who? Doesn't say.
So the co-leaders are in touch with her. Seems like it was due to the 2nd allegation, making the issue more serious. So why have they not obtained an explanation from her?? If they have, why keep it quiet? It's in the common interest of the Greens to minimise damage to their brand.
Gordon Campbell gets the point:
Stonewalling a resolution of the impasse seems poor political strategy. Whether innocent or guilty, she ought to demonstrate competence in achieving a rapid exit from her situation. Parental advice would help. Nothing about her comedian partner in all this but if they're still together he could help her think it through too.
Oh, the Newshub reporter just told us she's expected to return home in the next few days. So she'll front the thing personally then I guess…
I thought her and Guy Williams broke up years ago?
But totally agree with the sentiment. Irrespective of the facts of the case and the circumstances in which they've come to light, these allegations are incredibly damaging to both Golriz and the party.
The longer it goes on, the more political capital the Greens will be forced to burn to defend her.
NATO, that infamous tool of U.S. agitation and provocation, is not just laughably paranoid and inept, but dangerous. Here are just two of the reasons it needs to be disbanded:
Operation Gladio…
and Operation Washtub…
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mass-for-shut-ins-the-gin-and-tacos-podcast/id1341525125
So you believe that NATO should be disbanded.
Go right ahead and explain what happens next.
Well, for a start, there'll be scores of neo-Nazi groups from Ukraine to Italy that will be sorely short of U.S. funding.
Citation of those funding lines, or stop the bullshit.
Certainly.
U.S. funding of fascist groups in Italy…
Good luck demonstrating a connection between NATO (a defence alliance) and the CIA.
I've just furnished you with two pieces demonstrating the connection between NATO and the CIA.
Now you need to do some reading.
If that is all you have, then you failed. The USA is not NATO, it and the CIA operate independently of NATO, even within Europe.
Anyone else find it embarrassing it is left to South Africa to put Israel in the dock?
More embarrassing that South Africa has never been taken to the ICC for outrageous racist violence, mass deaths, and more, and for at least as long as Israel, but feels it's pure enough to take Israel to the ICC for the same thing.
The apartheid state of South Africa, which was supported by Israel and the United States and Britain, is no more.
This is a very different South Africa to the one which was responsible for "outrageous racist violence, mass deaths, and more."
A moment in history. Live streamed, I think, only by AJ News? Doesn't fit the narrative run by most western leaders.
Supporters: Bolivia, Belgium, Brazil, Maldives, Venezuela and Namibia, Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Djibouti, Colombia, Chad, Indonesia, Morocco, Cote d’Ivoire, Palestine, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Iran, Cameroon, Qatar, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Comoros, Kuwait, Libya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Egypt, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Senegal, Spain, Sierra Leone, Somali, Sudan, Surinam, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Türkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Oman, Jordan and Yemen.
Add to that list of supporters: The overwhelming majority of citizens in the United States, and in the other countries with governments afraid to stand up to the United States.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/6/us-congress-support-for-gaza-ceasefire-lower-than-american-public