Open mike 26/11/2014

Written By: - Date published: 6:49 am, November 26th, 2014 - 156 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

The Standard is not a conspiracy – just a welcome outlet for the expression of views. Leaders that command respect will not be undermined by this.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

156 comments on “Open mike 26/11/2014”

  1. Paul 1

    The cast of Dirty Politics meet for lunch.
    If you’ve read Hager’s book, you will know these are people who will do anything to target people who get in their corporate masters’ way.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11364394

  2. Morrissey 2

    Two heroes

    Yesterday was a black day for anyone who believed in the integrity of either the New Zealand or the United States justice systems. But although the world seems to be run by the likes of John Key and that farcical St Louis County “prosecutor”, we need to remember that there are still heroes in the world, who are not afraid to tell the truth. Here are two of them….

  3. a tale of two interviews..

    ..aged auto-cue-reader peter williams tries to be a political-interviewer..and fails..

    ..he is all over goff..treating him as the villain of the piece..(!)

    ..and then lets key just spin his bullshit…

    ..aged auto-cue reader should stick to what he knows..eh..?

    • Paul 3.1

      RNZ are following the same policy.
      Treating Goff as if he is the problem not Key.
      Is this because they have been told to balance all their stories?
      Powerful people are telling these puppet ‘journalists’ what to say.
      Repeaters, not reporters.

      John Oliver made this film about the nonsense behind balance when the story has no actual balance.

      Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate

    • halfcrown 3.2

      Yeah I saw that Phillip and you beat me to comment. Utter bloody disgusting the way both channels reported about Key this morning. More interested in the riots in America, definitely a “move on nothing to see’ scenario. I bet if it was anyone from the left they would be full of it.

    • Bob 3.3

      You do realise that Goff is being investigated (even though he has admitted to it already) for leaking the Gwyn report to the media while it was still embargoed…maximum of 1 year in jail or $10,000 fine if found guilty, I notice no calls for him to quit though!!! Just more double standards at play…

      • phillip ure 3.3.1

        i personally think that was a braindead thing goff did..

        ..and when i first saw that story on the day of the announcement of the new labour frontbench line-up..i assumed the right had dumped it to rain on littles’ parade..

        .but nah..it was goff..

        ..and for fucken why..?

        ..i still haven’t been able to answer that one..

        ..w.t.f. was goff thinking/doing..?

  4. felix 4

    If you thought Key had a shocker in Parliament yesterday, that was nothing.

    Have a listen to him on Checkpoint last night: http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ckpt/ckpt-20141125-1708-direct_link_between_pms_office_and_blogger-048.mp3

    This is amazing. He is saying Cameron Slater has more credibility than the Director General’s report.

    He has told too many lies to go back and has no choice but to run with his absurdities. Let’s keep the pressure on this time, eh?

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/20158616/direct-link-between-pm's-office-and-blogger

    • karol 4.1

      Unbelievable. Key seems to be trying the tactic of just trying to talk over anyone quoting what actually is in the Gwyn report, and stating that black is white.

      Key – unable to accept any criticism – so used to spinning it so everyone else is wrong and he is always right, no matter how clear the evidence of dirty dealings under his watch.

    • aj 4.2

      He didn’t know about it “until potentially the Nicky Hager book”
      Sooooo…. he did know about it earlier, but he’s trying to spin that he might not have found out about it until Nicky’s book came out.

    • Macro 4.3

      but… but… but….
      He says of the Collins saga – you can’t believe Cameron Slater!?!

    • Tracey 4.4

      John Armstrong is worried people will let the dump fade away. It is almost like he doesnt realise he is a journalist paid to investigate and elucidate

  5. does anyone else think the sutton/ede hair-style (a.k.a. ‘the dodgy-rodger’ ) –

    – will now fall out of fashion/favour..?

    • greywarshark 5.1

      @ phillip u
      You fashionista you! And puns to match. Very fetching.

    • Rosie 5.2

      Apologies. I can’t respond in any depth today, too tired and too flabbergasted

      (“My gasts were well and truly flabbered” – Rhinocrates)

      I can only respond to phils remark about hairdo’s. Every time I see a photo of Jason Ede I am reminded of those appalling perms on men in the 80’s. This man is particular, “Rooda” on the right

      http://www.audioculture.co.nz/content/images/4541/hero_thumb_dd4.jpg

      God knows how he got away with wearing those blue and white stripy speedo’s in the “Outlook for Thursday” video either

      • greywarshark 5.2.1

        @ Rosie
        Talk about trivial! I can’t concentrate on anything serious for long at the moment.
        Excuse – overload – too much information. So you mention hairdows and I think of Mike Hosking. I remember one shot of him with his hair fetchingly tousled and thinking he has been done over by a society hair raiser.

        • Rosie 5.2.1.1

          It’s like Hoskings uses his hair as a decoy for his shortcomings. “Hey! Hey! It’s hair speaking! I’m up here! I’m up here. Look at me! Look at me!”

          • David H 5.2.1.1.1

            @Rosie. I just figured that Hoskings was just too lazy to wash, shave, and do his hair.

      • phillip ure 5.2.2

        every time i see that haircut/stylings..i think..’g-string fridays’..

        ..(how could you not..?..)

    • Murray Rawshark 5.3

      I hope so. I do agree with you on some things. 🙂

      • phillip ure 5.3.1

        heh..!

        ..you can strut the regency-curls until about yr mid-twenties..

        ..after that it starts getting a bit weird..

        ..it’s a sub-section of that whole old-face/young-hair thing/syndrome..

        • Murray Rawshark 5.3.1.1

          To me, it is pretty good evidence that someone is a self absorbed narcissist. In Sutton’s mind, all the women in the office would have been in love with him.

        • Murray Rawshark 5.3.1.2

          On my bone density – it’s down a bit but that’s apparently normal for someone in my situation. Probably not from drinking milk.

  6. Paul 6

    What is it with RNZ?
    Comparing Goff’s early release of information to Key’s office using the SIS!
    Wow! They buy into Key’s agenda.
    Who is calling the shots at RNZ?
    Unbelievable.

    • felix 6.1

      RadioLIVE takes it a step further with their headline:

      “Prime Minister John Key discusses Judith Collins and the SIS report into Phil Goff”

      Sorry, what?

    • Clemgeopin 6.2

      The quality and calibre of our journalism is non in depth, unbalanced, unfair, gutless and appalling.

    • Once was Tim 6.3

      “Who’s calling the shots?”
      Paul Thompson CEO (Ex Fairfax) me thinks. Nothing too overt however – its all done by employing the known sympathisers (with exceptions of course – for ‘balance’). You call it ‘freshening’ up things – such as the Checkpoint and Morning Report double acts stacked with ‘media stars’ , and getting an ex ZB grunter to produce Mora.
      I’m not sure moral is that great with many there these days who’ll just be hanging on till their gold cards kick in.
      I hope opposition parties (and indeed Nats) begin to realise just how serious their destruction programme of PSB is in the long run but these buggers are attacking the world over (Abbott with the ABC and SBS, Cameron turning the BBC into a farce)

    • tc 6.4

      ‘Who is calling the shots at RNZ?’

      Griffin the nat installed chair, has been for years.

  7. Sanctuary 7

    Looks like the love affair between Judith Collins and Cameron Slater is all over, Collins won’t make that mistake twice.

    I guess that, along with the ninth floor demise of dirty boy Ede, means the tip line is closed forever and Slater can revert back to being an obscure peddler of low grade porn and race/class hate. That is the funny thing – Slater still hasn’t worked out that as the nobody with no powerful position or patrons in all of this, he will end up being the biggest loser. After all, Ede has already got another job, Judith will probably end up back on the front bench, Key will retire a three term PM, Carrick Graham will go into business with John Ansell, Cathy Odgers can always get a conveyancing job, Mr. De Joux will keep troughing at Air New Zealand and old Tucker will still be safely drawing his pension. The only person left out on the pavement with his nose stuck on the glass looking in at the general merriment will be Cameron – poor, dumb, angry Cameron.

    • greywarshark 7.2

      @ Sanctuary
      Deja vu – it’s the truth! The Truth all over again.

    • Macro 7.3

      It won’t be Ede or de Joux – just their replacements. The fundamental “problem” set up by Key in the first place whereby he abdicates his responsibility for the security of NZ vis a vis SIS to his political minions is still in place. Expect another instance of the political abuse of power prior to the 2017 election.

    • Dungeon Master 7.4

      Only a left wing website could think that the be all and end all in life is to have a “job”. Graham, De Joux and Odgers have their own businesses or directorships. All will keep doing what they have been doing because they are paid to protect their clients. All three have done that even if it means taking one for the team every now and then.

      Slater hasn’t.

    • David H 7.5

      You forgot the 60k legal bill Wailoil copped as well I don’t see many of his co-conspirators putting their hands in their pockets. Yup “poor, dumb, angry” gullible Wailoil.

  8. RTM 8

    John Key thinks NZ was settled peacefully; Chris Trotter largely agrees. Are they right? http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/war-and-peace-arguing-with-chris.html

      • RedLogix 8.1.1

        I’m content to let Chris and Scott speak for themselves. Both make reasonable and defensible arguments. Although at first glance I can see where both have been a little selective with the facts in order to bolster their conclusions.

        But then that is not unusual.

      • Jenny Kirk 8.1.2

        To RTM @ 8 – Perhaps they should both come north and ask around among the local tangata whenua – and learn something different. Perhaps the Taranaki Maori might also be a useful source of information for both of them to go to …… but Key doesn’t ever go and look for the real story behind the pr fluff, does he !

      • The Al1en 8.1.3

        From personal experience, yes, totally peaceful settling.

        • weka 8.1.3.1

          shall we extrapolate from your personal experience to the last 200 years of NZ history then?

          • The Al1en 8.1.3.1.1

            You will extrapolate what you will, but for the record, I came in peace and settled accordingly.

            Now what’s wrong with that?

            • weka 8.1.3.1.1.1

              Nothing, it just seems irrelevant to a conversation about the colonisation of NZ.

              • The Al1en

                Not really given tens of thousands move here peacefully every year and settle NZ without rancor.
                Colonized with a smile and not a musket in sight.

                • weka

                  Yes, but perhaps that is a consequence of the violence of the 1800s and colonisation establishing that Māori rights would be subservient.

                  Can you think of places in the world where tens of thousands move and its not peaceful?

                  And of course, immigration isn’t equivalent to colonisation, and immigration isn’t just benign.

                  • The Al1en

                    “Can you think of places in the world where tens of thousands move and its not peaceful?”

                    Using England’s history, no. There were Celts, Romans, Vikings, Saxons and Normans for a start, but none since 1066… Unless you count the William of Orange invite as an invasion.

                    • weka

                      no, I was meaning now. Places in the world where tens of thoudsands of immgrants might be a problem rather than colonisation with a smile and not a musket.

                      As I said immigration and colonisation aren’t the same thing, so I’m not sure what you are on about tbh.

                    • The Al1en

                      With respect, now isn’t the 1800s, but in the coming years, what with pacific islands going under water, mass immigration is going to happen, muskets or otherwise.

                      As for immigration being different to colonisation, sure, but maybe it’s ultimately the same consequence spread over a number of years.
                      I don’t mind, in fact I quite like being in a nation of immigrants, It’s a great unifier, all of us sharing a common trait bonding with the land we settled.

                    • weka

                      I have no idea what we are talking about 🙂

                      You are the one that brought up contemporary migration.

                    • The Al1en

                      “I have no idea what we are talking about”

                      And yet we’re both so good at it.

  9. weka 9

    Meanwhile,

    Dry weather has seen South Canterbury’s rivers reach “exceptional” lows, with farmers shedding stock and irrigation restrictions in place.

    Figures from Environment Canterbury’s monitoring sites indicated five rivers across the region were below half of their average flows for November.

    The Orari River was flowing at a rate of 3.9 cubic metres per second (cumecs) at a monitoring site in the Orari Gorge, while it dried up completely while flowing across the plains in some places.

    ECan’s surface water science manager Tim Davie said having the river dry up so early in the summer was “exceptional”, and concerned members of the public had begun asking about the region’s low river levels. The Temuka River was flowing at 1.2 cumecs, less than a quarter of its usual flow.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/63400952/concern-at-exceptional-early-low-river-levels

  10. ankerawshark 10

    http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/video-andrew-little-attacks-govt-on-sis-report-2014112516

    This may have been posted already, but I only had a chance to watch this morning.

    Mr Little is absolutely stunning. I didn’t realize he would be this articulate and fiery and socking it to them. I bet National are afraid.

    • les 10.1

      fantastic performance!A united front and this guy can win in 2017.

      • weka 10.1.1

        I agree, the tide has turned and 2017 is a possibility for the left.

        Thanks for the link anker, Little is very good.

    • Rosie 10.2

      Yes, I checked it out earlier on anker, was interested to see how Little responded to yesterdays report findings.

      I’ve been warming to him recently and was very impressed to see him give the PM the slam down, not that Key was there to take it. He was indeed articulate and fiery. I hate to use that awful outdated corporate term “passionate” but he really was. He was energetic and was comfortable expressing himself bodily, in his gestures. The ease with which he did this, I reckon added to his performance.

      Those nat front benchers will be feeling a bit anxious in the future. The easy ride is over.

  11. adam 11

    Because I like to read, but not comment on the trademe boards, – some interesting stuff over their today. Normally it’s all we love John Key, now not so much – and the great right wing defence is out in full force The usual attack and attack any opponent personally, and the – “I’m not interested” defence. Which is an interesting defence by the right if they are not interested then why do they feel the need to comment. For me, I’m not interested in labour much, and I generally avoid most discussions around labour leadership and policy. I would not waste my time, writing “I’m not interested” but then again, I’m not taking a leaf out of the Chinese government playbook on how to manage a media crisis.

    On the Trademe boards, they are pretty nasty and vial with their personal attacks, and people say the standard says nasty things. Are the trademe boards whaleoil recruiting fodder, or an extension of dirty politics? It would make sense, they use similar systems in USA with their version of the two tier attack system.

    • greywarshark 11.1

      @ adam
      I have noticed that there are always some on Trademe boards who set themselves up to condemn and sneer. And it doesn’t have to be about politics.

      It seems the nasty types arise where there is easy communication without barriers. There is often negative, insulting comment when someone asks for help. Some take the trouble to call them stupid, or similar. Help is asked for, those who don’t want to do so still spend the time entering their snotty opinions. Strange.

  12. adam 12

    This is why we should be more internationalist here on the standard.

    Dirty politics American style – this is a very dry report – but you will recognise the approach used by these tea-party republican brothers.

    http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/11/20/16305/koch-linked-organization-uses-dark-money-fight-political-disclosure?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-10784c2a16-100020097&mc_cid=10784c2a16&mc_eid=c346e018f7

    And if that don’t float your boat. How about this report, ON US politicians being in bed with the oil companies for offshore drilling – again the approach is very similar, with the same arguments, and the same secrecy. This is a very long report, but worth the read.

    http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/11/24/16312/governors-and-oil-industry-work-hand-hand-offshore-drilling-group?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-10784c2a16-100020097&mc_cid=10784c2a16&mc_eid=c346e018f7

    • RedLogix 12.1

      This is why we should be more internationalist here on the standard.

      Thank you. That’s a theme I’ve given a gentle nudge or two recently. Good links.

      Which is an interesting defence by the right if they are not interested then why do they feel the need to comment

      Because they are in fact intensely interested. It is just a facile ploy to derail the conversation.

      • adam 12.1.1

        It is a good approach to think, and have empathy for those overseas.

        It does two things – it reminds us we are not alone. That this political economic stupidity is also happening to people in far away places like Cairo, Baltimore, Glasgow, Lima, and Hong Kong. It may be different in form, and have a local driver – but the thing people in NZ need to realise – we have more in common with working stiffs getting it in the neck in the slums of Lahore, than we do with Honest John Key. The second advantage, it reminds us we are connected to and with real people – they are not just images on our screens, but real people. And it does good, to have a win now and again, and internationally were are.

        “Because they are in fact intensely interested. It is just a facile ploy to derail the conversation.”

        Could not agree more. Dirty politics 2.0 is underway as we speak.

  13. RTM 13

    Thanks for those comments folks. I think Chris should be credited for at least taking a very serious interest in NZ’s history. Unlike John Key, he’s prepared to stake out a detailed position and argue for it.

    I don’t mean to obstruct other discussions here, but this is a comment I just put on Chris’ blog after someone there made the very common positive comparison between 19th C Australia and 19th C NZ:

    ‘A cursory look over the Tasman at their history is always sobering.’

    I agree that there’s a contrast between the histories of Australia and New Zealand in the nineteenth century.

    In Australia, wars of extermination were fought against Aboriginal peoples and tens of thousands of slaves were put to work in the sugar and pearl diving industries.

    In New Zealand, by contrast, Maori had limited legal rights and even a few seats in parliament. With one exception, the Crown’s military campaigns against Maori ‘rebels’ did not aim at the extermination of iwi.

    But when we look at more of the details of our nineteenth century history, the contrast between Australia and New Zealand becomes less clear. We can find calls for the extermination of Maori in our nineteenth century newspapers and in the speeches of our politicians; and scholars like Christine Liava’a have discovered that, thanks to a conspiracy by a section of the Auckland bourgeoisie, Melanesian slaves were imported to New Zealand and put to work in the 1870s.
    We know, as well, that scores of New Zealand schooners transported slaves to Queensland and other parts of the Pacific, and that few of their captains were ever brought to justice (cf http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2014/10/islands-sailing-away.html)

    The reasons for the differences between nineteenth century Australia and New Zealand are complex. I think, though, that the very ferocity of the wars between the Crown and Maori – a ferocity that Chris wants to deny – is one of the reasons why Maori were not, in the decades after the wars, as marginalised and brutalised as the Aboriginal peoples of Australia.

    As James Belich has pointed out, the Northern War of the 1840s and the wars in Taranaki and the Waikato in the 1860s were not unambiguous victories for the Crown. The Waikato and much of Taranaki were conquered, thanks to the loan of a huge British army, but after the troops sailed off to their next colonial engagement Pakeha settlers were unable to complete the subjugation of rebellious Maori.

    When Titokowaru and Te Kooti began new wars on opposite sides of he North Island in 1868, and London refused to despatch an army, Pakeha panicked. Proposals for the urgent importation of thousands of Sikh and Gukha soldier-settlers began to appear in newspapers and in political debates. The disintegration of Titokowaru’s army in 1869 and the failure of Waikato to reenter the war saved Pakeha New Zealand.

    Even more than a decade after 1869, though, much of the central North Island lay beyond the reach of the government in Wellington. Compromises had to be made before the island could be opened up. Maori were therefore able to hold on to some of their land and secure some legal rights and a modicum of representation in parliament.

    There’s no contradiction, then, in recognising that Maori fared better than the Aboriginal peoples of Australia in the nineteenth century and acknowledging the fierceness of the wars they fought with the Crown.

    • RedLogix 13.1

      What irks me RTM is the selectivity everyone seems to bring to the argument.

      For instance in an earlier post you state:

      But the notion that Maori turned to British power to help them end the Musket Wars ignores the fact that the wars had almost petered out by the 1830s, as iwi achieved military parity, as traditional methods of peacemaking achieved results (consider the peace that Te Wherowhero brokered between the iwi of the upper and middle North Island), and as Maori interpretations of Christian ideology spread.

      While I can see the factual basis here, it’s partly contradicted by this account for instance:

      IT was the Rev. B. Y. Ashwell who chose the site of the mission station at Te Awamutu. This was in 1839. He had made a missionary reconnaissance of Upper Waikato with a view to establishing a station among the savage cannibals of the district, great warriors and apparently irreclaimable man-eaters, and in July of 1839 he returned to Otawhao to carry on the mission. Among Ngati-Ruru there were some who had already gained an inkling of the Rongo-Pai, the Good News, from native teachers, but the majority were pagan. Shortly after his arrival a war party of Ngati-Ruru, who had been away with Ngati-Haua and other tribes raiding the Arawa country, returned from the Maketu and Rotorua districts, under their chiefs Puata and Te Mokorou. The party was laden with human flesh; there were, as Mr Ashwell recorded, sixty pikau or flax baskets packed with the cut-up remains of their slaughtered foes. Then came a fearful feast on cooked man (kai-tangata)

      http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-CowOldF-t1-body1-d2.html

      That’s just months before the signing of the Treaty. While I agree the iwi had fought themselves to a military stalemate, the result of 40 years of slaughter and treachery was a deep lack of trust. Shown up by the fact that much of the Land Wars after the Treaty involved Maori fighting with the British in order to settle old scores. It’s hard to argue that peace had broken out among the iwi.

      I don’t think anyone is trying to make the bloodshed of the NZ Land Wars go away (apart maybe from our amnesiac Prime Minister) – but there are two equally valid ways to look at this. Viewed in isolation there is no question of the military confrontation and the loss of life both Maori and Pakeha

      But then again any scholar knows context is everything. A brief glance of the wider history of human migrations and conquest quickly compel me to the view – the colonisation of New Zealand could have been far, far more bloody than it was.

      Back in the 80’s late one night a Maori machine operator I was sharing road-kill possum stew with, grinningly told me “You whiteys might one day regret not wiping us Maori out when you had the chance!”

      • greywarshark 13.1.1

        Interesting stuff
        RTM and Red Logix
        Which we all need to read up and absorb. Otherwise it just gets the latest colour wallpaper over it and we don’t see the writing on the wall!

      • weka 13.1.2

        Context, yes. How about you put the baskets of flesh story in a Māori cultural context seeing as you think it’s such an important illustrator of something. Start with telling us who James Cowan was, and what cultural biases he was writing from. Then tell us what the baskets of flesh story meant in Māori terms.

        • RedLogix 13.1.2.1

          How about you put the baskets of flesh story in a Māori cultural context seeing as you think it’s such an important illustrator of something.

          Well that’s a contentious one as well. There is the idea that cannibalism was rare and had a highly ritualised meaning around absorbing mana in a manner not dissimilar to the symbolic Christian ritual of communion. Then the very numerous and widespread accounts of it (beginning with Cook himself) suggest a counter to that view. That it was a commonplace.

          While it is selective and wrong to characterise Maori just as a bunch of cannibals, it’s an aspect of their lives which cannot be ignored either. One perfectly clear conclusion that can be drawn is that violent warfare was a constant and accepted feature of their lives. And that cannibalism was probably a regular feature.

          On the other hand our modern perspective condemns this in the strongest possible terms. Virtually nothing else arouses such revulsion in us.

          Which illustrates how values and context change. At same the time we are talking of for instance, in Europe it was normal to be pushing young boys up chimneys and burying them in coal mines – and most people though that perfectly ok. That does not happen any more.

          So my question to you is – when the British countered Maori resistance in the Land Wars with military force – do you think the Maori of the time regarded this with a peculiar horror? Or would they have seen this violence as just regular feature of normal life in those days?

          • weka 13.1.2.1.1

            That tells us that Māori were cannabilistic at times, and that modern people don’t really know much about that. It doesn’t place your story in context. You’ve not said anything about the man who wrote that piece, his milieu, or why he was writing what he did.

            The snip of the story is almost completely without context other than what you give it (ie the line you are running).

            “So my question to you is – when the British countered Maori resistance in the Land Wars with military force – do you think the Maori of the time regarded this with a peculiar horror? Or would they have seen this violence as just regular feature of normal life in those days?”

            Hard to answer that as I don’t think of Māori as having a hive mind. I also think that it’s beside the point if we are looking at the core question of whether colonisation of NZ was peaceful or not. Better to go look at what Māori have to say on the matter as a starting point.

          • Bill 13.1.2.1.2

            One perfectly clear conclusion that can be drawn is that violent warfare was a constant and accepted feature of their lives.

            Like the Thirty Years’ War in Europe…the annihilation of entire peoples by Europeans…or the concept of ‘total war’ that came from Europe, that (apparently) no-one else indulged in; that no cultures practiced, and that swept the world and entire cultures away?

            • RedLogix 13.1.2.1.2.1

              That’s an absurd distortion. If you go back into history, whenever the winning side had the military capacity to do so, and there was an element of retribution involved – then annihilation was always on the cards.

              eg The Roman sacking of Carthage is the most prominent example I can think of off the top of my head. But certainly there are others.

              Wars of empire are a slightly different ilk. In that context the goal is to simply usurp the local political machinery so as to set in place the usual extractive mechanisms of Empire. Annihilation becomes counterproductive – you finish up having to import other people to replace them.

              But some wars are about simply eliminating a long standing opponent. Getting rid of the threat. And when reading accounts of the Musket Wars – it’s worth noting that at least several hapu were in fact annihilated. As were – dare I mention it – the Maoriori.

              • The Al1en

                “The Roman sacking of Carthage”

                I went there last time I was in Tunisia – The place was in ruins.

              • Bill

                Noted that the example (accurate or otherwise) coming straight off the top of your head is…Italian, which is…located in Europe.

                Now, what was the goal of colonial Britain in Australia? Or what of other European countries in Africa, South and Latin America, North America etc? Hmm….oh, that’s right, lesser peoples must fade to make way for the evolutionary greater white race. (Where ‘fading away’ was marked by rotting corpses resulting from deliberate spread of disease, or from shells and guns, or from forced displacement and denial of access to traditional land and food resources.)

                See, I’ve no doubt that sometimes in some cultures one facet of the culture would wipe out another…clan to clan as it were.

                But the adoption of annihilation as an ‘off the cuff’, wholesale and deliberate strategy of a culture, that gets underpinned or excused or explained away by bullshit around a natural ‘greater purpose’ (social darwinism) is an entirely European ‘innovation’, no?

                • RedLogix

                  Bill – while geographically in Europe – the Roman Empire is scarcely regarded as European. Like about about 1000 years in between.

                  The crucial point is that takes considerable military capacity to annihilate a substantial opponent. Europe was merely ahead of the curve in technical terms. Nor can such a policy be regarded as the dominant one – in fact most major wars stop when the losing side has sustained causalities somewhere between 10-20% of their population. eg WW2.

                  But where the opportunity and conditions necessary for extermination have arisen, then there are plenty of examples – on various scales – throughout history to point to. Not doing your homework for you.

                  And of course the other takeaway here is that in fact annihilation was never the goal of NZ colonisation. In fact several people have pointed to the very real reluctance of the British to have troops here at all.

                  • Bill

                    You view the mentality that backed colonisation and the technical innovations on ‘how to kill (more) people efficiently’ as being ‘ahead of the curve’…ie, somehow natural? Okay then, humanity is utterly fucked and we may as well all check out now.

                    You want to give me half a dozen instances from about the same period in time, where extermination was a stated goal, and where the would be exterminators weren’t of European descent?

                    Meanwhile, on NZ….sure, I too could throw out examples that are more exceptions that prove the rule than anything else. Doesn’t change a damned thing though, does it?

                    Busy and gone…

                    • RedLogix

                      You view the mentality that backed colonisation and the technical innovations on ‘how to kill (more) people efficiently’ as being ‘ahead of the curve’…ie, somehow natural?

                      No – I’d think that colonisation and simultaneous extermination of the locals was probably the exception rather than the rule. It was only an accident of history that the Europeans gained such a massive technical advantage that it they were able to engage in it on some occasions. But it certainly was not the dominant policy. And I’ve never faintly suggested it was ‘natural’ or anything I would want to justify.

                      Nor is it correct to say the the idea of annihilation is somehow confined to the peculiarly evil European mind. That’s just a variation of the old noble savage nonsense.

                    • weka

                      it’s not about the peculiarly evil European mind (interesting you would jump to that particular conclusion), it’s that the colonisation imperative is the natural end point when you have many successive waves of colonisation over millennia. By the time we get to the British Empire, it’s engrained in the culture in ways that it’s not engrained in all cultures across space and time.

                    • RedLogix

                      I was being ever so slightly sardonic about the ‘evil European mind’ weka; but that aside – your assertion that a policy of literal physical genocide was ‘ingrained in the culture’ of the British Empire is laughably absurd.

                      By 1922 the British Empire held sway over about 458 million people, one-fifth of the world’s population at the time.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

                      Not very good exterminators were they?

                  • weka

                    “And of course the other takeaway here is that in fact annihilation was never the goal of NZ colonisation. In fact several people have pointed to the very real reluctance of the British to have troops here at all.”

                    Annihiliation was the goal, it was just being done through means other than genocide. The idea was that Māori would be assimilated into European society, and the various Māori cultures would cease to exist. All Māori descendents would in effect be European.

                    Off the top of my head I would cite things like actively suppressing language in (eg kids in schools being beaten/penalised for speaking te reo), and legislation like the Tohunga Suppression Act (lots of other legislation too, covering many areas).

                    • RedLogix

                      I think you are confusing military extermination, the literal killing of every living Maori with indirect cultural annihilation as per the examples you give.

                      But again it comes back to context. Bi-culturalism is a very modern lens to be viewing the values of the 1800’s. By their lights they conceived assimilation as a rather liberal and enlightened policy. Certainly better than just killing everyone off.

                    • weka

                      and you are assuming that the only way to kill off a people is by literal genocide. This is why what Māori think is so crucial. Pākehā don’t get to define reality here.

                      “By their lights they conceived assimilation as a rather liberal and enlightened policy. Certainly better than just killing everyone off.”

                      Some, that’s true. Others would have been very happy with the extermination of Māori. Yet others would have been appalled. (again with the hive mind). Nevertheless, the NZ govt and other stakeholders had intentional policy to do away with Māori. Annihilation was the point.

                      But all your comment says is that at that time the Pākehā powerholders thought x. What about what Māori actually experienced?

                    • RedLogix

                      Nevertheless, the NZ govt and other stakeholders had intentional policy to do away with Māori. Annihilation was the point

                      While I’ve no doubt that there were extremists on both sides who would have been making noises about ‘annihilation’ – there was never any formal colonial government policy to kill all Maori. You really need multiple, authoritative and clear references to back that assertion.

                      I don’t think its at all helpful to define assimilation as a form of annihilation – it’s the old trick of using a word with an specific and usually extreme meaning – like violence, or rape – and then stretching it to cover more or less anything you don’t like. It’s an attempt to confine the discussion to a narrow one dimensional view that suits your agenda – and deliberately excludes any nuances or alternatives.

                      And disrespectful of an English language rich with subtle meanings and shades of tone.

                      This is why what Māori think is so crucial. Pākehā don’t get to define reality here.

                      Sorry but in the 1800’s we did. Which is why it is impossible to understand the era by neglecting what Pakeha were thinking either.

                      And if in the modern context you think to re-frame the nation’s Constitution -and exclude Pakeha voices from the debate; well good luck with that.

                      What about what Māori actually experienced?

                      How can anyone know – we annihilated them didn’t we?

                    • weka

                      “Sorry but in the 1800’s we did.”

                      Bullshit. Māori had and have their own experience of that time, separate and not dependent on what Pākehā think or thought. That you believe there is no Māori reality from that time is just you being part of the colonising force that says ‘victors’ write history. You are attempting to render invisible an extant reality, which is pretty much the modern day version of what happened back then.

                      “Which is why it is impossible to understand the era by neglecting what Pakeha were thinking either.”

                      I’m not neglecting Pākehā thinking. Remember, it’s you alone that is running the either/or line, so don’t start in with the misinterpreations and projections onto my arguments. It’s actually a weak form of debate that you keep doing this. It’s also weird that you think “let’s listen to Māori more” = “let’s neglect Pākehā voices”, although it does shed a lot of light on your world view.

                      I’m saying that special effort has to be made to hear Māori voices, because Pākehā have made sure that theirs dominate spaces that Pākehā tend to hang out in, and Pākehā tend to be ignorant of realities other than their own.

                      “I don’t think its at all helpful to define assimilation as a form of annihilation – it’s the old trick of using a word with an specific and usually extreme meaning – like violence, or rape – and then stretching it to cover more or less anything you don’t like. It’s an attempt to confine the discussion to a narrow one dimensional view that suits your agenda – and deliberately excludes any nuances or alternatives.”

                      It depends on what you mean by assimilation of course, but annihilation of society while leaving individuals alive is a form of annihilation. It’s also a cultural perspective to say that cultural annihilation isn’t real compared to literal genocide. As I understand it te reo, whenua, tikanga etc are all critical aspects of being Māori, so if you destroy them you are engaging in attempted annihilation.

                      Ironically, you are the one who is doing away with nuance by insisting that only physical genocide is relevant here.

                      “What about what Māori actually experienced?”

                      “How can anyone know – we annihilated them didn’t we?”

                      And on that completely disingenous note I think we are done here for now.

                    • RedLogix

                      And on that completely disingenous note I think we are done here for now.

                      That cuts both ways. It’s what happens when you try and use a word with one meaning to cover something else with a different meaning.

                      Looks disingenuous doesn’t it?

                      but annihilation of society while leaving individuals alive is a form of annihilation.

                      I know we have to run this as thought experiment – but do you imagine Maori of the late 1800’s would have seen a difference to being literally killed and the assimilation policy?

                      I’m quite aware assimilation was something they did not want or like. That much is plain in retrospect. But is it the same as physical extermination?

                      I realise you probably feel that its a false dichotomy, that the correct answer is neither choice. But in the context of the era – that does not seem to have been an option. No more than say women had the option to vote however much they wanted.

                      It’s also weird that you think “let’s listen to Māori more” = “let’s neglect Pākehā voices”

                      Actually now would be a good moment to point out that I am Ngati Pourou by reasonably close descent. And that I can tell when I’m hearing one voice and not the other.

              • greywarshark

                red logix
                I think the point was that it seems endemic in humankind, especially male, to be aggressive form gangs and fight others and get advantage and booty.
                The Crusaders were not disinclined to do this on the route to their holy quest for instance.

        • RedLogix 13.1.2.2

          It doesn’t place your story in context. You’ve not said anything about the man who wrote that piece, his milieu, or why he was writing what he did.

          The only reason why I quoted the Ashwell record is because it’s a counter to RTM’s view that the Musket War had petered out by the 1830’s. Certainly the worst of the sheer numeric slaughter of the 1820’s was past – but mainly because most tribes now had muskets and had learnt to construct pa’s adapted to them. A military stalemate is how most people describe it.

          In addition some tribes had entered alliances via marriage and negotiation, but the idea that peace had broken out is not really the case. The last dated event of the Musket War is placed at 1845.

          For the moment I’m taking the view that cannibalism was neither rare, nor a normalised commonplace. As you say Maori cannot be viewed as having a hive mind. Probably some were as revolted by it as we are today – and others pursued it with a relish so to speak. There are accounts that support both views.

          One view is that in a protein deprived, and highly stressed social environment – it was simply an adaptation to the conditions. And that when conditions changed they stopped doing it.

          RTM makes the very useful point that it was not the British who imposed peace upon the iwi ( in 1840 they were in no military position to do so) – but they I would suggest the Treaty provided part of the political framework for the iwi to break out of the stalemate they were still most definitely locked into.

          • weka 13.1.2.2.1

            That’s all very interesting, but it doesn’t apply to what I said.

            I also think that guessing what Māori thought about cannibalism, in the context of this conversation, is highly problematic and am going to leave that with you. As I have said a number of times, I believe that the basic starting point about Key’s statement that NZ was settled peacefully should be listening to what Māori have to say on the matter. I would hazard a guess that you don’t know why I take that position.

            What you are doing with the lines you are running makes me very uncomfortable.

            • RedLogix 13.1.2.2.1.1

              I also think that guessing what Māori thought about cannibalism, in the context of this conversation, is highly problematic and am going to leave that with you.

              Fair enough. Given we cannot ask them questions any longer I have to agree. Trying to draw out information from incomplete data is always challenging. I guess we will never know how the Maori who were eaten felt about it either.

              that NZ was settled peacefully should be listening to what Māori have to say on the matter

              I could be mischievous and suggest the same logic applies. Or we could ask the view of the very many Pakeha who also died in the NZ Wars whether they thought that Maori were a peace loving race with nothing but good intentions.

              But more importantly I’ve made it very clear that the word “peaceful” is a word loaded with relative value. One man’s peace is another’s genocide.

              For instance – compared to the height of WW2 the world right now is at peace. Yet how many bloody little wars and ethnic conflicts do we see on the news?

              It fundamentally boils down to what model you want for political power in this country. There is no doubt there are some Maori who want it fully returned to them – while at the same time being very, very vague about what implications this would have for our existing arrangements.

              So no – it is not a comfortable conversation.

  14. greywarshark 14

    Last night I was thinking about a discussion being held on Sutton’s behaviour and the consequences. I wrote some thoughts and about one approach to getting a handle on behaviour that seems persistent, destructive and usually condemned. Yet returns – why?

    Open mike 24/11/2014

    And I used Eric Berne’s Games that People Play description of repetitive behaviour to underline my argument. I am thinking that we need to get some thinking, philosophical approaches on human behaviour in our understandings if we are going to quickly break through the smog of stubborn denial, complacency and reluctance to face unpleasant reality that prevents us from taking the steps needed to rescue ourselves and our future prospects.

    Wikipedia has a page on Eric Berne’s book and thinking.
    In Eric Berne’s book The Games that People Play he studies many hidden manouevres that we adopt and don’t recognise. I recommend his book to anyone trying to understand human behaviour patterns, and one’s own in particular! I think the Wikipedia page has a good summary.

    The second half of the book catalogues a series of “mind games” in which people interact through a patterned and predictable series of “transactions” which are superficially plausible (that is, they may appear normal to bystanders or even to the people involved), but which actually conceal motivations, include private significance to the parties involved, and lead to a well-defined predictable outcome, usually counterproductive.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_%28book%29

  15. greywarshark 16

    Last night on Radionz I heard an Indian correspondent talking about the ‘salon’ they have started in her city. A group of people choose a political topic and a month later , after they have read and informed themselves about it, meet have a meal, drink and discuss it.

    That is something that needs to happen in every town in NZ. We are so childish about politics here I consider. Naive, uninformed, lax. Like one day, Sunday Christians. We are one day, three year democrats and civic truants. Now have to take it seriously, talk about it every day and get the whole picture not just the Readers Digest edited one, or the simplified Disney one.

    • b waghorn 16.1

      Until politicians clean there act up and start to behave with dignity ,integrity and honesty I cannot see people engaging. I know I’ve seriously considered taking the “blue pill” due to recent times.

      • Chooky 16.1.1

        b waghorn…what is the “blue pill”?

        …and btw i appreciate your comments here…keep them coming

        • b waghorn 16.1.1.1

          Cheers its a semi famous speech from the matrix movie . one day I might workout how to link but I’m sure it will be on YouTube somewhere

          • Chooky 16.1.1.1.1

            oh yes my kids got into the Matrix movie …but somehow it didnt grab me…..some sort of alternate reality ?

            • b waghorn 16.1.1.1.1.1

              I saw the move as a commentary on modern life in some ways the blue pill would be like living on planet key and the red pill is seeing the world how it is. Was a few haircuts ago that I saw it and would probably cringe to watch it now. It was cutting edge sci fi then.

    • Chooky 16.2

      that is a good idea greywarshark …like book club get togethers

  16. Andrew Welsh 17

    So you ban fisiana for selectively using editorial and opinion and yet this opinion piece writes ‘A comparison of statements made by John Key with those of others, largely the Gwyn report (Gwyn quotes can all be found there)’

    Where is the difference?, as unless you fully quote the entirety of all reports and statements; surely all contributors are selectively using the information that suits their arguments?

    How about Phil Goff verves the truth, he certainly squirmed when Espiner interviewed him this am to find out who leaked the report yesterday and certainly enough doubt was raised that he is playing the same political game as the rest (which before you ask, is using embargoed information for political gain)

    [lprent: Copyright prevents giving whole documents. What are you? A plagiarist?

    With F, I had to look up the link that should have been there, add quotes for what was being quoted, and figure out if F was breaking copyright which would have landed on us (marginal). All of that should have been second nature to F. I ban as often because of people wasting my time as anything else. It encourages lazy people to not waste my time by doing their work for them.

    Reading the original comment it was quite unclear what he was even quoting because it ran into his end commentary. He has been on site long enough to know how to do all of those things and has done them before. About half of the ban was for wasting my valuable time. The other half was because I considered that he was deliberately trying to make it hard to locate the source of his quote.

    Since I was writing the note anyway, I also provided the bit that I thought he was trying to avoid people looking at.

    We don’t quote stuff without some kind of link or an explanation about why a link wasn’t inserted.

    In r0b’s post, he put in a link, quoted the relevant bits. He didn’t link to the paragraphs because it was a PDF without paragraph anchors. It does have page anchors (adding a #page=n would have given it), but I had to look up how to do that, and the anchors are all one out anyway.

    If it’d been me, then I’d have probably put in the paragraph numbers. But that is because I have been through too many of these legal documents. But I’d have also made a law that ALL legal documents in PDF are required to provide linked anchors and a index to them.

    Moving this to OpenMike as it is off the topic, and read the policy. I’m rather intolerant of people trying to tell us how to suck eggs. It is hard enough to run a site like this without idiotic yammerheads going over things that were sorted out years ago and written down.

    You will find that if you ask I’m inclined to explain (or someone will). If you accuse, I’m inclined to simply ban on the basis that I really don’t want to work of educating a online fool. ]

    • The difference as I see it with Mr fizzyanus was that he was revising things to suit his particular line by fudging cues and punctuation as to what was opinion and what was actually said by others.

      A link is useful so readers that are interested can read the full quotes for themselves.

    • RedLogix 17.2

      Sometimes people get a ban for a pattern of behaviour. The actual incident in isolation is just the final straw.

      Your second point about Phil Goff is just a silly game. Certainly Goff spoke to media prior to the reports announcement, everyone knew the report was coming and there was a high interest in talking about the background to it – this is all pretty normal stuff. But it was only after the embargoed period did he give any substantive interviews on the contents of the report itself.

      We can quibble all you like about whether this amounted to a ‘leak’ for political gain. After all Goff is the injured party here (it may well have cost him an election) and I can see no big difficulty at giving him first shot at framing the debate. But even if you reject that point – it’s still very small beer.

      You are playing the classic game of holding up the debate over a minor point, in order to obscure or distract from the major one; which I duly note you make no mention of.

    • lprent 17.3

      This was moved to Open Mike.

    • greywarshark 17.4

      Andrew Welsh 1.08 pm
      Why are you coming here attacking The Standard for not treating Fisiani right in your opinion?

      Fisiani never has trouble expressing himself, on and on. He can manage his own affairs and doesn’t need a minder taking us to task because he has not satisfied the few rules. People like you seem to spend your time arguing seriously about trivial matters,. while trivialising serious ones.

  17. Ad 18

    This Salon interview with DNC Chair Howard Dean outlines the core activating principles for getting back to winning, even when you’ve had a complete hiding like the Democrats (and Labour) did recently.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/11/25/people_yelled_and_carried_on_howard_dean_on_how_he_remade_the_dnc_and_dems_new_path_forward/

    One of the most important principles he underlines is that the Party must support and fund activists right across every state (the “50 State Strategy”).

    – Because voters of like mind are everywhere, first off.
    – Because if you keep the organizational structure alive, you never know who will get keen and want to become that knockout candidate no-one saw coming
    – Because if you only support the existing winning seats, you can never increase your vote increase chances
    – Because you never know when any by-election or other event will occur that sees the opportunity to gain power locally.

    I don’t mind Little trying out an early knock-out punch (as if it shows he has a shit show) because he wants to demonstrate he can mix it with the best.

    But that is not where the game is for Labour. Labour’s recovery game is deeper and broader than MPs doing what they have to do in the House.

    It’s a good interview.

    • Tautoko Mangō Mata 18.1

      I agree totally with the concept of supporting and nurturing all states/electorates. Our electorate was written off as a lost cause, despite the fact that we had a fine candidate and a small team of hardworking, passionate people. It was very difficult campaigning in an area which is predominantly white-middleclass and hostile, particularly when some of the caucus were undermining the leadership and the Slater/MSM dirt machine was in full swing.

  18. weka 19

    Some reading on Iain Rennie’s neoliberal background,

    As for Iain Rennie an elitist attitude of looking after the old boys network is not surprising.

    For 30 odd years Iain Rennie has been part of the backroom parliamentary technical advisors and played a major part in opening the gate for foreign corporate free raiding neo-conservative liberal economics.

    He was among the major protagonists coaching both Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson in policies he and many others who still inhabit the parliamentary backroom technical advisory institutions were indoctrinated with, when studying at foreign universities funded by Western high finance, that has heaped so much misery upon Western society since the spread of it.

    Plus some bits from Ruth Richardson’s book on Rennie and Bolger.

    • Tracey 19.1

      Thanks for this Weka

      • greywarshark 19.1.1

        @ weka
        +1 His name has come up before and I thought he sounded dodgy. I didn’t know how long he has been round fomenting his potions. But he blotted his copybook when he mentored Sutton by being support at a news session that shouldn’t even have been held. Time to go. No doubnt gracefully, in due time, with a nice big hamper of suitable quality and goody bag as well.

  19. Bea Brown 20

    Best of all The Standard could cut the crap and just call this the John Key blog.
    It’s all you ever talk about. I have never seen his name mentioned so many times. it’s as though you are his personal PR machine.

    Surely we could talk about Andrew Little, his new line-up, Labour’s policies if any, ideas about the future of NZ etc etc etc.

    I used to enjoy The Standard but not since just about every post is about John Key with his photo and even quotes, over and over and over again.

    Is it that when it comes to Labour, its people and its policies there is a vacuum which you are filling with this crazed obsession with John Key?

    [lprent: Read the last section of the about, and the policy on telling us what we should do in the policy. I really don’t like jerkoff idiots who are too lazy to read our docs on how to behave on our site. Banned 2 weeks to give you time to read them. I suspect that you will need a dictionary.

    Moved to OpenMike as being off topic. ]

    • One Anonymous Bloke 20.1

      😆

      Could you press more moderator buttons at once?

      • greywarshark 20.1.1

        Thanks Bea Brown
        We did need to be seduced by someone from talking about Jokeyhen. Now we can talk about you. Though I do think you have a bee in your bonnet. We actually are talking about a man who has a big impact on us all, and is leading our country downwards. A lot of us think the country is going backwards and we need alert people checking out the pitfalls so we can avoid them.

        If you don’t want to read about John Key, there are likely to be posts about other matters.
        Also Open Mike gives some variety. Perhaps you want to read a happy romance-type post where the girl gets the right bloke, and they live happily ever after. Funnily enough, a lot of girls and boys want that sort of thing too. Much of their attention to detail about this government, is to expose what is wrong so it can be replaced with one that makes us all happy not just the wealthy and those who can’t be bothered thinking and demanding and working for a country that is decent.

    • Tracey 20.2

      Moved your pimping from the herald to here today “Bea“…

      “Stop banging this tired old drum. Perhaps it’s time to do a bit of clearing up at The Herald too. Your hands are hardly clean.

      I think you might all find you are increasingly starved of stories if you keep on hammering away at this. Perhaps that might further accelerate your decline.
      What have we found out? Not much.

      But Goff can leak and posture and pontificate without any comeback from the media. A lot of expensive time has been wasted to find out blow all.
      Bea B – Hamilton – 02:05 PM Tuesday, 25 Nov 2014 …”

      ROFL @ you used to enjoy The Standard

      • lprent 20.2.1

        ROFL @ you used to enjoy The Standard

        You’d think that if it had, then the numbskull troll would have realised that the rules wouldn’t allow him to write a diversionary comment at the top of a post that wasn’t even on topic.

        The only reason this deficient boner brain (BB) didn’t get more than two weeks was because I couldn’t recall banning this particular fool before.

        I am always kind when educating newbies.

      • Draco T Bastard 20.2.2

        Ah, so just another RWNJ tr0lling then.

    • karol 20.3

      The post in question is about Andrew Little – the role of opposition is to oppose and hold the government to account.

      Little has come out of the blocks firing. He’s already made his mark – someone who is straight talking and doesn’t take crap.

      This is not a Labour Party blog.

    • weka 20.4

      There is that little thing of Key and his mates destroying the very fabric of NZ’s statehood.

  20. (questiontime commentary..)

    (excerpt:..)

    ..a questiontime that had its’ moments..not least of them little telling key to ‘cut the crap!’..

    ..so of course little walks away with todays’ ‘brisk-language-award’…

    http://whoar.co.nz/2014/new-zealand-parliament-list-of-questions-for-oral-answer-wednesday-26-november-2014/

    • update:..in my commentary i noted how megan woods has baited a hook for key..and that he appeared to have swallowed it..

      ..(with his denials of any recent contact with slater..)

      ..key has gone back into parliament to correct his answer/take the hook out of his mouth..

      (and b.t.w..robertson went up against english in his new finance-spokesperson-role..

      ..and just confirmed that we really dodged a bullet..by little just squeaking by..)

  21. Zolan 22

    From No Right Turn.

    We have one day to make a submission on the “Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill.”

    My submission would be simply:
    There is lack of confidence in the institutions that would be empowered by such a bill, and no further powers should not be granted them prior to a complete review of their structures, practices, safeguards, and regulation.

    Basically, don’t stick a V-12 into rusty Civic.

    But I don’t know anything about what a proper submission should look like, and I doubt it can do more that get something “on the record” at this stage.

  22. weka 23

    pretty much all my comments are going into the mod queue. Is this happening to everyone?

  23. greywarshark 24

    lprent
    When does the archive refresh? I haven’t anything since yesterday.

  24. sabine 25

    submissions close tomorrow – countering terrorist fighters legislation bill

    might want to have a say before they sign our right to privacy away, cause terrarists 🙂

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/make-submission/51SCFDT_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL60721_1/countering-terrorist-fighters-legislation-bill

  25. RedLogix 27

    No this is the damage control version of events. Winston explicitly said ‘8 days’ earlier. This is not the same thing at all.

    Does it look like Slater set Key up with the txts and then the screenshot of them?

    It would fit. There would be an urgent need to defuse Winston’s little handgrenade.

    • weka 27.1

      I missed the Winston bit, was that from today?

      • RedLogix 27.1.1

        It’s in the Question Time ‘cut the crap’ video I think. Sorry – lots going on, coding, releasing comments – sparing with you. 🙂

        • weka 27.1.1.1

          ok will look it up. Have to go look for the Normal and Turei vids too.

        • ianmac 27.1.1.2

          It was during Andrew’s question 2 I think when Key was launching again into Goff leaking.
          Question from Winston. “Did he (Key) know about Slater getting the SIS Report 8 days ago?” (approx recall.)
          PM: No.
          Then back to Andrew’s questions.
          Strange?

  26. Cave Johnson 28

    Does anyone have any idea who the likely contenders will be for the party presidency?

  27. Penny Bright 29

    My ‘submission’ to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee, on the ‘Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill’:
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    If you sacrifice liberty for security – you lose both.

    It is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS that the public have less than TWO days to make submissions on yet more legislation that attacks our democratic rights and civil liberties, based upon what real threat?

    Given the disgraceful revelations of ‘dirty politics’ as outlined in the ‘Report into the release of information by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service in July and August 2011′ by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, how can the public have any confidence in the Prime Minister John Key, or the SIS?

    Both have been proven to tell lies – so how can we believe a word they say?

    The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969, sets out clear statutory duties regarding the requirement of the SIS Director to CONSULT with the Leader of the Opposition, and to ensure that the SIS does not take any action for the purpose of furthering or harming the interests of any political party.

    The evidence provided in the above-mentioned Report, proves that these STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS were completely ignored.

    But this proposed legislation wants to give the SIS even more powers?

    Forget it.

    What are the consequences when the LAWFUL statutory requirements of the underpinning legislation are breached, by the Minister responsible for the SIS (the Prime Minister) and the (former) Director of the SIS?

    They get to make an apology (although the Prime Minister has yet to do even that) and that’s it??

    What sort of accountability is THAT?

    Where is the transparency and accountability at the highest levels of the New Zealand Government, when the role and conduct of the Office of the Prime Minister (for which John Key must take ultimate responsibility), is not covered by statute, regulation, protocols or procedures, and has proven to work with the SIS in a highly politically partisan way in order to harm the interests of another political party?

    How is this not a serious abuse of entrusted power – a particularly pernicious form of political CORRUPTION – at the highest levels of Government?

    Has New Zealand effectively become some sort of seedy ‘third world banana republic’ – without the bananas?

    What also concerns me, is what definition of ‘terrorist’ is being relied upon?

    Is it one that includes ‘STATE’ actors?

    If not – why not?

    Ask yourselves – what would those who wore the khaki uniforms – who died in ditches to purportedly protect ‘freedom and democracy’ for New Zealand, think of your attempt to railroad through this legislation?

    Do the decent, democratic thing.

    Consider whose interests you are serving.

    Do NOT vote for this further attack on New Zealanders’ lawful rights to privacy, and democracy.

    Do NOT railroad through this legislation.

    Penny Bright
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill: Public submissions are now being invited on the Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill

    The closing date for submissions is Thursday, 27 November 2014

    This is an omnibus bill, introduced under Standing Order 263(a), that proposes amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996, the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969, and the Passports Act 1992.

    The bill is available online at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2014/0001/latest/DLM6316017.html

    The committee requires 2 copies of each submission if made in writing. Those wishing to include any information of a private or personal nature in a submission should first discuss this with the clerk of the committee, as submissions are usually released to the public by the committee. Those wishing to appear before the committee to speak to their submissions should state this clearly and provide a daytime telephone contact number. To assist with administration please supply your postcode and an email address if you have one.

    Links:

    Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2014/0001/latest/DLM6316017.html

    Make a submission on the Bill – http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/make-submission/51SCFDT_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL60721_1/countering-terrorist-fighters-legislation-bill – scroll down to the end of the page to the ‘Make an online submission’ section

Recent Comments

Recent Posts