Racist campaigns and attack ads

Written By: - Date published: 7:03 am, March 10th, 2017 - 32 comments
Categories: accountability, democracy under attack, democratic participation, election 2017 - Tags: , , , , ,

A couple of racist groups seem to be hawking their wares recently (summarised in the tweets below).

Unfortunately this may herald the start of a dirty election, dragged down by well funded and unaccountable pressure groups (remember the Exclusive Brethren attack on the Greens in 2005?). The indispensable Professor Andrew Geddis explains:

Andrew Geddis: Open slather for election-year ‘attack ads’ by individuals and well-funded pressure groups

Until now, elections in New Zealand have been held under an assumption. While the Broadcasting Act 1989 allows political parties and candidates some limited freedom to run partisan election ads on television or radio in the weeks before polling day, no one else can use this media for such purposes.

That assumption then freed us from having to confront the sort of negative “attack ads” that clutter election-year TV and radio in places like Australia and the United States. We instead only saw or heard the political parties’ much more anodyne, gentle “vote for us” messages.

However, last October the Court of Appeal overturned that basic assumption. According to the court, the law never imposed a blanket ban on everyone using TV and radio for partisan political ends.

Rather, it bans only political parties and candidates from doing so, apart from their limited exceptions provided in the act. Everyone else then is free to use TV and radio to broadcast any election-related message that they choose.

That is a pretty fundamental change to how election campaigning can occur in New Zealand. The sort of attack ads that routinely run overseas may now take place in New Zealand. …

Well worth reading Geddis’ original post on Pundit where he explains the process of taking out his own “attack ad” on Radio One: My little gonzo academic electoral law experiment. An entertaining read but a serious point, what is to stop NZ following the USA down into this particular hell hole?

And no, educational campaigns from unions are not equivalent to attack ads, in the same way that ordinary speech is not equivalent to hate speech.

Other coverage from:

The ODT, Private parties may be able to run election ads
The Herald, Heather du Plessis-Allan: Let’s not go American in election
Bryce Edwards, Political Roundup: Politicians under attack – should we be worried?

32 comments on “Racist campaigns and attack ads ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. HDCAFriendlyTroll 1
    10 March 2017 at 7:20 am

    So saying we should be one nation and protect our borders is racist now is it? And for FFS, what are you doing listening to that idiot Peter Dunne? What, is he the Lefts’ new hero?

    • Andre 1.1
      10 March 2017 at 7:24 am

      “And for FFS, what are you doing listening to that idiot Peter Dunne?”

      Even idiots can make good points now and then. I’m still hoping to see one from you sometime.

      • HDCAFriendlyTroll 1.1.1
        10 March 2017 at 2:40 pm

        Given the harm that Peter Dunne has caused he doesn’t deserve to be listened to. He is an idiot and a disgrace.

        1. He allowed far more dangerous synthetic cannabis while keeping real cannabis illegal (his son was/is a lawyer for the synthetic cannabis industry).

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9985816/Dunne-legal-high-conflict-examined

        2. He stonewalled medical cannabis, putting the blame on what he calls “big pharma” for the high price of CBD medicine, when in reality the fault lies entirely with him.

        3. Wrote an open letter to Donald Trump in a blatant attempt to get the anti-Trump vote.

        4. And in latest brainfart is now claiming he’s appalled by some pamphlets in an attempt to get the left-liberal vote.

    • Psycho Milt 1.2
      10 March 2017 at 7:36 am

      “no special representation of part-Maoris in local government”

      Damn half-breeds! No pure-blood Maori left, I tell ya! No, nothing racist to see here, is there, HDCA?

      • michelle 1.2.1
        10 March 2017 at 2:13 pm

        what has that got to do with it Psycho maybe you need to take a chill pill mate. I’m a half breed and proud of it but we don’t get called pakeha even though we are half we get called Maori and have been treated as a Maori and grown up as Maori and many of us have been treated like shit from the state hence why we are so angry. Never mind that privilege bullshit my whanau and I have never received any privileges unless you call being treated racist a privilege. Oh I forgot my Scottish/Irish grandfather got a privilege he was put into a land ballot after the 2nd world war in fact many of the pakeha soldiers were. Now is this a racist policy advantaging who ? not us the privileged ones

        • weka 1.2.1.1
          10 March 2017 at 3:37 pm

          Not sure where his quote is from but he is almost certainly being sarcastic to make the point to HDCA that the racism is inherent and blatant.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1.1.1
            10 March 2017 at 3:46 pm

            The quote comes from the racist leaflet.

            Pākehā racism is a Pākehā problem. We see how it impacts on Michelle and so many others. We know who the perpetrators are.

            We just keep on walking by on the other side of the road.

        • Psycho Milt 1.2.1.2
          10 March 2017 at 4:00 pm

          Sorry, should have added a /sarc tag. The term “part-Maoris” in the pamphlet is a dead giveaway that it was put together by racists – they have this thing about racial “purity” which makes the question of how many “pure-blood” Maori there are an important one for them, and a glaringly obvious indicator of racism to the rest of us. They often refer to “part-Maoris” to imply that there aren’t any “pure-blood” Maori left, so no treaty or partnership is required – while at the same time getting irate if anyone calls them racists. HDCA should be aware of who he’s associating himself with.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3
      10 March 2017 at 7:39 am

      So saying we should be one nation and protect our borders is racist now is it?

      Has been for a while, in fact. Which nationality do you propose to eliminate to establish your new reich?

      • HDCAFriendlyTroll 1.3.1
        10 March 2017 at 10:37 am

        Saying one nation or protecting our borders or are both racist phrases?

        • McFlock 1.3.1.1
          10 March 2017 at 11:45 am

          Context is a wonderful thing.

        • Infused 1.3.1.2
          10 March 2017 at 1:52 pm

          no, oab is just a dickhead.

          • adam 1.3.1.2.1
            10 March 2017 at 2:52 pm

            pot, kettle, black…

            • Once was Tim now no longer 1.3.1.2.1.1
              10 March 2017 at 4:03 pm

              I can’t hold back …. I must comment.
              In my mind there are so many labels and definitions that have been corrupted and rendered totally fuckn useless – mainly since the neo-liberal agenda has been at play.
              Nation/ nationhood and the state and sovereignty amongst them.
              We are a number of nations within a state (or a nation-state).
              Which is probably why the Middle East are having such problems with that “2 state” solution.
              Within that geographic boundary, there’ll never be two fuckn states.
              There could have been one or more nations within that state (a system of governance with its definition(s) of sovereignty, and laws, and administration – not now though.

              Meanwhile back in that little pimple on the arse end of the world, there is no reason why there can’t be a Maori (Murry to you @ confused, and various other Natzi trolls), Nation, or a Gay Nation, or a frikken Whatever Nation (an affinity of like minds and culture) within a State of governance. A Nation-State – or better still, a State-Nation called Nu Zull/AoteoRowhard.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1.2.2
            10 March 2017 at 3:31 pm

            Are you disputing that this country was established by treaty? Or disputing that treaties are between nations?

            Two nations peacefully coexisting in one country is a giant leap for humankind, but too difficult for a wingnut?

        • Matthew Whitehead 1.3.1.3
          10 March 2017 at 6:38 pm

          Well let’s see:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson%27s_One_Nation
          https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/373145053482319872?lang=en
          https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan/protecting-our-borders

          Given the prevalence of racists using exactly those two phrases, I’m gonna say this is a case of “you need to explain very carefully what you mean if you don’t want to be assumed to be racist for using them.”

          “One Nation” is often a call for assimilation in our culture and a lack of acknowledgement of past injustice in law, which borders on white nationalism.

          “Protect our borders” is often a call for discrimination at the borders and illegal rejection of refugees.

  2. One Anonymous Bloke 2
    10 March 2017 at 7:44 am

    I wonder whether the Christchurch Mail’s other advertisers like sharing space with this hate speech.

    Looks like the sort of thing that could affect circulation and revenue if you ask me.

  3. roy cartland 3
    10 March 2017 at 8:33 am

    If they’d only take out an ad against pandering toward rich, privileged arseholes I could get behind it.

  4. Ad 4
    10 March 2017 at 8:43 am

    One Nation appears to be gaining strength particularly in Western Australian and Queensland.

    I’d love to think that we were different, and to some degree we are. We are less racist than Australia.

    Yesterday we had the glorious sight of the Maori King backing the Maori Party candidate against Labour’s Nanaia Mahuta, because the Maori King wanted Labour to prefer a coalition with the Maori Party.

    My response to that is pretty simple: let the 2017 electoral contest take care of it.

  5. saveNZ 5
    10 March 2017 at 10:04 am

    All this helps the right.

    National have an immigration policy to keep wages down and consumer prices up.

    National suggest that everyone is racist when anybody call’s them out on it. They use the ‘racist’ card to divert from their failed policies time and time again.

    Then as more and more poverty comes to the country with the neoliberal policy, far right groups spring up and eventually get into power.

    We only have to look at the UK and the US to see how things pan out.

    To avoid this in NZ, we need to change the government, put in immigration policy that serves the people who live in this country, before there’s an out and out war on race and poverty.

    NZ is a dairy and forestry exporter, however some $16.3 billion in profits and investment income left this country in the year to March 2016, and Dr Rosenberg said over the past decade this had averaged more than the combined dairy and forest product exports.

    We are actually a banana republic and have been for some time now.

    Time to change before it’s too late. Tighten up laws.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1
      10 March 2017 at 1:36 pm

      NZ is a dairy and forestry exporter, however some $16.3 billion in profits and investment income left this country in the year to March 2016, and Dr Rosenberg said over the past decade this had averaged more than the combined dairy and forest product exports.

      The detrimental effect of foreign ownership has been known for some centuries. It makes me wonder why it was suddenly brought back in as a Good Thing. And why we continue with it when those detrimental effects are so obvious.

  6. Bob 6
    10 March 2017 at 4:50 pm

    “And no, educational campaigns from unions are not equivalent to attack ads, in the same way that ordinary speech is not equivalent to hate speech.”
    That is an interesting footnote you have added there Anthony, have you got a specific “educational campaign” you were referring too? Or are you just giving Unions blanket benefit of the doubt, assuming they will be engaging in similar attack ads shortly under the guise of educational campaigns?

    • red-blooded 6.1
      10 March 2017 at 6:24 pm

      Speaking as someone who’s been involved in the past in developing educational material from a union promoting issues at election time, I’d say there’s a pretty clear difference. A union may try to push an issue into public discourse and promote their own point of view, or may try to defend its members from attacks that are coming during the election campaign, but it will never target a group of people on the basis of something like race or religion and try to create conflict and bad feeling.

      • In Vino 6.1.1
        10 March 2017 at 7:58 pm

        Well said, Red-blooded. Bob equates attacking exploitation and injustice with vile racist rants. Revealing..

      • Bob 6.1.2
        13 March 2017 at 9:45 am

        “and promote their own point of view”
        This is the point I am trying to make, the examples given above are groups trying to promote their point of view, and Union ads will be Unions trying to put across their point of view. Sections of the public will agree with and disagree with both.
        I believe the ads shown above are small minded, ignorant thinking, however, how can anyone (including Anthony) have an opinion on “educational campaigns from unions” without first seeing them. I have both wholeheartedly agreed and disagreed with Union campaigns in the past, there is no good reason to give them blanket benefit of the doubt.
        Anthony, do you include the Tax Payers Union in this? Or is there a specific list of Unions we should be listening too?
        See my point?

    • reason 6.2
      10 March 2017 at 9:28 pm

      Education and fact based information regarding right wing Parties …… is a natural attack on them …. It shows their true Nature and acts … versus their trade mark ‘Dirty Politics’ media washed spin ….and Iwi /kiwi kiwi racism.

      They claim to be respectable and give everyone a fair go …… they claim to be ‘conservative’

      Yet they build Tax havens and other systems of Economic Apartheid …. which are the biggest drivers of Inequality …. Corruption …. Drug Smuggling ….. People trafficking ….. Weapons trading ….. Deforestation …. Slavery ….. War … and a host of other sick behavior.

      Being an honest worker is a disadvantage under them ….

      Greed and cheating are not respectable …

      And they are Extremists ….. always the first to want to kill people ( go to war )

      Their economic model Guarantees the destruction or extinction of humans …. with a lot of slavery, war and misery along the way.

      Examples include New Zealand cheating and scamming the carbon market instead of reducing CO2 pollution …

      … and New Zealand being a ‘natural partner’ with Indonesia ….. where they still kill you for being a unionist …. and would have killed Helen Kelly had she been one of theirs.

      John Key , Todd Mclay? and nz businessmen were busy in Indonesia before Johhny made off ….

      They kill unionists to keep costs down …. and treat workers like slaves

      So our present conservative Government supports the Insanity of Ecocide at home…… Defined as the extensive damage, destruction or loss of ecosystems ( Rivers )

      While recognizing Gangsters, Nazis and killers at an official level overseas …. and helping anyone move their dirty money around… in secret and zero tax from Keys little project.

      They export our manufacturing jobs to sweat shops and slave labor in “free trade”…. which undermines our workforce …while attacking our civilized democracy when killing theirs.

      No wonder right wingers do not like people being educated about them. Greedy extremists

      Will the exclusive Brethren be off the leash with $1 million pro nat dollars this election … again ???