Whaleoil shall overcome

Written By: - Date published: 10:55 am, November 3rd, 2015 - 116 comments
Categories: Media, spin, the praiseworthy and the pitiful, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

Pro smacking protest huh-7

Cameron Slater is wanting to land a blow for justice and the freedom of expression by protecting the right of people to receive money from American Corporations while advocating for the mass murder of others who hold a certain religious belief.

Yep the crazy is especially strong here.

From the blog that shall not be named:

On October 29, Whaleoil published The only solution is to kill them before they kill us, an article covering how ISIS and other Islamic adherents bent on throwing gays off building and subjugating women are to be met by preemptive force to protect our way of life and freedoms, such as they are.

This set off a small but vocal part of Social Media. No surprise: exactly the same people that are always busy trying to damage Whaleoil in some way. This time a petition was created to request the Human Rights Commission take Whaleoil to court for “hate speech“. And as you’d expect, this was promoted by other blogs and even some main stream media journalists. (Oh the irony).

But our critics didn’t leave it there. They have also been busy placing pressure on our advertisers.

They can not just disagree with our position, we must be silenced. The irony of fighting for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and so on, by denying someone you disagree with those rights is remarkable.

Can someone help me?  Is it possible that the advocating of the murder of all people belonging to a particular religion could be considered to be hate speech?

I had to check to see if this was in fact a Whaleoil and not a post from the Civilian.

Meanwhile Giovanni Tiso expresses things elegantly at 140 characters a statement …

And if you want to sign the petition the details are here.

116 comments on “Whaleoil shall overcome ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. savenz 1
    3 November 2015 at 10:59 am

    Good job!

  2. tracey 2
    3 November 2015 at 11:08 am

    IT’s like he has forgotten his “feral” comment in his haste to protect the gays and women from the nastiness and hate of others.

    Objecting to stuff he writes is not the same as saying he can’t say the,m. A small number may wish to do so, and others may want to see consequences to such talk but he really does have this ability to “poor me” with almost total obliviousness to his own behaviours

  3. One Anonymous Bloke 3
    3 November 2015 at 11:11 am

    Is it still free speech when you demand money for it?

  4. Et Tu Brute 4
    3 November 2015 at 11:13 am

    Again, where did he say Muslims should be killed? He is talking about ISIS and other Islamic groups that are “bent on throwing gays off building and subjugating women.”

    For heavens sake opposition to these groups should be something that unifies both the left and right of New Zealand politics.

    No where does he say all Muslims. You have to be a special kind of stupid to read that anywhere in any of those posts.

    • tracey 4.1
      3 November 2015 at 11:15 am

      For Google to decide it doesn’t want to have Ads on his site, he must have transgressed the T and C’s, or maybe they haven’t the time to look closely and just repsonded, knee jerk, to complaints?

    • tracey 4.2
      3 November 2015 at 11:18 am

      Is this what he wrote that people seem to be leaving off?

      “ISIS proclaims they are members of the Religion of peace? No way, it is a death cult and we should kill them before they kill us.”

      • Et Tu Brute 4.2.1
        3 November 2015 at 11:21 am

        And I am happy with that final sentence. ISIS is a death cult and they should be killed. We are at war. And yes I have looked at everything and I know how Google advertising operates. Most of it, a bit like some Facebook advertising features, are automatic. It can take time to get a real person to look at things.

        [Not sure where your edit was]

        • tracey 4.2.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 11:24 am

          I editted, so your reply might not make the same sense.

        • Bill 4.2.1.2
          3 November 2015 at 11:32 am

          We are at war.

          I’m not.

          • tracey 4.2.1.2.1
            3 November 2015 at 11:43 am

            Generally some form of war is where all this hate began…

            Slater has a particular sympathy for Israel (as far as I can tell), so this obviously hit a nerve. However arab children get killed by Israeli forces, by americans, by russians, by isis, by syrian government and so on and on and on…

            There’s no upside or high ground for anyone in this one.

        • mickysavage 4.2.1.3
          3 November 2015 at 11:35 am

          Slater had photos of a couple of kids in his post with the clear implication that they should also be included. One of them looked about 6, the other would have been younger than two.

          You are missing a bit of context ETB. Do you think that it is legitimate and appropriate to discuss the killing of young kids?

          • Et Tu Brute 4.2.1.3.1
            3 November 2015 at 11:54 am

            That was because the article was about photos of those children being posted with the text: “Teach your children to love Palestine and take up knives. Oh people of Palestine. The next generation will be the generation of stabbings and slaughter.”

            They were photos provided by the militants. As the story was about that message, he provided the photos as context.

            I’m not defending Slater as perfect. I just don’t think in context he wants all Muslims killed.

            • mickysavage 4.2.1.3.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 12:30 pm

              So a brief look at the post and these kids and the words “kill them all” was not meant to make you think that kids should be included?

              • Et Tu Brute …
                3 November 2015 at 1:20 pm

                I can’t possibly answer that. It doesn’t look good, but you are now asking me to guess what is in someones head. I think this debate has gone from “he said we should kill Muslims” to “I think that is what he was trying to give as a meaning if we read between the lines.”

                In the interest of justice I just don’t think we can take the final step as say that was his meaning.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  3 November 2015 at 1:22 pm

                  Evidently your pinhead is too small and Google couldn’t dance on it.

                • Pascals bookie …
                  3 November 2015 at 3:35 pm

                  But you are guessing what was in his head. Loads of people read it as meaning one thing, something like:

                  ‘kill all members of the so called religion of peace, because it really isn’t a religion of peace’

                  A smaller number of people read it as saying something like:

                  ‘ISIS does not represent the Islam which is actually a religion of peace, so Kill all ISIS”

                  He may have deleted the comments, I don’t know, but many of his own readers interpreted him as meaning ‘kill all muslims’, he didn’t correct them in the first day while I was watching, but he was commenting in the thread.

                  You are guessing that he meant the latter. You haven’t really made a case as far as I can see as to why that guess is better than anyone else’s, particularly given what he thinks about Islam being a ‘religion of peace’*, and what he thinks about moderate Muslims.

                  *he doesn’t think it is a religion of peace at all, he thinks that is a lie and if you believe it you are dupe who is ripe for the slaughter.

                  Could you explain why this context is irrelevant in determining what he meant by “Kill them all”?

    • Pascals bookie 4.3
      3 November 2015 at 11:20 am

      What do you think ‘religion of peace’ refers to? ISIS?

      • tracey 4.3.1
        3 November 2015 at 11:25 am

        He was selectively quoted. What he wrote as far as I can tell was

        ““ISIS proclaims they are members of the Religion of peace? No way, it is a death cult and we should kill them before they kill us.”

        • Pascals bookie 4.3.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 11:29 am

          If that’s what it says now, he has changed it.

          • Et Tu Brute 4.3.1.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 11:33 am

            He has changed the sentence. It used to not say ISIS. However ISIS was the previous subject so grammatically you would need to presume he was asking ISIS: religion of peace?

            • tracey 4.3.1.1.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 11:36 am

              You said it was clear what he meant, but he has changed it, so he clearly felt it needed clarification? Why couldn’t he just include a note saying he had editted it?

              Given his opening sentence referred to Arabs and not ISIS, I can see why he needed to change it because then his reference to religion of peace would have easily inferred Arab + Religion of Peace = Mulsim (not ISIS specifically)

              There’s no question the actions outlined above by ISIS are appalling. Sadly ISIS doesn’t have appalling on its own, or killing children on its own…

            • Pascals bookie 4.3.1.1.1.2
              3 November 2015 at 11:43 am

              “so grammatically you would need to presume he was asking ISIS: religion of peace?”

              No, you wouldn’t. He also ref’d the Meir statement about Arabs for starters, but more importantly I’ve never heard anyone call ISIS a ‘religion of peace’. Many people call Islam that. He strongly disputes that idea.

              ‘Kill them All’ was what he said; ‘All’ .

              Further, his blog is chock full of references to Islam not being a religion of peace as many many Muslims claim. It also has many references to the idea that there is no such thing as moderate Islam, that Muslims lie about peace, that we should ban all Muslims from immigrating, and so on and so forth. A few days before that post he suggested that we should pull out of the fight in Iraq/Syria and just reduce the region to glass.

              So context matters, I think, when interpreting his claim to ‘kill them all’.

            • Puddleglum 4.3.1.1.2.1
              3 November 2015 at 1:26 pm

              I have to say that the cached version seems to offer only two interpretations of Slater’s words.

              He either writes erratically from sentence to sentence (i.e., in his mind he has changed who he is referring to without indicating that in his written word) …

              Or that cached version shows quite clearly that he was referring quite generally to followers of the ‘Religion of peace?’ or, even more broadly and given the just quoted Golda Meir statement, to ‘Arabs’ in general.

              Very poor.

    • BM 4.4
      3 November 2015 at 11:28 am

      Google obviously decided when looking at the history of his site, that he broke their rules regarding hate speech and suspended/ terminated their dealings with whale oil.

      You don’t get the boot for just one post.

      —————————————————-
      From googles webpage on google adsense and prohibited content

      Content that advocates against an individual, group, or organization

      What’s the policy?

      Google believes strongly in the freedom of expression, but also recognizes the need to protect the quality of the AdSense network for users, advertisers, and publishers.

      Google ads aren’t permitted on sites that contain harassing or bullying content, or on content that incites hatred or promotes violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity. Additionally, Google ads may not appear on content that incites or advocates for harm against an individual or group.

      However, websites containing educational, documentary, historical, scientific, or artistic content related to such subjects are permitted to participate in AdSense.

      —————————————————

      He must have known he was breaking the terms and conditions

      • DH 4.4.1
        3 November 2015 at 11:58 am

        “Google obviously decided when looking at the history of his site, that he broke their rules regarding hate speech and suspended/ terminated their dealings with whale oil.”

        I’m doubtful. That would require a real person to spend time on it and I doubt Google allocate that sort of time to staff unless the account is a large one.

        I’d expect it to be more likely an automated take-down triggered by a predetermined number of complaints. That’s how they usually work.

        Spamming a content provider with complaints is quite an effective way of silencing someone you disagree with. The Russian troll army are very prolific in that regard.

        • Et Tu Brute 4.4.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 12:02 pm

          Agreed DH. I work with Google advertising all the time and that is how I understand it to work.

  5. Psycho Milt 5
    3 November 2015 at 11:22 am

    The petition is a pointless piece of stupidity by people whose interest in freedom of expression doesn’t extend beyond expression they agree with, but there’s no free speech issue in Google deciding not to run ads on a site they don’t want to. Nobody is obliged to do business with you.

  6. Vaughan Little 6
    3 November 2015 at 11:24 am

    I’m not about to check the blog but didn’t tiso perform some kind of magic trick by transforming “kill fanatics” into “kill all muslims”?

    • Et Tu Brute 6.1
      3 November 2015 at 11:34 am

      Yeah he is twisting the truth and making stuff up. It doesn’t help the cause.

    • weka 6.2
      3 November 2015 at 11:57 am

      here’s the original. You are talking about Tiso’s interpretation of it, which is shared by many, including google.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/whaleoil-shall-overcome/#comment-1090211

    • Dave 6.3
      3 November 2015 at 10:52 pm

      Exactly. Seems like a petty little beat up.The people complaining and relying on some ambiguity dont seem to have any issue with “#SlaughterTheJews” or the that brainwashing militancy quoted.
      What happened to free speech anyway.

      • weka 6.3.1
        3 November 2015 at 11:01 pm

        how about you put up a post promoting the slaughtering of Jews and see what kind of response you get.

        • Dave 6.3.1.1
          4 November 2015 at 10:38 pm

          Uh, yeah; except slater has basically done that already.

          It’s a post with most content being quoted from some extremist source, collating any suitable bits and pieces to form ‘evidence’ of radical mass indoctination and then Slater has been ambiguous (intentional or not) about killing all ISIS/Muslims. So then in here it seems like 80% of the fuss is ‘Slater said kill all Muslims’.
          So is this true?
          Well Tiso said so, and like you say it relys on interpretation.
          What I’d say is why not attack something worthwhile, instead of relying on grey areas and interpretation.
          FWIW i don’t think his view there is any different to what he is trying to oppose.

          • weka 6.3.1.1.1
            4 November 2015 at 10:43 pm

            In your previous comment you implied that people here didn’t care if someone promoted the slaughter of Jews. That’s daft (and I suggested you test your hypothesis).

            Pretty sure that Slater’s history speaks heaps about what his beliefs and intentions were with that post 😉 His bullshit needs to be challenged wherever it appears.

      • Frank Macskasy 6.3.2
        7 November 2015 at 4:52 pm

        What happened to free speech anyway.

        Dave, as I posted above, it’s not Slater’s use of Free Speech people are condemning – it’s what he said with it.

        Free Speech also allows a response, otherwise it’s only Half Free Speech.

  8. tracey 8
    3 November 2015 at 11:26 am

    And in case it needs saying, I think the person who promotes the notion that all jews should be slaughtered is beneath contempt.

    • Et Tu Brute 8.1
      3 November 2015 at 11:38 am

      It is a shame however that the political left is confusing this message. We should be uniting with the right and middle and saying #slaughterthejews and other hashtags – and behaviors – are unacceptable to us. We might disagree with how to handle/combat/engage with groups like ISIS, BUT make no mistake – we are united in our opposition to them.

      • Pascals bookie 8.1.1
        3 November 2015 at 11:46 am

        Who are you suggesting doesn’t oppose ISIS?

        • Et Tu Brute 8.1.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 12:06 pm

          I am not pointing the finger at anyone. I’m just noting that rather than the main story being about training children to #slaughterthejews, the main story is an attempt to silence a right wing nutjob who somewhat ambiguously could have been referring [unlikely I believe] to killing all the Muslims or [more likely I believe] killing off ISIS.

      • Puddleglum 8.1.2
        3 November 2015 at 2:14 pm

        In my experience, the main difficulty is getting people on the left, right and middle to unite in opposing the terrible things that are done by ‘us’ or in which ‘we’ or our ‘allies’ are complicit.

        Horrors by official enemies tend to be universally condemned – as they should be.

        The real measure of a moral principle is whether or not it is applied to oneself (and one’s ‘friends’); not whether or not it is applied to one’s enemies.

  9. infused 9
    3 November 2015 at 11:36 am

    Google pays poorly for ads. Its just a ploy for more donations.

    • mickysavage 9.1
      3 November 2015 at 7:10 pm

      You might be right. He still has advertising floating on his posts.

      The Fox Newz of Aotearoa. Trouble is he would think this is a compliment.

      • Pascals bookie 9.1.1
        3 November 2015 at 7:15 pm

        Yeah, there’s no actual evidence google shut his ads down. They disappeared from that one post but were still appearing on others.

        In comments in the bleg post pete started talking about how google’s algorithms had found something they objected to. So the stuff about complaints was probably bullshit too.

        • mickysavage 9.1.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 7:36 pm

          Oh dear I have probably contributed to his financial enrichment by this post. It is sad the way the capitalist system works.

          • Pascals bookie 9.1.1.1.1
            3 November 2015 at 8:28 pm

            ‘Look is everyone who came to the party gives just $5 we can, no wait, it’ll have to be a lot more the $5 but the point stands guys, dig deeeeeep’

  10. Vaughan Little 10
    3 November 2015 at 11:38 am

    isis is,not new zealand’s fight though. creating an economy that affords young men a shot at a dignified life is new zealand’s fight. isis is largely a bunch of lost souls with machine guns.

    how many times have people gone to war for enlightenment beliefs? they were the pretext on which the jardines pr machine pulled Britain into the first opium war… as much as you can’t wage war against an abstract noun, neither can you wage war for one.

  11. Bea Brown 11
    3 November 2015 at 11:44 am

    Do we rejoice when views we disagree with are silenced?

  12. Bea Brown 12
    3 November 2015 at 12:15 pm

    First they came for Whaleoil…

    • McFlock 12.1
      3 November 2015 at 1:12 pm

      First they made advertisers aware of the nature of the material the advertisers were associating themselves with, and the advertiser decided that they did not wish to be associated with that sort of thing

      Fixed it for you.

      Nobody has silenced slater yet, other bigots are welcome to fund his hate speech. Up to the point, of course, where that hate speech is illegal because it incites violence against other people, of course, but he wouldn’t be the “first” one to be sanctioned for that, anyway.

  13. Bea Brown 13
    3 November 2015 at 12:18 pm

    Gosh you do love jumping to the wrong conclusions.
    Just because I think people have the right to express their opinions and we have the right to read and think about diverse opinions doesn’t mean I agree with them.

    [How about you learn about nestled comments – MS]

    • tracey 13.1
      3 November 2015 at 12:37 pm

      It’s so hard to know what you think, other than poor Mr Whaleoil is being unfairly treated.i

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2
      3 November 2015 at 12:44 pm

      Who has been silenced? Stop lying.

      • Puckish Rogue 13.2.1
        3 November 2015 at 12:52 pm

        No but its the attempted sliencing by removing the funds via advertsing thats galling

        Its like the left in NZ support free speech unless its something the left disagree and then it must be silenced

        • tracey 13.2.1.1
          3 November 2015 at 1:02 pm

          Firstly, when he signed the agreement with Google he agreed to certain terms and conditions. Secondly, not being able to direct his readers to Google Ads DOES NOT impact his ability to speak freely or to blog post.

          Please list 5 people/organisations that have been silence “by the left” in the last 5 years?

          The irony of Slater whining abou tbeing silences when he has colluded with others to bully people into silence

        • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.1.2
          3 November 2015 at 1:04 pm

          That’s a price signal: the market for hate speech simply isn’t big enough.

          Poor Cameron might have to exercise his freedom of expression without being paid by Google Ads.

          If the only way you can support him is lying about it, I’d say he needs better shills.

        • McFlock 13.2.1.3
          3 November 2015 at 1:18 pm

          So “removing some paid advertising” equals “silencing”?

          So how many paid ads were required for you to be able make that false equivalence on this particular blogsite? 😛

          • Puckish Rogue 13.2.1.3.1
            3 November 2015 at 2:26 pm

            He gets attacked economically in the hopes he’ll stop posting, I thought that was rather obvious

            • One Anonymous Bloke 13.2.1.3.1.1
              3 November 2015 at 2:33 pm

              😆

              He shits in his own advertising revenue nest then acts all hurt when the inevitable capital flight occurs. Surely there’s a hate-group out there he can get money from. What about the National Party?

            • McFlock 13.2.1.3.1.2
              3 November 2015 at 2:44 pm

              How many paid advertisements are there on this website? Doesn’t seem to stop anybody writing posts or comments here.

              I’m not sure anybody really has hope that Slater will stop posting. But if he wants commercial funding, maybe he can pass a hat around bigots and sociopaths to spout more shit they agree with… although I suspect he already does that, anyway.

        • Wainwright 13.2.1.4
          3 November 2015 at 1:20 pm

          How is it attempted silencing? He can go get a real job like pretty much every other blogger.

        • Sacha 13.2.1.5
          3 November 2015 at 1:27 pm

          How is Google’s decision to stop serving adverts on a website that seems to contravene their legally enforceable terms and conditions ‘silencing speech’?

          Slater can still go down to his local and moan into his beer the same as before. Nobody is entitled to a megaphone. Obligations come with publishing in any medium. You don’t meet them, there may be consequences.

  14. Richard@Down South 14
    3 November 2015 at 12:38 pm

    To: Cameron Slater… My bad 😀

  15. NZJester 15
    3 November 2015 at 1:03 pm

    So my understanding from reading a number of the messages above is that Slater has since edited the offending text of his original anti Muslim post and changed its meaning entirely. Those advocating for Slater are talking about how he was advocating killing ISIS and not Muslims.
    It seams to be standard practice for Slater that when ever he gets caught in a big web of controversy he changes posts or deletes them and then starts claiming that people are miss quoting him. He seams to love to rewrite his own history of lies online and try and make himself look like a victim in these situations.
    If you made a mistake in you original post you do not secretly edit it and claim to be a victim. You leave text there but strike it out by putting a line through it and then put the clearly marked edits after it. You also put in an explanation that the original text was not your intended meaning and that the edits are there to state your original intended meaning.
    While Slater has the right to his opinion he has no right to secretly change his posts original form and claim people are miss quoting him.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1
      3 November 2015 at 1:06 pm

      Of course he has the right to do that, just as you or I have the right to expose his dishonesty.

    • weka 15.2
      3 November 2015 at 1:17 pm

      Exactly Jester. He could also apologies to his readers for the unclarity (not going to suggest that he apologise to Mulsims for appearing to incite race hatred because that would make him a hypocrite).

    • Et Tu Brute 15.3
      3 November 2015 at 1:27 pm

      I think he has clarified the earlier post but I don’t think it has essentially changed the meaning. I’ve read both.

      • weka 15.3.1
        3 November 2015 at 1:36 pm

        Yet for many people the change is significant. I think you missed Jester’s point. If you publish something that causes many people to think x, then when you change it, you should make the changes visible, not invisible. Unless you simply want to pretend you didn’t say it in the first place.

  16. tinfoilhat 16
    3 November 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Still can’t figure out why anyone takes notice of this fellow.

  17. IsraelOil 17
    3 November 2015 at 1:13 pm

    If it hasn’t become obvious to anyone i shall point it out.

    imo IsraelOil, or WhaleOil is an Israeli propaganda machine. Which on 1 hand will point out palestinian crimes and Islamic extremists, yet fail to mention Jewish extremists burning alive an 18 month old baby, or shooting and beating to death an innocent Eritrean black man.

    They get their sourced information from a website called Shalom.kiwi, now who owns this website,well they have gone to extraordinary lengths to hide this via private domain registration. They also run an Anti-Islam facebook page called ‘Feminists against Islam’ another tool used to propaganda fear of Islam.

    They talk of freedom of speech, yet any disagreement against them on their website will result in a Disqus ban, their core group of followers believe everything IsraelOil tells them, and to question them results in a barrage of name calling and abuse, i have seen comments like “Wipe Iran off the map”.. to think the killing of 70 million people in Iran means nothing to them because they are ‘Muslim’ is frightening in its self, but this is the level of Islamaphobia it has got to over there.

    Just for the record i am not muslim just a plain old European New Zealander who doesn’t buy into terrorist fear based from a shady group called ISIS who kills more muslims than anyone else on the planet.

    [Ever so slightly edited to keep comment on the right side of an opinion being expressed] – Bill

    • One Two 17.1
      3 November 2015 at 1:44 pm

      The network is a globally applied cookie cutter using locally sourced agents

      That slater junior has family ties should be the only link required to understand why he became the local franchisee

  18. mary_a 18
    3 November 2015 at 1:56 pm

    Has Cameron Slater met Sonny Bill Williams? Perhaps if he did, he might learn something about humility, decency and kindness. In other words, what a good person is all about! Attributes the greasy whale is without.

    And oh yes, Williams is a Muslim!

  19. Et Tu Brute 19
    3 November 2015 at 5:06 pm

    Looks like Google has sorted it out and restored the ads.

  20. Vaughan Little 20
    3 November 2015 at 6:30 pm

    I can’t access the original post. based purely on what’s been said above, it does appear that tiso is putting some spin on the ball by ascribing to slater a lucidity and directionality that it’s evident he isn’t capable of. it’s both commonplace and unfortunate for people to take the worst possible interpretation of others’ words and actions.

    it reminds me of the cynical shitstorm that some leftist commenators were promoting over Labour’s identification of China being a major source of hot money inflows into nz. you demonize a guy, pretending to be behaving in the interests of his putative target minority. but really you don’t give a shit about them, as evidenced by your never having learned their language or culture. but unfortunately some of them overhear you and take what you’re saying at face value. so we may be having some muslims in nz believing there’s a blogger who’s calling for their deaths, when what tiso and others aren’t letting on is that this is clearly a guy whose ability to communicate coherently is tenuous. while it’s likely that tiso’s sensationalist spin will find some play in offshore headlines, it is less likely that this news will be tempered by what is common knowledge in nz: Cameron Slater has a poor reputation here because of his awful character and weak intellect.

    this is invidious, and quite dangerous.

  21. Chris 21
    4 November 2015 at 12:42 pm

    In other words Slater’s saying that he wants to land a blow for justice and the freedom of expression by preventing American Corporations from deciding not to give money to people who advocate for the mass murder of others who hold a certain religious belief? I’d have thought Slater would’ve been all for anyone to choose themselves what they do with their money.

  22. JonL 22
    4 November 2015 at 5:38 pm

    Cameron who?

  23. travellerev 23
    5 November 2015 at 5:31 pm

    Why is anyone surprised by this. Both David Farrar and Cameron Slater have financial and ideological connections with the Likud party, young Likud and Israel. Cameron was paid by Likud to come stay in Israel during the Dirty politics period and the Zionist Federation of New Zealand has had contact with John Key before his first election. New Zealands disgusting Zionist UN diplomacy was run by Netanyahu to make sure Likud and the anti Palestine lobby felt suitably supported.

    By the way Turnbull Australia’s bankster and unelected prime Minister was also thoroughly vetted by the local Zionists and like John Key is closely followed by them. Here he is kowtowing to the Israel lobby!