Where are Hide & Key on Garrett comments?

Written By: - Date published: 2:28 pm, March 4th, 2010 - 99 comments
Categories: act, crime, maori party, national, rodney hide - Tags:

Colin Espiner reports that Rodney Hide has gone into his shell as outrage over David Garrett’s appalling sterilisation comments builds.

Since Irish broke the story of Garrett’s comments yesterday, it has spread like wildfire through the blogosphere and the msm. And nowhere will you find a reaction from anyone in ACT or from their coalition partners.

Hide needs to state his party’s position once and for all. Is Garrett the true face of ACT? If not, he needs to go. If Garrett’s statements do reflect party policy I can only hope this is the final nail in ACT’s coffin. It has already strayed so far from its origins as “The Liberal Party” that it is unrecognisable.

What does the Prime Minister think about his government being propped up by a man who thinks it’s a good idea to bribe the poor to get sterilised?

What do Hone Harawira and the other Maori Party MPs think about being in a coalition with a man who is essentially saying it’s better if the poor and the brown don’t breed?

[Image from Wikimedia, via No Right Turn]

99 comments on “Where are Hide & Key on Garrett comments? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    4 March 2010 at 2:33 pm

    Interesting point…. Garrett must be a liability bearing in mind his previous escapades. I wonder what they’re going to say. Doesn’t look like it will just disappear

    • Graeme Edgeler 1.1
      4 March 2010 at 2:38 pm

      Well, Garrett has said he wouldn’t support a sterilisation bill, so I’m not sure where the story is going to go from here.

      • kaplan 1.1.1
        4 March 2010 at 3:09 pm

        Yesterday he said it needs discussion. Today he say’s he wouldn’t support it into law.
        Does he still think it needs discussion?
        If he thinks it needs discussion is he willing to unequivocally state his position?
        If he he see’s it as a viable option, as seems obvious, then why would he not support it into law?

  2. toad 2
    4 March 2010 at 2:38 pm

    …appealling sterilisation comments…

    I presume you meant “appalling” Marty.

  3. SPC 3
    4 March 2010 at 2:53 pm

    So if Garrett won’t support a bill, just what sort of legislation were his comments in support of?

    Some sort of more moderate coalition government policy on welfare reform in conjunction with whanau ora?

  4. artist not on the dole 4
    4 March 2010 at 3:06 pm

    your graphic is pretty but it is making me angry
    and i am getting angrier the longer i stare at it
    simply because it perfectly illustrates a flawed way of thinking shared by increasingly large numbers of our population.

    I refer to the mind-numbing misbelief that the more wealth or power that you have then you must be a more superior person and thusly have more rights than others

    and no there is no solution other than the few taking less
    so the many can have more

    • grumpy 4.1
      4 March 2010 at 3:11 pm

      I know what you mean, I looked at it too and just got a headache.

      I am sure there are some “rich” criminals also (like former finance company directors etc).

      • Tigger 4.1.1
        4 March 2010 at 4:57 pm

        I just love the assumption it makes that you can’t be both a ‘criminal’ or ‘undesirable’ and an ‘independent professional’ or ‘large employer’. When of course you can.

    • felix 4.2
      4 March 2010 at 4:13 pm

      artist not on the dole:
      I’m enjoying reading your contributions to the threads lately, but is there some reason you keep changing your name? I can count at least 5 different ones in the last couple of days.

    • Rex Widerstrom 4.3
      4 March 2010 at 4:43 pm

      It’s leaving me puzzled. I’m an “independent professional” but I’m also somewhere between “lowly paid” and “paupersim”. And I’m frequently told I’m “undesirable” in all sorts of contexts.

      • Lew 4.3.1
        4 March 2010 at 4:48 pm

        I hope you don’t have children, then. Imagine how they’d turn out! They wouldn’t know if they were underclass or Ãœbermensch ; )

        L

        • Rex Widerstrom 4.3.1.1
          4 March 2010 at 5:00 pm

          I just tell my boys, “Son, no matter how far you slide down the greasy pole, you’ll always have David Garrett and Michael Laws to look down on”.

          😀

  5. gobsmacked 5
    4 March 2010 at 3:10 pm

    I’m sure Key would like to comment out loud, but then he would have to say “sterilisation”. God knows how that would come out – “stereo session? stir an alsatian?”

  6. tc 6
    4 March 2010 at 3:21 pm

    The MSM will not pursue either and Wodney’s as much a leader to ACT as Key is over his mob….they do as they please knowing the leaders a figurehead with no real authority.

    I expect JK to be relaxed and Wodney to wax lyrically about democracy/freedom of speech/tar tar the otter and anything else to fill the space so the MSM have their piece of vision to complete another ‘news’ item.

  7. coolas 7
    4 March 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Colin Espiner’s opinion reads like an apology to me. I though he’d condemn this merchant of hate outright.

    Like the death penalty, ‘eugenic’ sterilization shouldn’t even be up for discussion. Garret has every right to express his views; abhorant as they are to me. But naming Chris Kahui & Macsyna King as candidates for sterilization is outrageous. He should be sacked. It’s a far worse offense than Worth’s sad antics, or Heatly’s mis-management.

    Surely there’s law in place to protect King & Kahui, and all citizens, from being singled out and abused by MP’s in this way, whatever their backgrounds might be.

    • grumpy 7.1
      4 March 2010 at 3:37 pm

      I find your concern for Kahui and King repugnant. As for asking if …”there’s a law to protect King and Kahui….”, – there is and that is the reason they are still free to walk around …..and breed.

  8. Idiot/Savant 8
    4 March 2010 at 3:54 pm

    [Image hat tip: No Right Turn]

    Its not my work, so please don’t credit me for it. As I explained clearly when I used it, its from Wikimedia Commons.

    [Yeah, the hat tip was meant to indicate that you posted the image up first, and we nicked the idea off your site. Will amend to make that clear.]

  9. Lanthanide 9
    4 March 2010 at 3:56 pm

    “a man who thinks it’s a good idea to bribe the poor to get sterilised?”

    Sorry, no, he is not “bribing the poor to get sterilised”.

    He is bribing the poor to beat their kids up, possibly kill them, so that they are eligible for a sterilisation.

    I wish you would stop mis-representing his comments: he is not talking about poor people, he is talking about child abusers.

    Yes child abuse happens more amongst poorer families, and yes given two child abusers, a poor and a rich one, the poor one would be more likely to volunteer for sterilisation in return for $5,000 than the rich one. While these may be true, that is not what he said, or indeed even hinted at with his comments.

    • felix 9.1
      4 March 2010 at 4:25 pm

      I have an idea which may help to assuage the fears of many that Garrett and ACT just want to target the poor with their “newgenics” ideas.

      All he needs to do to put people’s minds at rest is offer to index the cash offer to the person’s wealth, i.e. the richer you are, the more we pay you not to breed. This could be calculated as a proportion of your net assets or alternatively as something like 10 x your weekly income.

      This may shock and offend some but it would let people know for certain that Garrett and ACT are indeed wanting this idea to apply equally to people of all income levels.

      • Lanthanide 9.1.1
        4 March 2010 at 5:13 pm

        True. But then for people like Paul Renolds it would be a no-brainer investment. He can easily afford to store up a whole bunch of sperm at a bank if he wanted, and still come out $$$ ahead.

        captcha: logics

        • felix 9.1.1.1
          4 March 2010 at 6:00 pm

          Accepting a few bludgers like Reynolds is the price we pay for a civilised society.

          Also remember that if it were indexed against income, anyone substantially minimising their income to pay less tax would have an incentive not to participate. That rules out a fairly large proportion of the wealthy elite, eh?

  10. Idiot/Savant 10
    4 March 2010 at 3:58 pm

    [ACT] has already strayed so far from its origins as “The Liberal Party’ that it is unrecognisable.

    Yeah, right.

    • Quoth the Raven 10.1
      4 March 2010 at 4:16 pm

      I/S – See – Social Evolution vs. “Social Darwinism” or Herbert Spencer:
      The Defamation Continues

      “Social Darwinism” is a term that is generally used to refer to a viewpoint arising in the 19th century that characterizes social relations in terms of a hobbesian struggle, a negative sense of “competition” in which the “the strong” overpower “the weak”, combined with a prescriptive stance in favor of letting “the weak” die off in the name of fostering a superior gene pool. Sprinkle this with Malthus’s theories of population and a rather vulgar creed can be formed. No doubt, positions along these lines did arise and influence racialist and eugenics movements. However, mainstream discourse on such matters often tends to conflate this with social evolutionary theory in general and mischaracterize figures such as Herbert Spencer as having a more vulgar view than is actually the case.

      …

      When I think of social evolutionary theories, the first two names that pop into my mind are Herbert Spencer and Peter Kropotkin. Despite the ill reputation that Spencer has been given as a “social darwinist”, he was a Lamarkian who theorized about evolution prior to Darwin and who thought of social evolution as moving in the direction of more cooperation and “beneficience”. He was a radical classical liberal that was explicitly opposed to militaristic, violent, or conflictual tendencies. Those who characterize him as a “social darwinist” either misunderstand him or simply never read his work. Kropotkin was the father of anarcho-communism, who explicitly had the purpose of highlighting tendencies towards cooperation and empathy in both human and non-human life. While he certainly can be interpreted as a Rousseauan that romantisized “primitive” and medieval societies, the entire thrust of his work “Mutual Aid” is as a counter-balance to those very views that are commonly characterized as “social darwinism”.

      • Quoth the Raven 10.1.1
        4 March 2010 at 8:49 pm

        Reading that second essay again is rather an eye-opener. Idiot/savant must belong to the same school as Black. That is a lazy intellectual not taking even the slightest bit of time to investigate an issue just relying on some overview on wikipedia (which even itself points out the fallaciousness of such beliefs) with which he uses to attack his opponents.

        So, yeah wrong I/S.

  11. mcflock 11
    4 March 2010 at 4:08 pm

    “Garrett has said he wouldn’t support a sterilisation bill,”
    Would that be for the public repeal of an individual’s private member bill?

    Sorry, I shouldn’t actually joke about it – for the simple reason that there is a chunk of the population that can’t see anything wrong with it. Some of them don’t see linking sterilisation (or contraception) to income as being duress (the same folk who think that an individual worker and their employer can negotiate conditions on an equal footing), while others seem to like the fact that such a policy will completely unintentionally (ho ho ho) be concentrated on cultural minority populations and an economic majority population: the poor.

    When I was a teenager I thought people joined ACT because they were very ignorant or just plain malevolent. In my twenties I recognised that there were different perspectives on many issues and many opinions different to mine were held by intelligent, well-intentioned individuals.
    These days I still hold to the latter belief, with the postscript “except in the case of most ACT bastards who are usually mad, bad or just plain stupid”.

    • Rex Widerstrom 11.1
      4 March 2010 at 4:56 pm

      mcflock, there’s many an ACToid who’s come out and said publicly that Garrett doesn’t “fit” and that they’re ashamed to be yoked to him. I’ve spent a bit of time talking to Rodney Hide, and before him Richard Prebble, Ken Shirley and other less well known but still influential party members.

      I may be an incredibly bad judge of character but I cannot imagine anyone who matters* in ACT harbouring the same thoughts as Garrett let alone being dumb enough to voice them.

      ACT sold it’s soul to the SST and, I believe, is now trying to do a version of “lalalala nothing to do with us, look over there lalalala” every time this vicious troglodyte opens his mouth.

      They felt they needed SST support to get into Parliament and Garrett was the price of that support. No doubt they’re hoping that their performance as a coalition partner will gain them enough backing from a wider public that they can jettison Garrett and the SST next time round.

      In short, ACT is in the same position as the bloke who’s drunkenly brought the ugly, foul mouthed scrubber home from the club and is faced the next morning with explaining to his flatmates what the hell she’s doing in his bed. There’s really no excuse, so all you can do is close the bedroom door and hope she’s gone by lunchtime.

      * every party has it’s crackpots who’ve paid a couple of dollars for a membership card and then reveals they believe something insane. But parties – often with great difficulty – find ways to divert their energies into “fighting for the cause” by putting up corflute signs and letting them make mind-numbing speeches at branch meetings.

      • Lew 11.1.1
        4 March 2010 at 5:03 pm

        There’s no credible argument that the party didn’t know what it was in for with Garrett, though. his views are well-documented, and when they were polling like they’d get seven MPs prior to the election, they kept number five on the list a secret as long as they really could. Snuck him in under a raincoat, you might say.

        L

        • Rex Widerstrom 11.1.1.1
          4 March 2010 at 5:11 pm

          Were his views well documented prior to the last election? (other than after he was announced as a candidate, when it would have been incredibly electorally damaging to have dropped him). I honesly don’t know… I read a lot on criminal justice issues and I’d never heard of him till he was picked up by ACT. After all, if there’s a victim’s grief to be sucked dry for publicity, you don’t stand in the way of McVictim.

          You’re technically right about the indications they’d get seven MPs Lew, but I’ve seen that weird phenomenon where politcians’ backbones go to water even with good polls.

          In 1993 NZ First was polling almost 30%, higher than Labour. Sure we were never going to maintain that on polling day but we were certainly going to get well over 5%. We could simply have sailed on as we were.

          But for reasons I still don’t understand, Winston went to jelly, felt he needed Michael Laws to snatch disaster and divisiveness from the jaws of success and cohseion, and the rest, as they say, is history.

          ACT’s leadership just bottled, I think. Nothing to do with agreeing (or disagreeing) with Garrett’s ideology (if in fact, as I say above, they knew just how bad that was).

          • Lew 11.1.1.1.1
            4 March 2010 at 5:24 pm

            Rex, he was the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s lawyer.

            L

            • Rex Widerstrom 11.1.1.1.1.1
              4 March 2010 at 5:50 pm

              Yeah Lew, I realise that. But, extreme as some of the SST’s views are, Garrett’s personal views are even moreso. And he lacks the finesse *cough* even of McVictim.

              Did he have much to say as an individual prior to his candidacy, that ACT could have checked?

              I’m starting to sound horribly like an apologist for ACT. I’m not. I’d like to see them admit the association with the SST was a mistake (they don’t have to go into why they did it in the first place) and confirm Garrett will be jettisoned from the list for the next election.

              Sometimes you just have to admit you made an error of judgement. Just ask my ex’s 😀

              • Idiot/Savant …
                4 March 2010 at 5:56 pm

                Did he have much to say as an individual prior to his candidacy, that ACT could have checked?

                He wrote a book advocating the death penalty. Good enough for you?

              • felix …
                4 March 2010 at 6:07 pm

                Rex,

                Be all that as it may, Garrett is the ACT Party Law And Order Spokesperson.

                If he is allowed to remain in this role and make statements such as his recent ones then it is perfectly reasonable for any observer to take them as ACT Party Law And Order statements.

              • Rex Widerstrom …
                4 March 2010 at 6:40 pm

                Oh dead right felix, not arguing with you there. I was just wondering if they knew the the size of the dick they signed up to be rogered with.

                (Sorry, must be pun day).

                It seems from I/S’s response that they did.

                In that case I wirhdraw my earlier conditional “maybe they didn’t know” defence and ask instead who (names, not some vague answer like “a committee of senior people”) made the decision to lever him into Parliament?

                If I were an ACToid I’d be wanting those people to walk the plank right behind Garrett.

              • felix …
                4 March 2010 at 8:20 pm

                No need to apologise for such a high quality pun, Rex 🙂 I’d say if they didn’t know at the time then about now they’ll be – to paraphrase Oliver Stone’s Nixon – “discovering the exact length, width and depth of the shaft”.

                If I were an ACToid I’d be wanting those people to walk the plank right behind Garrett.

                Yep, ‘cos if he’s still there come election time some very awkward but perfectly fair questions will be asked of anyone considering giving them their vote.

        • IrishBill 11.1.1.2
          4 March 2010 at 8:37 pm

          I’d just like to point out that I was the one who announced that Garrett was the “secret” candidate: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/act%E2%80%99s-fifth-mp/

          I bet they wish he was still a secret.

      • mcflock 11.1.2
        4 March 2010 at 8:53 pm

        Most parties weed out their more spectacular crackpots, they don’t make them MPs.

        But this is of course the latest and most public piece of ACT idiocy – from it’s very inception ACT seems to has attracted utter morons. “I’ve been thinking” was bad enough, but the guy at the ACT on Campus stall trying to sell it to me was proud that it was the only book he’d read cover to cover. This was at a university. Things haven’t changed much since then.

        Frankly, in my experience grassroots ACT supporters (not that there are that many left) tend toward being idiots or greedy little buggers who think they’ll be millionaires who’ll “need” 0% tax sorry flat 10% tax sorry what is it now? The periodic idiocy and hypocrisy from their MPs (fact-finding tour, anyone?) says to me that this is a systemic factor, not a few bad apples.

        Oh, and Ayn Rand’s movies sucked, too.

  12. PK 12
    4 March 2010 at 4:16 pm

    ***What does the Prime Minister think about his government being propped up by a man who thinks it’s a good idea to bribe the poor to get sterilised?***

    Can you explain why the Child Poverty Action Group don’t support this too?

    In any case, that’s not what Garrett said is it. His proposal was for child abusers. Would this be an effective way to reduce the number of children exposed to abuse? Would it reduce the number of horrific cases CYF have to deal with?

    • A Nonny Moose 12.1
      4 March 2010 at 4:58 pm

      “In any case, that’s not what Garrett said is it. His proposal was for child abusers. ”

      As was previous pointed out – he may not have said “poor” child abusers, but his held up examples left nothing to the imagination on stereotypes, did they?

  13. randal 13
    4 March 2010 at 4:21 pm

    so will they get this”OP” for free in all the hospitals that roger douglas has privatised?

  14. the sprout 14
    4 March 2010 at 4:54 pm

    Fancy offering people looking for a vasectomy or tubal ligation $5,000 to incentivize them to abuse their kids.

    • A Nonny Moose 14.1
      4 March 2010 at 5:00 pm

      What about the Child Free? Who or what do they have to abuse to get one of these free sterilizations? The cat? 😛

      • Rex Widerstrom 14.1.1
        4 March 2010 at 5:03 pm

        The free market will provide, Moose. I’m just finishing building my roadside booth, after which I’m off to buy me some urchins. $50 an hour, no permanent damage (I can’t be bothered with the insurance), and a complete set of Polaroids of you abusing away that you can take with you to the hospital to apply for your free surgery.

  15. PK 15
    4 March 2010 at 5:36 pm

    “A Nonny Moose
    4 March 2010 at 4:58 pm
    “In any case, that’s not what Garrett said is it. His proposal was for child abusers. ‘

    As was previous pointed out he may not have said “poor’ child abusers, but his held up examples left nothing to the imagination on stereotypes, did they?”

    The example he chose was one that most people would be familiar with. And isn’t it the case that most people who throw their children around are fairly messed up and unlikely to be high earners?

  16. Rex Widerstrom 16
    4 March 2010 at 5:42 pm

    I don’t want to look as though I’m trying to monopolise debate here but these aren’t my words, they’re the words of a conservative Christian:

    6.It is grounded in hopelessness, as it rejects the possibility that a human person can choose to reject evil and find redemption by overcoming previous evil behaviors
    7.It reduces the family, and important social issues relating to family life, to little more than economic units, where success or failure is measured by financial costs and outcomes

    Well worth a read of the whole thing. [Hat tip: Jadis on Kiwiblog]

  17. PK 17
    4 March 2010 at 5:45 pm

    *** I’ve spent a bit of time talking to Rodney Hide, and before him Richard Prebble, Ken Shirley and other less well known but still influential party members.

    I may be an incredibly bad judge of character but I cannot imagine anyone who matters* in ACT harbouring the same thoughts as Garrett let alone being dumb enough to voice them.***

    I think that ‘right thinking individuals’ are programmed to reflexively reject these ideas. To express them is to reveal ‘low status’ or ‘prole’ attitudes that are out of step with more ‘enlightened’ views. Unfortunately, this means that intelligent people can avoid thinking about these ideas completely. Meanwhile child abuse continues unabated.

  18. Idiot/Savant 18
    4 March 2010 at 5:57 pm

    Hide speaks:

    But Garrett has received a dressing down from his leader.

    Rodney Hide says his MP’s online comments about paying unfit or abusive parents to undergo sterilisation have not helped the party. He says he has explained to Garret that when you are an MP you don’t have personal opinions because when you speak publicly it is on behalf the party.

    Hide does not support Garrett’s ideas and says they are not Act Party policy.

    • toad 18.1
      4 March 2010 at 6:31 pm

      Yep, I/S, it is Parliamentary recess so Garrett doesn’t have to front in the House, so I suspect Hide cut his some slack for the recess – which has come back to haunt Hide.

      I suspect Garrett just fell off the wagon (albeit at at 11.52 am).

      Lhaws is more of a worry – I suspect he made his comments totally sober.

      They should get a room and form a party – maybe they could call it the British National Party (NZ).

      • Graeme Edgeler 18.1.1
        4 March 2010 at 9:30 pm

        As a backbench MP who isn’t a member of the Executive Council, why would Garrett have to front in the House?

        • Armchair Critic 18.1.1.1
          4 March 2010 at 9:51 pm

          Because it’s part of his job as an MP?

          • Graeme Edgeler 18.1.1.1.1
            4 March 2010 at 10:04 pm

            No. His job as a non-government member is to hold the members of the government to account, not the other way ’round.

            • Armchair Critic 18.1.1.1.1.1
              5 March 2010 at 3:25 pm

              A bit of a change of terminology there, graeme.
              I expect Garrett to show up in parliament and express his views, as much as I disagree with what he says. I know he is not a member of the executive (thank goodness) and can not be held to account by the opposition.
              By airing his views I’m hoping he will be held to acccount by the electorate, and the same happens to his ACT party colleagues, by association.

    • The Voice of Reason 18.2
      4 March 2010 at 6:53 pm

      ‘Hide does not support Garrett’s ideas and says they are not Act Party policy.’

      That’s kinda admitting that people might mistake it for their policy, isn’t it? I could understand if folk (volk?) did, though. Can’t be long before he blames the jews, eh.

      David Garrett; proudly adding the Kristall to the NACT since 2008.

  19. prism 19
    4 March 2010 at 6:51 pm

    The highly emotive responses to this idea are an example of how little will be achieved in NZ if there is a need to change anything. Much stagnant opinion rises to present an impervious barrier but no unprejudiced thought about new possible ways of improving social patterns, just reaction.

  20. James Barber 20
    4 March 2010 at 7:00 pm

    Actually the Maori party is not in coalition. They have a confidence and supply agreement, the ACT Party also has a confidence and supply agreement with National.

    I’d say there’s very little connection between the Maori Party and the ACT Party. They just happen to have a deal with the current government. No-one would imply the Greens should be ashamed of their MOU with National because of either Harawira’s comments or Garrett’s.

  21. PK 21
    4 March 2010 at 7:19 pm

    ***That’s kinda admitting that people might mistake it for their policy, isn’t it? I could understand if folk (volk?) did, though. Can’t be long before he blames the jews, eh.***

    This kind of response is designed to shut down debate, not contribute to it. Also, the Nazis practised dysgenics by targeting the most intelligent group. The group average for Ashkenazi jews is about 110 – 2/3 of a standard deviation above the european mean.

    In any case, he is talking about reducing child abuse – something you seem to be trying to avoid.

    • The Voice of Reason 21.1
      4 March 2010 at 7:30 pm

      Oh, grow a brain, PK. He is not talking about reducing child abuse, he is talking about reducing children. The kids don’t get saved by this policy, they simply don’t get born.

      Still, you’re not alone in missing the point. Here’s the C slug:

      ‘This child would never have been killed because either the “par­ents’ would have been killed or sterilised.’

      He’s got mental health issues. What’s your excuse?

  22. gitmo 22
    4 March 2010 at 7:33 pm

    This thread takes it up the cak

  23. Pete G 23
    4 March 2010 at 8:20 pm

    And nowhere will you find a reaction from anyone in ACT or from their coalition partners.

    What does the Prime Minister think about his government being propped up by a man who thinks it’s a good idea to bribe the poor to get sterilised?

    Looks like Key had commented this morning…

    The idea is being rubbished by the Prime Minister.

    “It sounds like a very radical idea. It’s not on the government’s agenda, nor do I think it’s likely to work,” John Key says.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/act-mp-says-sterilise-abusive-parents-3391607

    Looks like Michael Laws has successfully passed the controversy baton to Garrett.

    • Rex Widerstrom 23.1
      4 March 2010 at 8:30 pm

      Don’t worry Pete, Laws will wrest the spotlight back any moment now. (He didn’t get that eyeliner tattooed on for nothing, ya know).

      I’m thinking of opening bets on how he’ll top it.

      I’m betting he’ll set his next rant to music. (Probably NSFW)

  24. pollywog 24
    4 March 2010 at 10:30 pm

    Yeah !… like, why is Hone Harawira and his cuzzies not, metaphorically, round these guys digs, chopping their white mofo balls off and feeding them to ’em for dinner for daring to presume to have the right of authority to discontinue maori whakapapa ?

    Tariana and Sharples must have him on a really short leash. I can just imagine him chomping at the bit…seething

    • copycat (was poxywog) 24.1
      5 March 2010 at 9:08 am

      yeah! amen to that…. Trev the Muss would be another starter – he likes a good stoush.

      Bet Aunty Phool has him on a really short leash too eh? I can just see him doing Rocky up the steps at parliament

    • Lew 24.2
      5 March 2010 at 10:07 am

      Hm. Just posted the sameish thing, PW, before I’d read this. Right on.

      L

  25. toad 25
    5 March 2010 at 8:04 am

    Ah, another recruit to Garrett’s and Lhaws’ British National Party (NZ) – Garth McVicar:

    VOLUNTARY STERILISATION GIVEN THUMBS UP

    (4th March 2010)

    David Garrett’s idea of offering $5000 for voluntary sterilisation to parents found guilty of abusing their children has won support from the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

    Trust Spokesman Garth McVicar said it is simply a fundamental fact of life that children are better off to be raised by a man and a woman who want them and can raise them in a loving non-violent relationship.

    “Our organization deals with victims of horrendous violence on a daily basis, most of these despicable crimes are being committed by dysfunctional children raised in totally dysfunctional homes by parents who never wanted the child in the first place.”

    “New Zealand has an extremely high level of domestic violence, a high violent crime rate and an ever growing prison population. Most of these offenders are coming from the source David Garrett has identified.”

    “I totally agree with the proposal, we know that 4 out of 5 children who appear before the Youth Court are reoffending, we also know that these recidivist offenders are costing this country millions.”

    “A $5000 investment early on to prevent the problem is an investment in the long term future of New Zealand . That is a sensible investment.”

    Regards,

    Garth McVicar
    National Spokesperson,
    Sensible Sentencing Trust.

    • Tigger 25.1
      5 March 2010 at 10:03 am

      So why stop with Garrett’s idea? Why not sterilise the kids at Court? Even better, why not just kill them there and then. Cycle of violence ended permanently.

  26. Bearhunter 26
    5 March 2010 at 9:38 am

    Can I just point out one small error in the original post? Irish Bill did not “break” this story. It first became public on Kiwiblog, (obviously) where Garrett posted it. The Dim-Post was the first I saw to isolate the quote and post about it, about 2 hours before IB did here. I don’t expect journalistic standards on a blog, but you could at least stop claiming the work of others as your own. Laughably, the anti-spam word is INFORMED.

    • toad 26.1
      5 March 2010 at 9:58 am

      Bearhunter, I made the same mistake elsewhere in stating IB “broke” the story, without realising it had been on the Dim-Post earlier. I don’t see anything in IB’s blog that would suggest plagiarism – most likely he and Danyl at the Dim-Post picked up Garrett’s KB comment and developed it into their respective blog posts totally independently of each other. So it is IB’s own work.

  27. Lew 27
    5 March 2010 at 10:05 am

    Bugger where Key and Hide are on Garrett — I want to know where Goff, King, Turei, Norman, Sharples and Turia are.

    L

  28. Pete G 28
    5 March 2010 at 10:10 am

    It doesn’t really matter who broke what? Michael Laws seems to have started it. Garrett may or may not have written his blog before that. Jada took it up on KB, and things developed from there, mostly adding to the story.

    Claims of “breaking stories”, “exclusive interviews” and other ways of trying to claim ownership of and credit for stories is all through the media these days. Just a sign of the times, that many messengers seem to promote their own “importance” rather than concentrate on the message.

    “Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! We are tvxxxx, my name is xxxx, my colleague’s name is yyyy, and ah, something happened somewhere.”

    • Lew 28.1
      5 March 2010 at 10:20 am

      Pete,

      It’s not exactly a new idea. The only thing that’s new about it is that this is a sitting MP, the law and order spoksperson for a governmental party, and a member of the Law and Order select committee expressing these views. That’s the only thing which makes it newsworthy. And, goodness, is it newsworthy.

      L

  29. PK 29
    5 March 2010 at 4:38 pm

    “5 March 2010 at 10:35 am

    Lew, I suspect they probably all decided Garrett’s comments were so outrageous that they did not want to dignify them with a public response.”

    It’s not outrageous at all, it’s not even compulsory. Margaret Sanger, socialist, feminist and founder of Planned Parenting:

    “It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.”

    • felix 29.1
      5 March 2010 at 5:17 pm

      I’m going to take a wild stab at this and wager that she’s talking about contraception and education, and NOT sterilisation.

      And I’ll also wager that you know this, and that’s why you didn’t provide a link.

      Could you please provide a reference or link for that quote so we can find out?

      • The Voice of Reason 29.1.1
        5 March 2010 at 7:23 pm

        Good call, Felix. PKKK (excuse my stutter) will be struggling to provide a link because the quote is only attributed to her, not a direct quote from her work. Sanger was and is an inspiration to feminists and family planners. She was working in the twenties and thirties to give women control over reproduction by the use of contraception. She did have some weird ideas on eugenics, for a while, but was horrified by what the National Socialists did when they had the power to play God and actually put it into practice.

        She was pretty prescient though. Here’s an actual quote from then that could so so easily be a reference to Garrett and his dim witted apologist PK:

        “The grosser, the more obvious, the undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged, but prevented, from propagating their kind.”

        • Mac1 29.1.1.1
          5 March 2010 at 8:01 pm

          Excuse the stutter? Rather, I’d encourage it. Beautiful work, only surpassed by your Krystal NACT reference in another thread.

          Genius, pure comedic genius.

      • BLiP 29.1.2
        5 March 2010 at 7:44 pm

        As is often the case with the right, it is a quote taken out of context and twisted so as to suit their own twisted agenda. So far as the moron above is concerned, his quote probably came from the sewer and, in turn, probably came from Wikipedia. What is conveniently missing is that section in Wikipedia which states:

        Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent “dysgenic” children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and dismissed “positive eugenics” (which promoted greater fertility for the “fitter” upper classes) as impractical. Though many leaders in the negative eugenics movement were calling for active euthanasia of the “unfit,” Sanger spoke out against such methods. She believed that women with the power and knowledge of birth control were in the best position to produce “fit” children. She rejected any type of eugenics that would take control out of the hands of those actually giving birth. . . . snip . . . Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment; she wrote:

        So, in fact, Sanger was talking about contraception and not the state sanctioned sterilisation of the poor.

    • Lew 29.2
      5 March 2010 at 5:18 pm

      PK,

      Stop bringing them into being by non-permanent, non-coercive means. As I’ve said before, there are two factors: one is whether you trust the proposal as stated; the other is whether you trust the proposer to implement it as stated. In Garrett’s case, I trust neither.

      I’ve explained how this thing, as proposed, is coercive; I’ve explained how it’s selective and exploitative. If you want to defend eugenics, go right ahead — but don’t pretend that’s not what it is.

      L

    • felix 29.3
      5 March 2010 at 7:23 pm

      Still waiting, PK.

      Look in your internet history around 4:38 today, find the page you copied and pasted the quote from, and paste the address here so we can all see what she said and in what context.

      You don’t need to learn how to link or anything, just paste the URL.

      Whenever you’re ready.

  30. pollywog 30
    5 March 2010 at 5:01 pm

    “Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.”

    Let’s sterilise most of Africa then eh ? How about sterilising the greedy instead because they’re the root of all evil ?

  31. gitmo 31
    5 March 2010 at 9:23 pm

    Ye Gods the circle jerkery has reached epidemic proportions.

    • The Voice of Reason 31.1
      5 March 2010 at 9:42 pm

      It’s worse than you think, Gitmo. Even Whale is a fan.

      Me, yesterday: “He’s got mental health issues. What’s your excuse?”

      CSlug today: “At least I have an excuse for my behav­iour, what’s yours?”

  32. Mac1 32
    5 March 2010 at 9:48 pm

    “Circle jerkery?” “Epidemic proportions?”
    Has the assonance and alliteration of the beginnings of poetry and wit, though clumsy and trite, with the usual massed masturbatory humour of the juvenile Right.

    “Krystal NACT”, however, has pointed and poignant historical reference, punchy appositeness and topicality.

    Yep, the Left has the best songs and the best puns.