Contrasting reactions to Campbell Live on GCSB

Last night Campbell Live re-ran an examination of John Key, the GCSB, US intelligence, Ian Fletcher. More revelations were claimed.

Key’s meeting with GCSB boss revealed

On December 16, 2011, the GCSB began its illegal surveillance of Kim Dotcom.

Neither the Prime Minister, nor the incoming GCSB head Ian Fletcher, were told about it.

But tonight Campbell Live can reveal that Mr Fletcher had taken leave from his job in Queensland, Australia, to be in Wellington that week, and that he and the Prime Minister met the GCSB that same week.

Mr Key and Mr Fletcher had a secret meeting that has never previously been revealed, despite all the requests for details of when the pair had met during the year of Mr Fletcher’s somewhat controversial appointment to the job.

Reaction on Twitter was very mixed (mostly along partisan lines) but the impression I got is that much of what was shown was a repeat of what had already been aired, with the addition of a little more information. Not a smoking gun, and a lot of coincidental meetings and events rather than solid evidence.

Blog reaction was also very mixed, also along partisan lines in both posts and comments.

Martyn Bradbury at The Daily Blog: Campbell Live Review: Extraordinary new GCSB revelations

What’s the difference between John Key and a Predator Drone? Trick question, there is no difference, both are controlled by Washington. Last nights astonishing revelations on Campbell Live prove how true that joke really is.

This country owe John Campbell and the Campbell Live team a standing ovation for the courage they have shown in pursuing this story. This is true journalism at its finest, not the National Party broadcast that is Seven Sharp. John and Campbell Live are revealing the true story of Power that John Key is desperate to hide.

There was once a time NZ would stand as one in disgust at this spineless subservience to America, we need to remind ourselves that we are not Obama’s South Pacific golf caddy and need that reminder this election.

Karol at The Standard: Campbell Live: Fletcher, Key, Clapper et al

Campbell Live is in the middle of showing a special on the GCSB. It is presenting information never before made public. It includes the US head of intelligence coming to NZ just before Key set up Ian Fletcher for the head of GCSB job.

Campbell is showing has shown how there was a major shift going on in NZ and 5 Eyes’ approach to intelligence.

3 News obviously think it’s pretty important.

Commenters thought it was pretty important too.

In contrast David Farrar at Kiwiblog: The Campbell Live Dotcom conspiracy episode

You have to all go and watch Campbell Live tonight and try and stop laughing.

It’s classic conspiracy theory stuff. You especially have to like the spooky sinister music they played. They say they’ve been working on the story for three years. Seriously? They even make it sounds sinister that a civilian instead of military was made GCSB Head and an outsider was made MFAT Head. Yes Allan and Fletcher were both plants by John Key, so that they could all conspire with the US to spy on Kim Dotcom!!

Also part of the conspiracy is that Fletcher had worked for the UK Government (also in Five Eyes) in the Intellectual Property Office (which ties in to Dotcom!).

This is the funniest episode ever. Please please watch it, so you can laugh.

Comments are more open and varied than the Daily Blog and Standard which have more restrictive moderation.

Campbell Live’s timeline:

March 8th 2011 – Jerry Mateparae is stepped down as head of the GCSB.

March 15th 2011 – Top NSA spook, James Clapper, flies to NZ to meet with Key to discuss ‘synchronicity’ between the NSA and GCSB.

June 17th 2011 – Key meets with Ian Fletcher for breakfast at Stamford Plaza.

July 22nd 2011 – Key is invited to Washington as pay back for this new ‘synchronicity’.

July 26th 2011 – Key side steps normal protocols and appoints his old school friend Ian Fletcher to take over at the GCSB.

December 8th 2011 – A letter states that Key is going to meet Ian Fletcher on 12th December

December 12th 2011 – Key meets with Ian Fletcher.

December 14th 2011 – The Police boss responsible for spying on Dotcom meets John Key with other intelligence agencies present.

December 16th 2011 – Kim Dotcom starts to be illegally spied upon.

January 2012 – Raid on Kim Dotcom.

UPDATE: A more measured post from Russell Brown at Public Address: Circumstance and coincidence

…certainly, the report was principally a re-stating of previously-aired facts. But its new claims were not immaterial.

It also seems unusual that the Prime Minister, the minister responsible for the GCSB, would not even have known who Dotcom was until January 19, the day before the raid on the Dotcom mansion. But no one can prove otherwise. There is only circumstance and coincidence.

There are misleading statements, unfortunate failures of memory, and the fact that almost everything we know about the whole mess has had to be dug out by journalists. Campbell Live may turn out to have grossly over-reached, as its critics insist. But there seems every reason to keep digging.

Congratulations to The Daily Blog

The Daily Blog congratulate themselves – Happy 1st Birthday The Daily Blog - and congratulations from me too for a successful launch into the political blogosphere.

With a long line-up of left leaning authors The Daily Blog can be a useful source of views, and found (or made) a sizeable gap in the New Zealand political discourse.

TDB has chosen to promote as many controlled messages as possible and open debate is limited due to their heave moderation (selection of what comments are published). That’s not how I like to see things done but it’s their blog, their choice.

And their approach to politics is quite different too. The close their celebratory post with:

Our goal here is to change the Government and have the issues of social and economic justice addressed. We look forward to the election and the debate.

So TDB is openly a very left leaning activist site on a mission to change the government.

In contrast my main mission is quite different, to promote more honesty, transparency and better behaviour in politics right across the spectrum.

Each to their own. But congratulations again to The Daily Blog for achieving one of their goals, to become established as a significant voice of the political left.

UPDATE: I submitted a short comment congratulating TDB on their birthday post:

Congratulations on a successful first year. TDB is a useful insight into many opinions on the political left.

After about an hour in moderation (an impediment to thread discussions) my comment disappeared into the TDB trash.

UPDATE: Oddly it has now appeared.

Some on the left have their eyes open

Some prominent players on the left have rushed into supporting and promoting Kim Dotcom’s political toying.

Others have their eyes open. A commenter (a different Peter) on Christ Trotter’s very enthusiastic  Showtime! Thinking About Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party  makes a point about some of the realities.

Why would any intelligent and self-respecting left wing activist join a political venture with this obese poser, with his net worth of $200million gained from dubious sources, his outrageously ostentatious lifestyle including palatial property complete with pet giraffes, the pink Cadillacs, Lamborghinis etc and for when he’s really in a hurry the helicopter (which is also handy when he blows half a million on a fireworks display), and his convictions back home for 11 counts of computer fraud, 10 counts of data espionage, insider trading and embezzlement among other offences, and whose first political action in this country was to donate $50,000 to John Banks???

(I don’t lay any claim to the accuracy of those allegations).

A number on the left are looking aghast at the rush to sell political souls to the Dotcom devil.

Pagani on abuse on the left

Josie Pagani has posted on an elephant in the leftie room -

It’s time for the tolerant, open and compassionate left to stand up to vilification and abuse when it is practised by sections of the left.

The left should not be defined by political aggression, intolerance and bullying; it should be defined by decency, inclusion, ideas and respect for people.

Unless abuse is confronted it begins to define others on the left.

Political aggression, intolerance and bullying are certainly defining factors in New Zealand’s prominent leftie blogosphere.

I agree that “the left” should stand up to abuse. It’s sad (and counter-productive to their causses) that the two major leftish blogs actively support cultures of abuse – with Martin Bradbury and Lynn Prentice leading it by example.

Both have been even more abusive than usual over the past week. See:

Bradbury:

Prentice:

Fortunately they don’t represent the whole of the left. By design, by abuse, by censorship and by banning (commonly practised by both The Daily Blog and The Standard) they narrow their demographic mostly to the bitter and nasty activist left of the left.

Unfortunately they are more widely seen as representing ‘the left’ (in a negative way) so they are shitting in their own nest. And it’s unlikely to change – if you try suggesting that The Standard would far better serve the left by improving behaviour lprent’s likely to ban you for trying to tell him how to run his blog. As as happened to me. And Bradbury bans and censors anyone deemed to be from the right, and anyone deemed to be a traitor of his left. That is, anyobe who disagrees with him on anything.

Josie will just get more abuse from the left for her post. As Bradbury strongly implied yesterday she’s not seen as a proper leftie by those who think that political aggression, intolerance and bullying will win the left power.

It’s not confined to the left, the same “political aggression, intolerance and bullying” are practiced often at Kiwiblog and yes, it’s mainly a male thing, one frustrated muppet has labeled me a feminist and a man-hater (again yesterday) for standing up to it.

The same aggresive abusive bullying behaviours are also often highlighted in Parliament.The quest for power seems to often bring the nasty side of people out. People who can’t win their debates any other way usually.

It’s no wonder it’s difficult to attract more talented people to stand for Parliament. And it’s no wonder most of the voting public are disillusioned and angry with politics and politicians.

If David Cunliffe is serious about picking up the votes of the 800,000 non-voters a lot of attitude and behaviour will have to demonstrably change. Starting from the top.

Bombing climate change debate

There has been a threat of more censorship at The Daily Blog. This time it may be anyone questioning a simplistic global warming mantra who is banned. It may already be happening, it’s impossible to know how much comment manipulation is going on there as it is done in secret.

This came up after Martyn Bradbury made some predictions for 2014 at The Daily Blog. One vague prediction is on climate change.

Global warming:
Despite the howling of deniers, the planet continues to warm due to human made pollution and that continues to impact on the climate. We can expect more weather extremes and more denial of the science in 2014.

He can’t be wrong about expecting more weather extremes and denials “of the science”, but there is a lot more doubt about continued warming, as pointed out by ‘Simon’:

…how you can say “the planet continues to warm” when the global temperature datasets (accepted by people on all sides of the issue) show there has been no global warming for almost the last twenty years?

Do the HadCrut4, NasaGiss and NOAA surface temperature datasets and the UAH and RSS satellite lower atmosphere observations all show global warming continuing over the last 18 years? Or do they show no global warming at all?

I think you will find that they all show no warming…

…the poles aren’t melting. The Arctic is below average, the Antarctic is well above average. There’s a ship stuck in the middle of all that extra ice now. So, when you look at total sea ice extent, not just one of them, you don’t see anything out of the ordinary.

We’ve been told for years that settled science shows that co2 is a primary climate driver, an increase of which will result in increased global temperatures (to the degree that we should be extremely concerned). Co2 has increased. Temperatures have not. It’s reasonable to ask why this is.

Bradbury responds:

What seems more farcical to me is that people expect to pump massive amounts of pollution into the atmosphere since the Industrial revolution and expect that to have no impact whatsoever on the environment. The oceans have been sucking up the heat transfer, the misinformation campaign to discredit global warming by pointing to more cold weather seems either ignorant or churlish.

Global warming will increase extreme weather events like more intense blizzards and more intense cold while also creating more intense droughts and rain, and heat etc etc.

Where we are now in terms of debate is the same place smoking and cancer was in the 1970s with the tobacco companies telling everyone ‘the science isn’t conclusive that there is a link’.

Man made pollution is causing global warming, the longer we allow deniers to muddy the science, the longer it will be before we do something about it.

There’s a big difference between misinformation – and there’s a fair bit of that – and questioning the science and questioning any claims on all sides of the arguments.

Science must be subject to continual scrutiny, especially on something as complex as climate plus all the factors associated with temperatures on Earth, the Sun being an obvious major factor.

Simon goes on:

Martyn, surely you are not suggesting that curiosity about the discrepancy between global temperatures as anticipated by the climate models, and temperatures as measured and recorded in the global temperature datasets is on the same level as some loon who claims that one localised instance of weather says anything significant about global climate? One is farcical, the other is not.

We have been told for years that if atmospheric co2 levels continue to increase, global temperatures will increase. The science on that has been “settled” for decades. And that warming was fully expected to show up in these global temperature datasets. Only, it didn’t. Suddenly there was a “pause” to explain. That’s the very reason the hypothesis you mentioned was even generated.

No matter what we eventually discover, we can say one thing. The science, up to this point, was not settled.

The science relating to our climate will never be settled.

The real world did not behave as the settled science expected.

The scepticism of people who were not convinced the real world would behave as portrayed by ‘settled science” has been entirely justified. Apparently the real world is more complex than was thought. Those who insisted the science was settled, we now know, were overly confident. I wonder if any of those who hurled insults at people, or created hate ads, have ever apologised, now that we know the scepticism was justified? Somehow I doubt it.

We may eventually find evidence that gives us confidence one of those explanatory hypotheses is correct. Or we may discover that human emissions of co2 are dwarfed by more powerful natural processes that have been warming and cooling the planet for a long time before we came on the scene. I’m not convinced that anyone has found such evidence yet.

The warming trend that has stalled for the last couple of decades might start up again, might continue to plateau, might turn into a cooling trend. No one knows with any certainty, do they? And even if it does start warming again, that in itself does not establish that our co2 emissions are such a major driver that we could arrest that warming trend by reducing them.

After all, the natural forces that produced that warming trend, well before human emissions could have any global impact, haven’t all disappeared just because we’ve turned up on the scene.

No, other natural forces remain an influence. But Bradbury maintains a simplistic view:

I disagree with most of what you have written here. We are well aware of the dynamics that heat and cool the planet, man made pollution is currently generating the present heating. Your words read like the tobacco industry double talk trying to convince us that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

It’s nonsensical likening climate science to smoking. Climate and everything that’s associated with it is vastly more complex.

Simon politely queries this.

I would be fascinated to know which bits you disagree with, as most of the things I’ve stated are, to my mind, indisputable.

But I also want to stay on friendly, or at least polite, terms with you, since I respect your political/human rights perspectives so much. And it doesn’t look like that’s got much of a chance if we continue this discussion. So it’s probably best we agree to disagree.

There is no argument from Bradbury, just a threat.

Reddit banned climate deniers on their site. If the uber geek geniuses of Reddit can make a call like that, I’m more than comfortable doing it here.

Bradbury doesn’t need an excuse to ban opinions or questions he doesn’t like, there have been many claims of him blocking comments he doesn’t want aired on The Daily Blog (and he’s blocked comments of mine).

If you don’t accept Bradbury’s simplistic bombast you are branded a “denier”.

Simon made some reasonable points and asked questions that should be able to be examined. But being reasonable (and right) doesn’t avoid Bradbury’s censorship.

There’s still much doubt about the degree of human caused climate change, whether greater natural forces make or influence insignificant, and whether we can do anything about it.

Climate science will be ongoing and always questionable.

But don’t expect questions to be allowed at The Daily Blog. For all we know they are already being censored out of the discussion.

Len Brown from the left

Predictably Len brown is being strongly criticised on the right of the blogosphere:

In contrast on the left The Standard has been very quiet on it with no posts yet and some muted comment from here.

Martyn Bradbury at The Daily Blog plays it down with Why I don’t care about Len Brown’s audit.

Yawn, listen to the right wing squeal about Len Brown needing to resign.

Here are my thoughts.

Auckland’s issues: underfunded public transport, urban poverty, affordable housing

Shit that doesn’t matter: Texts & phone calls to girlfriends.

Len shared his perks with his mistress, that’s barely graft, that’s barely corruption, that’s barely news.

That’s barely surprising from a very partisan commentator. Bradbury would treat someone like John Key or John Banks quite differently with a bt of perk using, graft and corruption.

But interestingly in the comments it’s a more mixed response.

MARKE says:

Hi in my opinion Mr Brown has fallen well below the ethical standards that a Mayor must maintain at all times in a Mayors professional or private life.

He has failed in this ethical responsibilities in many ways. [1] He has effectively lied about his private live to the public, and this is the most serious issue. [2] He has used his Council resources for his private interests, in a way that would not be acceptable to any other staff member of Auckland City Council; [3] He has not satisfactorily disclosed gifts of a significant nature to the Council probity register; and finally [4] he has lost the respect of his staff and the rate payers of Auckland.

FRANK MACSKASY says:

If the new “gold standard” for resignation is that politicians lie to the media – perhaps Farrar should look a bit closer to home. John Key’s countless acts of mendacity spring to mind.

And having affairs isn’t a hanging offence either (well, maybe in Iran – but only for women). If it were, Muldoon and Brash should’ve been dumped by their own Party, early on in their careers.

I don’t particularly care who politicians are rooting. Not my business.

What I do care about is this country’s chronic economic problems, high unemployment, growing social inequality, etc. Those are the things that really affect us all.

Not surprising to see Frank diverting and making excuses. He’s another who would see a left leftish transgressor in a very different light.

COUNTRYBOY says:

@ Bomber , I understand your position on the slavering , sniveling , self righteous hypocrisy of the Neoliberal Darksiders ( I don’t believe NZ politics has Wings anymore . )

However , what len did was seedy . When one lies about where one pokes around with ones penis , that’s seedy . When a partner cheats and lies about what/who they did ? That’s seedy . When a mayor lies and spends public money/ time and pokes about with his little woody , that’s seedy .

Does Auckland need a seedy mayor ? I don’t think it does . The reason for that may be that , len in this case , might have become compromised . For all we know , he might well be compromised as I write . If these ghastly revelations had not come out but had instead went on to become a means of manipulating the horny little rooter for say a favourable nod to Sky City Casino and a ‘ Yes Please ‘ to a stupid ‘ convention center ‘ AND that had come out until later , after the money was spent and during at risk people spending their mortgage money on the pokies , what would we have said then about len ?

len should have followed the good and strident advice of others and stuck to fucking himself , then none of this would have happened .
Now that len’s been outed , shamed and in dire need of a holiday , he should resign . The fact that he hasn’t is telling in my view and reminds me of Rob Ford . Mayor of Toronto . Len and Rob dragged public respect and trust to a cliff and pushed it over . Len has to go . While it is true to say that it’s no ones business who he shags , he still has to go . That’s the price you pay for being in Public Office .

Speaking of compromise …
Perhaps that’s why the Darksiders want him gone . With everybody watching Lens every move now , he’s redundant . Sprung . Of no further use . That is after all the nature of politics .

Brown’s mayoralty is certainly severely compromised. So is the Auckland not-so-super city.

Daily Blog suppression of criticism

The Daily Blog has suppressed this comment:

Daily Blog MandelaIt no longer shows as ‘In Moderation’ and hasn’t appeared on the comments thread. It was in response to Martyn Bradbury’s post John Key shouldn’t be going to Nelson Mandela’s funeral.

About:

The Daily Blog Editor, Martyn Bradbury says one of the primary objectives of the blog will be to widen political debate in the lead up to the 2014 New Zealand election.

You can’t widen political debate if blog moderation doesn’t allow reasonable comment. Bradbury is well known for blocking views he doesn’t like.

More details in Martyn Bradbury fails Mandela 101.

The left and ‘sisterhood’ – power over principal

The Brown battle has mostly been along left versus right lines. In a significant exception Tim Selwyn has posted at The Daily Blog:

TV Review: Down trou Brown

The mayoralty of Auckland and the epitomic, defining act of its First Citizen, is an image of a balding middle-aged white man, sexually exploiting a young Asian underling in an official room named after the tribe on whose land the city was founded and on a table upon which a Maori would never even sit on out of basic respect. How more appropriately inappropriate for how Auckland operates and intends to be operated.

As for Campbell’s interview:

We are left to think the two men are telling people, by omission, that she’s just this chick that he rooted at the office and she’s been dumped now so that’s that – end of. Smooth it all over with the missus and back to work Monday. That conversation sounds absurd now.

As a first up interview it would have been ok, trying the coax approach, but after Brown refused to take anything like full responsibility it should have been followed up by more thorough examination. Brown has avoided this.

On the self interest and selective morality of “the sisterhood”:

If that is how the patriarchy works then the sisterhood is more dysfunctional.

Cr Penny Webster was dismissing all of it and begging like a dog for ‘what Len will give me’.

Where are the women of the left on this? Are they too, willing to put up with a Mayor who treats the Town Hall like it was run by the Chow Bros.? Who will green light the predation of his staff to continue like it wasn’t even an issue? Cr Webster, Hulse…

It seems that the women of the left prefer their man on top. Power is preferred over principles.

Len is saying, just for those who don’t get it: ‘Hey, I’m trying to save my good Christian marriage after I predated on the Asian advisor and helped myself whenever and wherever I felt like it around the Town
Hall for basically my entire term of office. And then like the last one I’ll end up having to get her a job on the council using my weight as the boss and let’s hope it doesn’t get all fucked up going into the elections and you are running for Conservatives and Reactionaries.’ That is what Len is putting out there as the standard.

It would be hard to devise a lower one. It is a standard and a Mayor not worth having.

It’s a standard most of the left seem happy with – and much of the media.

As Selwyn points out, it’s a shoddy standard for mayor of New Zealand’s biggest city, and a shoddy standard for those who put their preferred power of principals.

UPDATE: Also just posted at the Daily Blog,  on Rachael Goldsmith with Lies, lies, more lies and counter lies

Yes, Len let his lust conquer his brain at times. Yes, Bevan boosted his ego. Yes, Len campaigned to some extent on his ‘family values’ and his faith. Yes, Aucklanders do have a legitimate right to be disappointed. But c’mon. Perspective.

The latest survey on cheating in NZ, had our infidelity rate at 36%. Yep – over 1/3 of us have cheated on our romantic partners. Don’t try and fool yourself that everyone you know is faithful. It could be your pastor, your brother, your child’s teacher, your mechanic, your best friend, your lawyer, your supervisor, even you. Does that make it ok? No – it is disappointing. But does a moral decision in their personal life make them professionally incompetent? Unless it was criminal in some way – no.

Len Brown is not the first public figure in NZ to cheat on his wife. And he won’t be the last. Look at David Lange – he might have been a bit of a ratbag, but he was committed to improving our country, and he deserved the trust people continued to place in him as PM. I really do think the same of Len. He may be a bit of a ratbag, but he is dedicated to the people of Auckland. Unless he is lying about expenses, he should stay.

Imagine if he resigned.

That would mean that the winners of this heavily manufactured battle would be an ever growing network of selfish, vengeful, lying, hypocritical, cowardly, harassing, power-hungry, stalking, emotionally abusive, threatening, suicide-inducing (Google Debbie Gerbich & Stephen Cook), narcissistic people with no boundaries.

No thanks!

“He may be a bit of a ratbag, but he is dedicated to the people of Auckland.” Imagine if someone dedicated to decent principles and to the people of Auckland became mayor.

About Rachael Goldsmith:

Her political passions include women’s rights, mental health, social development, gender & sexuality, reproductive health, housing and animal welfare.

Dim-Post banning admitted

Danyl at Dim-Post has finally admitted that he banned me from his Dim-Post blog. That is the first time I’ve seen him say anything about it,

In February last year I challenged a post that linked to something I thought was disgusting.

This all resurfaced on Dim-Post in May 2012 with a lot of blog comment, where various claims and accusations were mad – I detailed it and the time of the banning in Rhinocrates and Dim-Post set straight. Rhinocrates has admitted to deliberately harrassing me and disrupting the blog to get me banned.

16. Comment by alex — May 9, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

I have a question for the moderator of this blog, is it true that Pete George is banned from commenting on Dim-Post?

At the time I commented – To my knowledge “the moderator” has never commented on any bans, blocked or deleted comments yet.

18. Comment by Clunking Fist — May 9, 2012 @ 5:31 pm

I’m not the moderator, but I believe Pete George was not banned from this site. Rather, he was hounded from it.

Not true. I was standing up to a sustained attack when suddenly my comments stopped appearing. I could no longer respond to accusations or abuse. Several comments were apparently blocked over a period of time. No notice or explanation was given.

21. Comment by Hugh — May 9, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

If he was hounded out my only regret is I didn’t have a hand in it.

33. Comment by Rhinocrates — May 9, 2012 @ 10:59 pm

Sorry everyone if I was such a nuisance in my role, but I thought that it was worthwhile to “go nuclear” as it were and destroy a couple of threads to drive him out (though I shouldn’t take sole credit).

36. Comment by Rhinocrates — May 9, 2012 @ 11:07 pm

Anyway, what I meant to say, in reply to eighteen and twenty-three, sorry if I was a bore, but I felt that it was necessary in my minor role in hounding PG, but it was his persistent stupidity that offended me. In this world, with the gift of life, one has no right to glory in being thick as if it made one a “nobel savage” and PG, like a true narcissist WOULD NOT BLOODY STOP. Sorry if it wreck a couple of good threads, but I felt that it was worth it in the long run. The Dimpost seems to be doing pretty well without him.

A repeat of a closing comment in February.

78. Comment by Rhinocrates — February 27, 2012 @ 10:19 am

Indeed, but I’m (perhaps vainly) hoping that the sacrifice of this or a few threads will finally drive the egomaniacal fool away for good.

A classic blogger irony, Rhinocrates calling me egomaniacal.

It has come up again occassionally since. Danyl (who runs Dim-Post) never said anything that I’m aware of.

Today (eighteen months since I have been on Dim-Post) I was mentioned again,

15. Comment by Hugh — July 28, 2013 @ 1:59 pm

Pete George doesn’t seem to post here any more, but Redbaiter still thinks it’s worth looking in on us every once in a while. I present this information without comment.

For some reason this initiated a response from Danyl.

17. Comment by danylmc — July 28, 2013 @ 3:36 pm

Pete George got banned a while back when I noticed that the majority of the comments threads were filled with awesomely boring Pete George comments.

So finally he has admitted banning me.

He could have just asked me to cease commenting, so the other commenters could find someone else to bore off the blog. He could have at least followed glog etiquette and decency and adviced what had hapened. But for some reason he maintained a silence on it up until now.

This raised doubts about the openness of Dim-Post – if I have been banned and my comments have just disappeared than how many others ahave been censored and banned without notification?

I think that a blog that silently censors seriously compromises it’s integrity. You have no way of knowing how uneven and message and messenger controlled debates are, unless directly involved yourself.

Ultimately every blogger makes their own rules and moderates their blog however they like. But in my mind blogs that silently control what is made public are are unreliable forums.

I don’t care that I was banned, it seems to be common practice on lefty blogs. So far my ban scorecard includes:

  • Dim-Post (Danyl Mclachlan)
  • Red Alert (Clare Curran)
  • The Standard (Lynn Prentice)
  • The Daily Blog (Martyn Bradbury)

Of those only The Standard was open and clear about the banning. The others all just started blocking comments.In a way it’s funny, in a way it’s a sad state of discussion.

Free speech and fair debate seem to be low priorities on the left. I think that is a real shame – for them.

I’m aware that many people will find this post awesomely boring. I have written it up not to entertain, but as a public record. It could be useful for future reference, especially when I’m accused again of making things up about being banned.

If Danyl ever reads this – can you answer how often you deleted comments without saying anything? And how often do you ban people without saying anything?

Final words from Dim-Post:

28. Comment by Hugh — July 29, 2013 @ 12:37 am

@danyl: Whoah, you can get banned for being boring? Bold move. You’re right, he did tend to regard his own opinion as intrinsically more interesting than anything else (including the original post) but if that was a generally bannable offense the blogosphere would be very small.

Yes, especially Dim-Post if academic egomaniacs weren’t exempt.

Still, it’s not as if we’re missing much. I could tell you Pete’s opinion on any given issue without needing to hear him actually give it.

Very funny Hugh. On a thread about the GCSB and spying. What’s your surname?

GCSB bill protests “an anarchist struggle”?

Why are the organisers of a GCSB protest meeting and march not open and honest about who they are? Martin Bradbury is one promoter, but refuses to say who the “coalition” is behind the campaign.

Another promoter is using the name Laia Asieo Odo which has links to a book character who is the “leader-philosopher” of the anarchist rebellion.

Bradbury is promoting: Coalition to Stop the GCSB Bill – Urgent Public Meeting

Speakers Include: Kim Dotcom, Dr Rodney Harrison, Thomas Beagle and now with Dame Anne Salmond”.

“I for one won’t allow my democracy to quietly goose step towards a Police state under the lidless eye of American intelligence for US corporate interests, and dammit it – neither should you!”

Bradbury will MC the meeting. Yesterday I asked him who was in the coalition and he blocked my comment, attacked me on the protest Facebook page, and came here and accused me of lying about him. Very ironinc, and naturally that made me suspicious.

Bradbury uses The Daily Blog to promote far left politics and is a paid adviser to and promoter of the Mana Party. He is using the blog to try to talk up participation on a GCSB protest planned for Saturday.

Why you should march this Saturday against the GCSB laws if you are a Union or Union member

Every member of the CTU, PPTA, EPMU, Unite, MUNZ, NZEI, RMTU, NZDWU, CANZ, NZNO, First Union, SFWU, Actors Equity and PSA should be at the protests because it will be Unions and Unionists that will have these spying powers turned upon them – just like they have always had the intelligence networks turned against them.

Put aside the long history of Governments spying on Unions, what is truly concerning is that the GCSBs role is moving to economic issues meaning disruptive Unions are on the frontline of surveillance.

Actors Equity could easily have become a target from GCSB spying over the manufactured crisis at The Hobbit, under these new laws any Union threatening industrial disruption could be a target.

We are not criminals and Unions and Unionists don’t need to be spied on.

That’s in a section at The Daily Blog called SETTING THE AGENDA.

Is Bradbury taking advantage of widespread (genuine) concern over the GCSB Bill to con the public into marching to his tune?

Who else is involved? There is a new media release at Scoop:

Protesting the GCSB + TICS Bills

Monday, 22 July 2013, 10:08 am
Press Release: Coalition of Concerned Citizens

On the 27th of July, 2013 at 2pm there will be a nation wide protest taking place against the GCSB and TICS bills.

A Coalition of Concerned Citizens will also be meeting here in Palmerston North (the Square) in solidarity with the rest of the country.

Spokesperson Laia Asieo Odo said “We the people need to stand up for our right to privacy. These rights should not be traded off to foreign governments at the whim of politicians”

No indication of who the “Coalition of Concerned Citizens” is. I did a search on Laia Asieo Odo and all I found was a blank Facebook page and references to a book The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia by Ursula k. Le guin who features a character of that name:

The “leader-philosopher” of the anarchist rebellion (if such a term can be used) is a woman by the name of Laia Asieo Odo.  The revolution, Odo’s movement, evolved into an anarchist struggle that started on the home planet of Urras, and which successfully threatened the power structures of the Statists, bureaucrats and capitalists.

The press release concludes:

Laia Asieo Odo continued “Politicians court our votes but rely on our apathy and mute compliance to pursue their own agendas, invariably these days the agendas of the elites. - these things are not consistent with democracy”

Interesting.

Has someone in Palmerston North been named after the book character? Or is an identity being hidden behind a pseudonym?

If so this  a real pity. The GCSB Bill deserves to be scrutinised and pressure applied so the bill is modified significantly. But this looks like it may be another hijacking of a public issue by political activists.

In democracy protest is good, deceit is not.

It’s ironic that a campaign against a secret agency seems intent on keeping who it’s organisers are a secret.

Perhaps they are shy anarchists.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 213 other followers