Metiria Turei on ‘jihadi brides’

The Nation interviewed Metiria Turei yesterday: Turei: Key misled public over jihadi brides.  She accused John Key of ‘lying by omission’.

The Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei says the Prime Minister John Key the so-called Kiwi “jihadi brides” left from Australia, not New Zealand, six months before the first claims were made – and failed to correct the record after the story became public.

On 8 December John Key said “in my view no question that have been one or two people that have left and it would appear on all of the factors that we know that they are going as Jihadist brides”.

At the time the news was presented as “Kiwi women are joining the Islamic State to become Jihadi brides”.

Last Month (17 March) it was revealed that while they were New Zealanders travelling on New Zealand passports they had left from Australia.

Key said “whether someone leaves from Australia, from New Zealand, could leave from New Zealand, might leave from New Zealand , in my mind they are all New Zealanders.

I don’t think it has been revealed how long they had been in Australia before leaving for the Middle East.

Key has said he doesn’t think he owes New Zealand Muslim women an apology.

Turei claims that Key ‘lied by omission’ – that could be seen as a lame political accusation, all politicians could be accused of lying by not revealing everything they know. She also said she had new information.

Metiria Turei: So we have found out, the green party has found out that John Key knew in May of last year that no New Zealand women had left New Zealand to go to Iraq or Syria. He had been told that one New Zealand woman from elsewhere, from Australia, had gone, but there was no information about why she had gone, and certainly it was very clear that this New Zealand woman had not left from New Zealand.

He and Chris Finlayson both knew that as a fact, and yet at the Select Committee in later on in the year in November he made it seem to the whole country that there were New Zealand women leaving New Zealand, radicalised to become the wives of Islamic fighters.

It was completely untrue and he knew it in November when he was at that select committee meeting.

Lisa Owen: So just to be clear, you’re saying he spoke at the select committee, and when he gave interviews after the select committee, he’d known for six months that none of the so called Jihadi brides  had actually left from this country.

Metiria Turei: Well that’s right, he allowed New Zealand to think that there were increasing numbers of women in New Zealand being radicalised in New Zealand and leaving to marry Islamic fighters.

He had no information on which to make that assumption, and that is lying by omission.

That is a Prime Minister who is scaremongering, and driving up fear and suspicion, about what is actually a very vulnerable group of  New Zealanders in the current circumstances

Key may be guilty of overstating the situation, and allowing media to overstate the situation uncorrected.

Turei could be overstating her case a tad as well.

Lisa Owen: So you’re saying our Prime Minister lied.

Metiria Turei: Yes. Our Prime Minister lied to the country. He could have clarified at the Select Committee that these were, they may have been New Zealand women but they were leaving from Australia, he could have clarified immediately after the Select Committee when he was asked about it by the media, and he could have clarified it in all the time between November and March this year when he was finally found out that these women weren’t leaving from New Zealand. There is not that radicalisation happening here.

But that’s not certain either.

Lisa Owen: But the thing is, nothing the Prime Minister said was untrue, so tell me why he’s wrong.

Metiria Turei: Well but this is where you get to lying by omission. You know he’s the Prime Minister, he has a responsibility to make sure New Zealanders have accurate information about what is a incredibly serious issue.

The issues of terrorism, of Islamic State, the fear of radicalisation, we see the bombings and things on the news, people are really concerned about this stuff. And rightly so. So he has a responsibility to make sure that we have accurate and transparent information, and he deliberately kept information from New Zealanders in order, in order to drive up fear and suspicion amongst us, amongst our own communities, about each other.

Turei is doing what she has accused Key of doing. She hasn’t proven Key deliberately kept information from us. She hasn’t proven Key has deliberately tried to drive up fear and suspicion.

But Turei appears to be deliberately trying to drive up suspicion about Key’s actions (or inactions) and motives.

They play an interview response from Key two weeks ago:

John Key: There’s nothing to correct. The point is not about where they leave from. The point is are they New Zealanders. If they’re New Zealanders under the New Zealand intelligence law the only salient point is are they New Zealanders.

Back to yesterday:

Lisa Owen: Nothing to correct he says. Your response?

Metiria Turei: He’s absolutely wrong. He allowed New Zealanders to think there were Muslim women in New Zealand being radicalised and leaving here to marry Islamic fighters. He, that was wrong. That information is completely wrong. He should have been clear about that.

I think Turei is taking this too far. It’s fair to question why Key didn’t provide clarification and more details. But it’s a big step from that to say he was “completely wrong”. It was the media and Turei who seem to have got it wrong based on incomplete information.

Lisa Owen: We don’t know where they were radicalised though.

Metiria Turei: We don’t know if they were. We don’t know, even Rebecca Kitteridge, head of the SIS, said she doesn’t, they don’t know why the women from Australia  were leaving to go to Iraq and Syria.

So there’s a lack of detail known, but Turei claims that Key was “completely wrong” and “lying by omission”. He can’t say what he doesn’t know.

Metiria Turei: We do know that there are people who may be going to visit their families for example and then come home.

I think it’s safe to assume very few if any people would want to go to Syria to visit their families at present. “We know that” and “who may be” is meaningless.

Metiria Turei: There’s no evidence, he had no evidence that they were radicalised or going to marry Islamic fighters.

Lisa Owen: But we know that they are New Zealand women.

Metiria Turei: They are women who hold the New Zealand passport. They as far as we know they are domiciled in Australia.

We don’t know that. I don’t think Turei knows that.

Metiria Turei: We don’t know how long they’ve been living in Australia. It could be for years and years. John Key allowed New Zealanders to think there was…

Lisa Owen: It could have been for five minutes. or it could be in transit heading off.

If the SIS wanted to know this it would be easy for them to find out when they last left New Zealand.

Lisa Owen: Do we not have reason to be concerned though, that these are women, New Zealand passports,  heading off to areas where there is this conflict going on?

Metiria Turei: We need to know more information. This is the problem. This is what John Key’s statement does. It creates more questions, and more fear and concern, and then will not provide accurate to address those.

Turei seems to be claiming there is insufficient information known, but that Key is not providing enough information. Information that isn’t known?

Metiria Turei: This is why that select committee, that committee that John Key was on, needs a much broader  representation from Parliamentarians, like the Greens, like other political parties, so we can question and get this information out from Ministers and from the SIS, because everybody deserves to know more and to have more accurate information. John key didn’t provide it.

Information that Turei says the head of the SIS and John Key don’t have. So how would more members on the committee find out more?

It looks like the Greens would love to be on the Security Select Committee. Is that the reason for Turei’s indignation on this? Accusing Key of lying by omission is not going to help her case to be put on the committee.

A committee that is bound by security and secrecy to not reveal everything.

Lisa Owen: Wo wo wo who’s responsibility was it to correct the misinformation though, because you said that Mr Finlayson knew, and of course Rebecca Kitteridge knew, so who’s to blame, should Rebecca Kitteridge have spoken up?

Metiria Turei: She should, ah she may well have been blind sided at that Select Committee, and John Key certainly threw her under a bus when he told you actually that she was the first person to raise Jihadi brides. He lied about that as well.

It was Kitteridge who was being questioned by the Select Committee, not Key.

Metiria Turei:But John Key knew, Rebecca Kitteridge knew, and Chris Finlayson all knew that these women were not leaving from New Zealand, and at any time they could have told us and they did not. We had to go and, radio New Zealand had to go and find that information, the Greens have been going out to find that information, accurate information for new Zealanders.

But the main issue, still, is that there is very limited information publicly known.

Lisa Owen:But aren’t the spy agencies being more open than ever with us now?

Metiria Turei: Well no, actually no they’re not.

I think she’s wrong on that. We can argue about whether they tell us enough or not, but there’s certainly more openness now than ever before.

Metiria Turei:You know I have reports of SIS agents going to people’s homes and telling them that they are being watched, frightening people. I’m investigating that now because I think that’s very serious. Communities, all our communities in New Zealand need to feel safe. Safe because we are getting accurate information.

Making information about who the SIS are watching public won’t help people feel safe.

Does Turei not want the SIS to watch or investigate anyone? That’s what they are supposed to do, within reason and within the law, to help keep us safe.

Metiria Turei: Safe because we are getting accurate information. Safe because the agencies are doing a proper job. Safe because there’s a place to go if we have concerns. At the moment John Key is driving up fear and suspicion, and that makes it unsafe for everyone.

Except that key hasn’t kept bringing this issue up. Turei is promoting a fear and suspicion about ‘fear and suspicions’.

I think that most people in New Zealand don’t care much about what is happening in Syria and Iraq as long as it stays in Syria and Iraq.

Most New Zealanders probably don’t care whether a very small number of people leave from Australia on New Zealand passports headed for Syria or Iraq.

It looks to me like Turei is too busy promoting her own political agenda and is failing to ask important questions. One could say she is failing by omission.

If it’s known that women are leaving Australia on New Zealand passports for Syria or Iraq then I hope that our SIS is capable of finding out when those women were last in New Zealand.

It’s also worth considering whether it’s in the public interest in knowing what the SIS is doing, who they are watching and what the inter-country movements of people they are watching are.

Should we be given snippets of information, like the New Zealand women travelling to Syria and Iraq?

Should we be given no information and hope that our Security Intelligence Service is doing what it can, responsibly, to keep us safe?

Should the Greens have an MP on the Security and Intelligence Committee?

I think they are much more important questions than quibbling about whether Key omitted to reveal information when one of the complaints is that insufficient information is known.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

81 Comments

  1. Alloytoo

     /  3rd April 2016

    The answer is No. The greens should not be allowed on security committee s because they have demonstrated time and again that theIr ultimate allegeance is to an international terrorist organization and not to New Zealand.

    Reply
  2. Well said, Pete.

    Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  3rd April 2016

    Turei continues to make mountains out of molehills and focus on attention-seeking trivia. She will be no loss when she retires with her pension.

    Reply
  4. Meteria is feeling the heat of looming female co-leader spill approaching. And she is flailing about looking for something, anything, to burnish her fading star……

    What looms through yonder window, flashing so brightly…. oh its Julie-Anne carrying a political knife…..

    Reply
  5. Well, here’s NZ’s polical muppets midlessly parrotting off the MSM narrative about jihad. Jihad, in it’s original context is about a fight or struggle in the way of Allah, which is about as far from the practices of ISIS as you could hope to get.

    What’s worse is that ISIS is supplied by US allies and ISIS is descended from Al Qaeda, a proxy terrorist group originally formed to draw Russia into a war with Afghanistan.

    Reply
  6. Oliver

     /  3rd April 2016

    It’s pretty obvious that Key deliberately gave false information to scare Kiwis in to believing that we have a terrorist threat here in NZ. Which of course we don’t. The reasons for lying are obviously to get the people to support spying. Well done Turei for exposing corruption, deceit, and lies from Key government.

    Reply
    • Not even Turei claimed that Key gave false information. Don’t make false claims.

      Reply
    • Actually there is a terrorist threat.

      The modus operandi of these terrorists is to run exercises as cover for implementing the actual attack.

      “116 members of the Singapore army just happened to be in Christchurch at the time for training exercises and were also able to assist with the response operation”

      Link

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  3rd April 2016

        Fark. LOL. Thanks for that Uggers. 😀

        Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  3rd April 2016

          Just when you thought he was at peak stupid.

          Reply
          • You think that pointing out a common modus operandi is stupid, Iceberg?

            9/11 NY, 7/7 London, Sandy Hook, and the Boston Bombing also were all running concurrent exercises. HAARP & the US connection to the Christchurch earthquake nails it.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  3rd April 2016

              Stop it, stop it Uggers. This is up there with your expanding earth hypothesis. You’re cracking me up so much it hurts 😥

            • I’ll reply on Open Forum since this has gone off topic.

            • Iceberg

               /  3rd April 2016

              I think your stupidity is laid bare on the daily basis. By yourself.

      • Oliver

         /  3rd April 2016

        I think it’s more to do with global warming than anything else.

        Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  3rd April 2016

      What does Oliver think was John Key’s motivation ?

      Reply
      • Oliver

         /  3rd April 2016

        Obviously to spy on people. Information is power.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  3rd April 2016

          That is just silly.There’s no point in spying on people if there’s no reason or purpose in it.

          Reply
      • He can only ‘think’ it, or make things up, like Turei he has no evidence or no way of knowing the facts.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  3rd April 2016

          No doubt he will soon tell us that he worked in counter espionage for years, so knows everything that went on at SIS and other agencies and the motivation.

          Reply
        • Oliver

           /  3rd April 2016

          This puts it beyond doubt.

          The Prime Minister deliberately misled the New Zealand public into believing women had left New Zealand to join terrorist groups and become what he described as “jihadi Brides”, the Green Party says.

          In Parliament today, Government Minister Gerry Brownlee confirmed the Prime Minister knew, before the Intelligence and Security Committee hearing in December 2015, that no Kiwi women had left New Zealand to become “jihadi brides”.

          At the hearing, SIS director Rebecca Kitteridge described young New Zealand women leaving to live with terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria, at which point the Prime Minister asked her: “Whereas they are now going as jihadi brides?”

          “John Key’s comments after the hearing created the distinct impression that the women had been living in New Zealand, and that there had been terrorists, or terrorist sympathisers living among us,” said Green Party Co-leader Metiria Turei.

          “The Prime Minster used his idea of ‘jihadi brides’ to whip up fear and suspicion among New Zealanders, at the same time the spy agencies were seeking more powers. He had plenty of opportunities to clarify that none of the women had been living in New Zealand before they left for Syria and to correct the media that any impression that terrorist sympathisers had been living here was wrong.

          “The Prime Minister lied by omission and he hurt innocent New Zealanders in the process.

          “This is another example of John Key not telling the full truth, in order to get his own way. We saw the same thing when he tried to hide the fact he had been childhood friends with former GCSB director Ian Fletcher, at the time he appointed Mr Fletcher to the job.

          “The Islamic Women’s Council asked the Prime Minister for evidence to back his claims about ‘jihadi brides’. He refused. Today, Gerry Brownlee told Parliament that was because the country that the women were living in before they left for the Middle East was “irrelevant”.

          “The Islamic Women’s Council didn’t think it was irrelevant, that’s why they asked for proof. The women deserve an apology from the Prime Minister for his arrogant and hurtful response to their concerns,” Mrs Turei said.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  3rd April 2016

            If the sloppy Lefty media makes assumptions and misreports Key has no obligation to correct them. In fact that would be a full-time occupation.

            Reply
            • jamie

               /  3rd April 2016

              But Alan, he is known to go to enormous lengths to correct media reports. Legal lengths, even.

              Admittedly this only occurs when he doesn’t like the perception created by the reporting, but still.

          • Missy

             /  3rd April 2016

            So you are saying that John Key is responsible for the lazy and sensationalist media in NZ making assumptions and reporting them as fact? Wow Oliver you really have some issues there.

            I agree though John Key shouldn’t have said anything, he needs to learn to keep his mouth shut on matters of National Security, he is a little indiscreet, and the public do not need to know – they only want to know.

            Reply
  7. Zedd

     /  3rd April 2016

    Key’s just doing another John Howard impression “they’re throwing the children overboard’ Howard knew it was B-S.. but let the media misinterpret it & not deny it or challenge this incorrect public perception.. to distract us from more important issues..

    Metiria is just reminding us :/

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  3rd April 2016

      She’s reminding us of what an attention-seeker she is.

      What does it matter if someone leaves NZ, goes to Australia and then goes on to somewhere else ? They’re still leaving NZ to do whatever it is.The nitpicking is obscuring the real issue-that these young women are probably throwing their lives away.Is it really important which airport they throw them away from ?

      Reply
  8. Gezza

     /  3rd April 2016

    If it’s known that women are leaving Australia on New Zealand passports for Syria or Iraq then I hope that our SIS is capable of finding out when those women were last in New Zealand.

    Piece of piss. Immigration/Border and airline passenger information is widely shared with other Border, police and security agencies.

    Reply
    • Exactly. So the SIS could easily obtain that information – unless they are legally restricted by the fact that the women are new Zealand citizens.

      Reply
    • Oliver

       /  3rd April 2016

      If we left it up to customs and the police then there wouldn’t be a need for spys. So the key government needs to create the illusion that the police and customs aren’t capable of stopping terrorism (false) so that he can justify having his spys. Fascist politics from Key is what boils down to.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  3rd April 2016

        What a load of semi-literate drivel. I see that someone downvoted it as I was writing this.

        I would suggest that Oliver goes to the library and takes out a book about Fascism. Or, if he doesn’t know where his local library is, that he googles it.

        Reply
  9. Klik Bate

     /  3rd April 2016

    The real challenge will be, can they stop them getting back in here?

    Reply
    • If they get involved with ISIS and then return to Australia then we may not have much choice but to allow them back here.

      Reply
      • Klik Bate

         /  3rd April 2016

        Yes, you can certainly see Australia wanting to get rid of them, real quick!

        If any of them do end up back here, at least the appropriate Authorities will have a handle on where they’re most likely to be domiciled.

        Reply
  10. jamie

     /  3rd April 2016

    Key’s statements can apparently be taken two ways.

    One way is that women are leaving NZ to marry ISIS soldiers.

    The other way is that women (who for the purposes of strict interpretation of the surveillance laws are considered New Zealanders regardless of where they live) are leaving some other country to marry ISIS soldiers.

    It seems to me to be fair to say that the first interpretation is the obvious one, and that that is the one that almost everyone assumed he meant.

    If he knew that this perception was not correct, then it also seems fair to me to say that he could have clarified and corrected this perception at any time, but instead chose to let the first interpretation stand.

    That is putting his activity in the very most charitable light possible.

    Reply
  11. Iceberg

     /  3rd April 2016

    Here’s what middle NZ heard from the PM

    “At least two women with IQs only just high enough to face the right way for a passport photo, have gone to some godforsaken desert to be a chattel for a smelly jihadi. Hopefully they want come back, but if they do, we know who they are, we’ve got your back”.

    Cheers JK

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  3rd April 2016

      Nah what they heard was the dog-whistle that implied “several women have left New Zealand to go and marry jihadis”.

      I don’t mind that the two it now seems are of interest are being watched. But I do mind that the public was misled.

      Reply
      • Should the public be given all the details?

        Or should this have not become public knowledge at all?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  3rd April 2016

          I think it was a political stunt Pete, intended to justify the extra powers given to security agencies, and also as a big “flash” looky looky we need this in response to their having been earlier caught out doing spying illegally.

          Should’ve been just done on the quiet.

          Reply
          • But how did it come out? Wasn’t it from media questions after the Select Committee questioning of Kitteridge?

            In other words did the media make it a part story or did Key?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  3rd April 2016

              Watch the video. It’s Johnkers who brings it up with Kitteridge. Kitteridge says there’s been an increase in new zealand women travelling to iraq and syria which is something we haven’t seen or been aware of before, and then Johnkers suggests to Kitters they are jihadi brides. She replies presumably. Then says whether they’re going to fight or support other fighters is not clear.

              After that Key picks that up as his own narrative with a tv reporter, stating first there are “one or two” were’re aware of, then he instantly morphs that into “there are a few women who have gone that have engaged in these weddings effectively…”. He’s either bullshitting or shooting from the lip, but definitely misleading.

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/74881123/Kiwi-Jihadi-brides-on-the-rise

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd April 2016

              Kitteridge did not say they were leaving from NZ but the reporter did. What are you claiming Key misrepresented? Do you seriously believe these two women could join ISIL without becoming jihadi brides willingly or otherwise?

            • Gezza

               /  3rd April 2016

              Kitters didn’t even actually support Johnkers assertion that these women had married jihadis before leaving, and they both (but especially Johnkers) indicated there were several women who had gone to Iraq and Syria. It turns out there were only two. “A few” does not equal two in most people’s minds. Two or “a couple” equals two. “A few” generally equals more than a couple to the average person IMO. They were doing the “beat up”, the media were just falling for it.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd April 2016

              But they should not be precise about security intelligence. You do not tell the enemy exactly what you know and ISIL is certainly an enemy.

            • Gezza

               /  3rd April 2016

              On one level I can see where you’re coming from with that Alan, but on another there is now “blowback” from the approach they took, which has meant that our PM & security chief, having for some obscure reason tried to convey information possibly to mislead “the enemy” as to how many NZ “jihadi bride women” they were monitoring, have since had to now say it was only two – which all seems a bit silly. Or so exceptionally clever it’s meant to look like it makes no sense but in some deep security-oriented way, it does actually make sense. I think it’s probably the former – they were a bit silly.

            • Gezza

               /  3rd April 2016

              Poor Kitters though, eh? Having put her on the spot originally and not really giving her an opportunity correct him at the SC press conference, when it all got embarrassing he just chucked her under the bus and blamed her. These things happen in politics. Clark did that sort of thing too.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd April 2016

              @Gezza, looks like you owe Key an apology:

              Outside the meeting, afterwards, Key said there was “no question one or two people have left” for Syria and they and were known to have engaged in weddings “effectively at the very last minute”.

              The SIS has refused to confirm numbers, but Kitteridge confirmed last year it was fewer than a dozen.

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/77995750/it-doesnt-matter-where-they-leave-from-jihadi-brides-were-still-new-zealanders–government

            • Gezza

               /  3rd April 2016

              Watch the video Alan. Listen to his every word.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd April 2016

              I did, and he said one or two. Apologise.

            • Gezza

               /  3rd April 2016

              Aww bugger. Reply’s a lot further down below.

        • jamie

           /  3rd April 2016

          “Should the public be given all the details? Or should this have not become public knowledge at all?”

          I don’t see what public interest was served by blabbing this sort of information.

          If it’s true, the intelligence and security agencies will know about it and do what they have to do.

          You and I hearing about it doesn’t help anyone, does it?

          Reply
          • I don’t think it helps anything or anyone.

            But Metiria seems to think it should all be revealed.

            Reply
            • jamie

               /  3rd April 2016

              I interpret her comments to mean if the PM is going to blab, he should at least blab accurately. But who knows what she really meant? Is there any statement that can’t be re-framed to mean something different?

              I would prefer he didn’t blab at all as I don’t see how it helps.

        • Missy

           /  3rd April 2016

          No and No.

          He should just shut up on anything related to intelligence or the military. Whatever thoughts are on Helen Clarke, she at least knew when to keep her mouth shut and not say anything.

          Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  3rd April 2016

        Yes, and they heard that from Stuff reporters, not from Key or Kitteridge. I haven’t seen Stuff apologising for their stuff up.

        Reply
  12. Pantsdownbrown

     /  3rd April 2016

    Metiria Turei runs a ‘fake’ Green Party that has been taken over by disaffected Socialists (since socialism got given the red card) who have hijacked ‘green’ ideals like ‘climate change’ and used that as justification to push for the same socialist policies that have already proven to have failed. This is a world wide thing, not particular to New Zealand. The sooner she is gone as leader the better if the party is ever to find its roots again.

    The TRUE Green Party of Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons died many years ago.

    Reply
    • jamie

       /  3rd April 2016

      The Nats always pretend the previous Greens were the real deal and the new ones are dangerous looneys.

      Rod Donald was a dangerous looney until Norman came along. Then Donald was fondly remembered as a true Green and Russel Norman became the dangerous looney. Or communist, or whatever the fashionable insult was at the time.

      Now Bill English is pretending he always thought Russel Norman was a sensible economist whereas the new guy is a dangerous looney.

      It’s a very transparent and tedious smear tactic. I doubt many fall for it.

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  3rd April 2016

        The Greens were always loony and always will be – my point is that in the past they were at least true to Green ideals, nowadays they have been totally distracted by other issues foisted upon them by socialists looking for a new way of promoting their particular causes.

        Greenpeace went the same way and was the reason founding member Patrick Moore left the organization.

        Reply
        • jamie

           /  3rd April 2016

          A flawless demonstration of what I’m talking about, thank you.

          In 5 or 6 years you’ll be saying exactly the same things about the golden days of Shaw and Turei, the last true greens.

          Reply
          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  3rd April 2016

            If you were correct then I would talking up Russ now he is gone – I’m not, as he is not part of the true Greens & doesn’t deserve any credit…………as I mentioned (twice) old Green ideals died some time ago.

            Reply
      • Oh Jamie “Now Bill English is pretending he always thought Russel Norman was a sensible economist whereas the new guy is a dangerous looney. ”

        Any one who has heard Bill English talk of the departed from the House Dr Norman knows his tounge is firmly planted in his cheek when he says Norman was sensible….

        Reply
        • jamie

           /  3rd April 2016

          dave, I’m not ascribing any sincerity to these smears. I’m just describing how it plays out, every time.

          Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  3rd April 2016

        Norman nominated English as his favourite opposition MP, someone he enjoyed talking to with an extremely good knowledge of economic matters.

        Reply
        • jamie

           /  3rd April 2016

          It’s not unusual for opposing politicians to enjoy each others’ company.

          Away from the theatrics they’re all just human beings who agree about some things and disagree about other things.

          The mere fact of being attracted to the same unusually public type of work suggests they’re likely to have something in common on a personal level.

          Reply
          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  3rd April 2016

            Maybe so, but it IS unusual to openly admire the finance minister of a govt that you have painted as basically corrupt and economically clueless…….

            Reply
            • jamie

               /  3rd April 2016

              Ditto Bill English openly praising the finance spokesman he has painted as as dangerous communist looney.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  3rd April 2016

        At least Rod could run a corner dairy and had done so. And Jeanette lived self sufficiently and wanted others to do as she did, not just as she said. They were doers and were replaced by talkers who never did anything.

        Reply
        • jamie

           /  3rd April 2016

          It’s nice that you find positive things to say about them.

          But that’s exactly my point – when they were leading the party no right-wing people had anything positive to say about them at all. They were criticised for being weirdos, out of touch with the “real world” because they used composting toilets, but now they’re gone they were the “doers”, the down-to-earth greens.

          In a few years, after Shaw and Turei have moved on, you’ll say “Well at least they had corporate and legal experience, unlike these (fill in the blank with the criticism du jour) running the party now.”

          English has already started re-writing the narrative on Russel Norman (sensible economist) and Turei will be next.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  3rd April 2016

            No, Jamie, I knew both of them personally and had worked with them in my Values Party days. You won’t find I criticised them when they were in office and in fact I sometimes voted Green then. I will never give their successors those credits, alive or dead.

            Reply
            • jamie

               /  4th April 2016

              “I will never give their successors those credits, alive or dead.”

              Sure. That’s what they all say every time.

    • Zedd

       /  3rd April 2016

      @pdb

      ‘Metiria runs a fake Green party..’

      based on what.. have you ever met her ? 😦

      Reply
  13. When will activist and their politicians ever realise that 95% of Kiwis don’t care whether these women left from Thorndon or Parramatta. They care that these women, have NZ PASSPORTS, are therefore New Zealanders and that they became Jihadi brides under the Five Eyes watch. I’d be putting my hand up for a bigger budget and more powers to the SIS myself.

    Reply
    • jamie

       /  3rd April 2016

      Most of the world doesn’t even make a distinction between NZ and Australia anyway.

      Me to some recent guests from the U.S: “So where did you fly in? Auckland or Christchurch?”

      Them: “No, Sydney.”

      Reply
  14. Kay Mackenzie

     /  3rd April 2016

    Do the Greens have a plan in place to deal with the Jihardi brides if they return to New Zealand?

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  3rd April 2016

      They don’t really need one because they’re not in Government, and probably won’t be for many many moons if ever. What’s the Government’s plan?

      Reply
    • Nelly Smickers

       /  3rd April 2016

      Maybe the Greens should put them on the list?

      Once Goff goes, Mt Roskill would become a safe seat.

      Reply
  15. Gezza

     /  3rd April 2016

    What he says is “There’s in my view no question that there’ve been one or two people that have left and it would appear on all of the factors that we know that they are going as jihadist brides but ah whether that tum whether we see more of that I don’t know but there’s certainly a few women that have gone that have left … engaged in these ah weddings effectively at the very last minute and gone to Syria and all of those factors would point to the fact that they’re going as jihadist brides.” The misleading impression that he conveys here is we know of one or two and there are actually probably a few women who have done so (because earlier Kitters states SIS haven’t seen or “been aware of this” before).

    It’s also actually Johnkers on the video who suggests to her these women are “jihadist brides”. Kitters doesn’t say that. Look at her. She looks like a possum in headlights when he asks that, and then replies “Presumably, I mean um it’s difficult to see what they’d do when they go we definitely have um intelligence that they went um ah whether they’re going to fight or whether they’re going to support other fighters is not .. is not clear but it’s a real concern that they would go at all”. In the article you linked, it states that when asked if his comments were misleading Key replies: “We did not say that. The Director General made the statement and what she said was there were Jihadi brides.” Chucked her under the bus with a wee dose of gratuitous bullshit again right there again for good measure.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  3rd April 2016

      What really comes through to me when I look at that video again is what a fucken amateur hour it looks like from all of those involved. Hopefully they’ve all smartened up their act a bit for next time.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  3rd April 2016

      Claptrap, Gezza. You are moving the goalposts so fast they are a blur. You complained Key said a few when there were only two but he did say one or two. Do we know how many there actually were? I haven’t seen anything more definitive. You complain he said jihadi brides but you don’t know what was detailed in the committee or by whom. As far as I can see the sole way in which the comments were misconstrued is the fact these women apparently left from Australia and that was entirely a sloppy assumption made by the Stuff reporters and no one else.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: