Golriz Ghahraman scrutiny over Rwanda defence

New Green MP  Golriz Ghahraman is under scrutiny again, this time her record as a human rights lawyer is being examined.

David Farrar seems to have kicked this off at Kiwiblog: Ghahraman defended not prosecuted the genociders in Rwanda

There is nothing wrong with being a defence lawyer – even for war criminals.

But the issue here is the way the Greens have selectively published material that makes it looks like she was prosecuting, not defending.

She did later go on to prosecute in Cambodia, and again there is nothing wrong with having started as a defence lawyer so you could gain experience to become a prosecutor.  But this is not the story that we were told.

Her own maiden speech glosses over her work in Rwanda:

It was living in Africa working on genocide trials where I then learned how prejudice turns to atrocity. Politicians scapegoating groups, as a group, for any social ills, dehumanising language in the media, used for political gain-
Every time I see that I think: That’s how is how it starts.

I saw that at the Rwanda Tribunal, at The Hague and when I prosecuted the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Very clever. It doesn’t state she prosecuted in Rwanda but you clearly gain that impression as she lumps it in with prosecuting in Cambodia.

This story has spread. Barry Soper: Greens blurring the lines once again

Politics is most certainly about perception and if you look at the publicity blurb surrounding the first refugee elected to our Parliament you’d come away thinking Golriz Ghahraman who was born in Iran was a human rights battler, pure and simple.

In her maiden speech, she talked about living in Africa, working on genocide trials and learning how prejudice turns into atrocity. She waxed about politicians scapegoating groups for any social ills, using dehumanising language in the media for their own gain.

Ghahraman went on to say she saw that at the Rwanda Tribunal, at The Hague and when she prosecuted the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

Now listening to that you’d think she was the battler she’s been painted as.

And that was reinforced by The Greens who are very good at presenting the narrative that suits their purpose, although the narrative surrounding their former co-leader Metiria Turei obviously got out of control and almost led to their undoing.

In their blurb about their new MP, The Greens said her work has focused on enforcing human rights and holding governments to account. Golriz, they tell us, has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power and restoring communities after war and human rights atrocities.

Now that leaves the clear impression she was the champion of bringing these people to justice.

But in fact, at the Rwandan Tribunal she was representing the war criminals in the genocide of around eight hundred thousand Tutsies. She complained about how poorly resourced the defence was. It was as though the United Nations didn’t really believe in the process, she opined.

She’s now saying she wasn’t responsible for the Greens’ blurb, which may be the case, but it seems she did little to correct it.

She should be responsible for how her bio is presented by her party, but as a new MP she should have been assisted more accurately than this.

The Green Party is unaccustomed to the greater levels of scrutiny imposed on parties in Government. They should be learning fast.

Ghahraman could get worn down by all this scrutiny, as some do in Parliament, or she could learn to weather these storms. She seems to be attracting more attention than any other new MPs – for example has anyone heard anything about scrutiny of new NZ First MPs?

Perhaps because she has a different background Ghahraman stands out as a target.

She is standing up to this latest scrutiny. Some criticisms have seemed fairly extreme.

NZ Herald: Golriz Ghahraman says genocide-denier comments ‘absolutely offensive’

Green MP Golriz Ghahraman says it is “absolutely offensive” to be called a genocide-denier, and insists she has not misled the public over defending people accused of genocide in Rwanda.

But she admits that her profile page on the Green Party website, which states that she has put African leaders on trial for abusing their power, “could be clearer”.

Her profile page on the Green party website says: “Golriz has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia, putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power.”

Ghahraman admitted that her profile page, which she didn’t write, “could be clearer, but it’s certainly not false”.

But she said she has never hid her defence work, that it’s “certainly not something I’m ashamed of”, and that international criminal justice needs both the defence and the prosecution to work well to ensure a robust system.

“It’s absolutely offensive to say that I deny genocide, because there’s nothing that’s been more important to me than to highlight genocide as an international crime.

She said that she worked as an unpaid intern as part of a team that defended Joseph Nzirorera, who died before he could be convicted of genocide, and in a paid position as part of a team representing pop singer Simon Bikindi, who was convicted for incitement to genocide.

She worked on the prosecution at the Khmer Rouge Tribunal.

“No one is saying there is no such thing as genocide. It’s like saying a defence lawyer [defending someone charged with murder] in our justice system here is a murder-denier.

“My CV is on LinkedIn. It’s certainly not something I’m ashamed of. It’s the human rights model. We have to work on both sides.”

It’s been a tough start as an MP for Ghahraman.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

134 Comments

  1. Tipene

     /  28th November 2017

    Virtue signalling, sanctimonious human rights hustler, on the game for the UN, selling herself off to the highest bidder, and bagging every institution that cow-towed to her embedded, self-righteous “victim-hood”.

    She’s had a bloody privileged life for a “refugee”, don’tcha think?

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  28th November 2017

      you can put Mother Theresa under the microscope and rip her to bits….if you have a motivation to do..so.

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  28th November 2017

        Mother Theresa is not in parliament virtue signalling at every opportunity.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  28th November 2017

          substitute Mother Theresa(dead)with anyone you…wish.

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  28th November 2017

            She’s dead you say? Well I’ll be…
            I just looked at the top of the page, and this post is still about Golriz Ghahraman who “could have been clearer” about her work defending mass murderers (in fact volunteering to do so) and writing papers victim blaming the murdered people as being the cause. So Let’s stick to her shall we?

            Reply
        • lurcher1948

           /  28th November 2017

          Will Farrar do an indepth study of nationals Chinese MP with a possible dodgy communist past..
          I wonder

          Reply
        • Blazer

           /  28th November 2017

          are you as shocked as I am…or HFD,will,,,be!

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  28th November 2017

            I was fully aware of Mother Theresa’s embellished hagiography.

            I’m just wondering why you are deflecting from the Holier than thou Green MP who appears to have done the same.

            Mother Theresa is old news.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              I’m not up with play…anyone else we should..know…about?

        • It’s hard to countenance that a woman sits in our parliament who volunteered to intern for the defence of Rwandan genocidal murderers. It’s hard to countenance that she even wrote a paper arguing against prosecuting Pres. Kagame, that she posed for photos with the criminals.

          It beggars belief that she frames all as “putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power”

          It’s even harder to countenance that the MSM are giving her a free pass.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  28th November 2017

            do you have the same concerns with..Amal Clooney?

            Reply
            • Missy

               /  28th November 2017

              Is Amal Clooney sitting in our parliament? And did she defend those accused of war crimes?

            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              Blair was sitting in Parliament,Bush was POTUS…they are accused of war crimes…are they entitled to a ..defence?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  28th November 2017

              Does Amal Clooney take smiling selfies with convicted perpetrators of Genocide?

            • PDB

               /  28th November 2017

              “putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power”

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  28th November 2017

              It didn’t even sound as if she was a lawyer in Rwanda, just a worker for the trials.

              ‘I prosecuted’ ? Surely she was the prosecuting lawyer. she didn’t initiate the prosecution.

              I am very disappointed with the way that she has turned out.

      • chrism56

         /  28th November 2017

        When you look how much interference and “look a squirrel” behavior Blazer is doing (he must be about a third of the posts), one would think that he is paid by the word. Either that or he is really Guy Williams.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  28th November 2017

          my real name is actually Mike Smirking..and the NZ taxpayer is my..employer.

          Reply
      • david in aus

         /  28th November 2017

        Nice diversion.
        Not many (good) people VOLUNTEER to defend war criminals. Obviously it was something she felt strongly about. Not enough money for defense, she cries. But wow 16 millions dollars per conviction, in a country with a per capita income of $US 1600. That is 10000 times the average annual salary of a Rwandian.
        Disgusting.

        Reply
  2. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  28th November 2017

    Check out what the defence of Joseph Nzirorera involved..
    game playing, delaying tactics, anything to keep the case from trial.
    https://trialinternational.org/latest-post/joseph-nzirorera/

    It’s one thing to work on a defence case; it’s another thing ensuring a defence case is never heard.

    Reply
  3. artcroft

     /  28th November 2017

    I was pleased to hear she was willing to act for the defence despite the odious nature of the defendants. It means she can put aside personal views and work across the aisle.

    Reply
  4. Ray

     /  28th November 2017

    Considering how quickly she took the high ground attacking Chris Bishop on his connection with the tobacco business, not a good look.
    But hey nothing new here just another example of it’s “different when the left do it”.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  28th November 2017

      couldn’t count how many tobacco has killed.Supporting the tobacco industry is a constant feature of the …right.

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  28th November 2017

        However the tobacco industry remains legal… genocide is not. Bit of a difference between working for a tobacco company and defending those that commit genocide.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  28th November 2017

          so should people tried for murder be entitled to a defence lawyer…in your world?

          Reply
          • Missy

             /  28th November 2017

            Why would I not think those being tried for murder are not entitled to a defence lawyer? Everyone is entitled to a defence Blazer.

            Your comment mentions the number of people the tobacco industry has killed and the right supporting it, I merely pointed out that tobacco is legal and there is a difference between working for the tobacco industry and defending those that commit genocide.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              whats crime today ,may become…passe…plenty of examples.Because something is ‘legal’ does not make it a moral virtue …you #*~#.

          • david in aus

             /  28th November 2017

            How is that relevant to the fact that she went to volunteer to defend war criminals and went to parliament and mislead the public of her actions. War criminals had a very expensive gold plated defense already. War criminals are also entitled to food and water but it has nothing to do with Golriz volunteering and then preening. No shame.

            Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  28th November 2017

        Tobacco is a product bought and used legally with full disclosure as to its effects.
        Genocide is more of an involuntary thing and, while the effects are well known, there isn’t so much freedom of choice involved.
        To conflate the two is pretty crass.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  28th November 2017

          Smoking has been known to increase the chances of premature death for a very long time. Cigarettes were called coffin nails well over a century ago. People who smoke are taking the chance of dying a horrible death, they must know this.

          Genocide victims, on the other hand, are not going into shops and buying the weapons that kill them.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  28th November 2017

            Please show us where Missy-or anyone else-has claimed that tobacco production is a ‘moral virtue’ rather than being merely legal, Blazer, I seem to have missed it.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              your definition of moral virtue differs from mine and most people..little..’nabber’.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  28th November 2017

              I take it that that means that it was nowhere except in your imagination.

  5. George

     /  28th November 2017

    When the left have no answer its ‘Look over there’.
    A tactic that shows up in every thread.
    Fact
    The woman tried to change her history.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  28th November 2017

      Democracies maintain everyone is entitled to a fair trial,and to defend any allegations.Is that something you disagree ..with?

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  28th November 2017

        And you also have the right to only say your were a prosecutor in your Wiki profile and bio’s until after the election and then make quiet edits to present a more accurate picture when the story gets out.

        And part of any good defence is to co-author a published essay denying the atrocities.

        Nothing to see here…move along.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  28th November 2017

          so all done in the…best possible..taste..then.

          Reply
        • PDB

           /  28th November 2017

          Her Wikipedia page has now been updated to mention the word ‘defense’…funny that;

          “She has worked as a lawyer for the United Nations in both defence and prosecution with the tribunals in Rwanda, Cambodia and The Hague”

          Reply
      • Ray

         /  28th November 2017

        Absolutely no problem with her working as an unpaid defence lawyer but is interesting how either her or the Green Party attempted to obscurate the facts.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  28th November 2017

          embellishing C.V’s and achievements is a very common practice Ray.Nick Smith is a seria….l offender.

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  28th November 2017

            You are talking about National, Blazer….yesterdays news. Golriz Ghahraman is where it’s now at. She’s finished as an effective politician.

            Where’s Robbie Guyton? Missing in action after all his vindictive posts?

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              well in that case ,she may have a career as an ..ineffective one..like so many..others.

            • robertguyton

               /  28th November 2017

              Hi Corky. You guys are looking ugly around this issue. Cheers!

            • Corky

               /  28th November 2017

              Does it remind you of ” The Standard?”

    • Mefrostate

       /  28th November 2017

      What the heck are you talking about? The cornerstone of right-wing politics in the US for the past two years has been “what about Hillary”.

      Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  28th November 2017

        I find “Look! A squirrel!” works best.
        Trying to change the narrative is a tactic used by almost anyone under pressure. It is not a feature attributable to any specific political stripe.
        It is just far more obvious and odious when “the other side” do it!

        Reply
        • Mefrostate

           /  28th November 2017

          Well said. Since tu quoque has been so successful over the past few years, it’s crucial that we call it out from both sides.

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  28th November 2017

            The definition of most debate / argument from certain posters on this site unfortunately.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              beware of squirrels dressed up as…ducks!

            • Mefrostate

               /  28th November 2017

              It’s exhausting. “X is typical of the left” is so blatantly blind to problems on the right, and such a pathetic imitation of political discourse.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  28th November 2017

              Well said mefro. Most posters are trapped in ideological bubbles bouncing around in a vacuum. Just accept it for what it is …a place for entertainment rather than enlightenment

            • Mefrostate

               /  28th November 2017

              Funnily enough I come here specifically to escape my ideological bubble and to look for some right-wing gold among the chicken-feed.

            • PDB

               /  28th November 2017

              I do the same for left-wing gold on here……….still waiting to find some.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  28th November 2017

              Always enjoy your contributions Mefro – you play the issue not the person and generally elicit a good debate.

  6. unitedtribes2

     /  28th November 2017

    Must be a mistake. She’ looks so sweet

    Reply
    • Missy

       /  28th November 2017

      Yep, really sweet. So sweet in fact she ‘loved’ a sign for voter registration with implied violence behind it, worse implied male violence with a weapon.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  28th November 2017

        you take offence at just about anything…loosen the girdle…

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  28th November 2017

          Not funny, Golriz.

          It’s unfunny, illiterate, aping American usage (who uses paddling in that sense here ?) and trivialises violence. It doesn’t even make much sense, really.

          Reply
      • PDB

         /  28th November 2017

        Is it meant to be a cartoon of a Jew?

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  28th November 2017

          I hope not. It’s just a silly and immature thing that does the cause few favours and the maker even fewer.

          Reply
  7. PDB

     /  28th November 2017

    PG: “Perhaps because she has a different background Ghahraman stands out as a target.”

    Perhaps she (unlike the unknown NZL First MPs) has been blowing her own trumpet in the press?

    Reply
    • Tipene

       /  28th November 2017

      Yep, she’s a gobby cow, and was repeatedly warned by her own like-vermin not to be.

      Didn’t stop her though.

      Reply
  8. PDB

     /  28th November 2017

    Nothing like a good old genocide selfie…

    Reply
  9. PDB

     /  28th November 2017

    I found that working on genocide cases for the defense always brought out the funny side in me……smile!

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  28th November 2017

      Here’s the issues as I see them;

      *Nothing wrong with working for the defense, but if she wasn’t ashamed of it why was her Green bio, Wikipedia entry, some of her speeches discussing her past etc deliberately misleading as to her role?
      *If you have to hold your nose and defend mass murderers do you then take smiling selfies with said murderers or a smiling picture of you on the defense team & make light of the serious situation you are dealing with – that being genocide?

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  28th November 2017

        you should see the gushing lineups photographed with Bush and…Blair….and Hitler for that matter.

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  28th November 2017

          Gushing portraits taken during trials for genocide, or while they were respective leaders of their nations?

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  28th November 2017

            various scenarios…one of my favs is Blair embracing…Gadaffi…who was supposedly guilty of…genocide.

            Reply
        • Didn’t Jacinda work for Blair?

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  28th November 2017

            not sure…what is the relevance?

            Reply
          • PDB

             /  28th November 2017

            Ardern ‘padded’ her CV as well by making out she was a an important part of Blair’s campaign when in reality she later admitted: (Stuff) “She didn’t realise till she got to London what a tiny cog she would be – “we were in a unit of 80, and we were one of many units” – and that the connection to Blair was zilch”.

            Ardern later lied that she actually was in two minds about working for Blair because of his ‘war crimes’: (Stuff) “Actually, says Ardern, she never met Blair in person at that time – “the Cabinet Office is massive”. But the issue of whether she was bothered about working for a war criminal? “That’s a fair question”. The answer though, is complicated.She had very low expectations, so when the job offer came, “I was absolutely gutted. I felt this real dilemma, which was absolutely about Blair.”

            The lie of course is that Blair wasn’t being accused of war crimes until around 2011 whilst Ardern worked in his office in 2006 so how did she face a ‘real dilemma’ over working for Blair when he wasn’t even being openly accused of anything until 5 years later?

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              maybe the key word is..’openly’..I presume you know the Iraq timeline of ..events.

            • PDB

               /  28th November 2017

              She was talking specifically about Blair being accused of war crimes – didn’t happen until at least 5 years after she worked for him so which ever way you spin it she lied, just like she did in originally making out she was basically in an advisory role for him.

              Blair was a pin up boy for Labour and no doubt Ardern was on that train as well.

            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              seeing as I have to spell it out..the Blair/Bush invasion of Iraq was in 2003.In London millions protested on the streets against it.So you are just plain wrong and being ..mischievious.

            • PDB

               /  28th November 2017

              You are being willfully blind – she said she was worried about Blair being accused of war crimes in 2006, five years before he was accused of anything. The fact she said she was worried but still decided to work on his behalf says it all really.

            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              Blair was being accused of war crimes as soon as he ok’d the invasion.You are the blind..one.

            • PDB

               /  28th November 2017

              Only by the extreme fringe of anti-war protesters – any real proof of actual war crimes occurred well after 2006.

              So you are saying she was happy to work on behalf of a guy being accused of war crimes & proudly state that on her CV? Is that scenario better or worse?

            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              I am saying that she was in her twenties then and still finding her way in the world….hey now she is NZ’s P.M..!Wonderful.

            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              PDB’s…’fringe ..from the BBC…
              http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2765041.stm

            • PDB

               /  28th November 2017

              A story about war protesters? War crime proof not so much.

            • Blazer

               /  28th November 2017

              ‘Only by the extreme fringe of anti-war protesters – ‘…WORK IT..OUT.

            • robertguyton

               /  28th November 2017

              Pathetic.

          • robertguyton

             /  28th November 2017

            Traveller – you have a deep-seated hatred of women from the Left-wing – Yes?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  28th November 2017

              I don’t, & I don’t want to seem shallow but I watched Jacinda at Question Time today & imo she needs to eat a little bit more (not MacDonalds) definitely not furrow her brow, get more sleep, get a bit more sun or use a darker foundation, get a hairstyle with a fringe, don’t show her ears, & get some elocution lessons. Or just ask Winston for some style tips.

      • Fight4NZ

         /  28th November 2017

        Not really comfortable that she was on the Defence team at all. Pulls the rug out from the whole “grateful to be saved from tyranny” refugee bit entirely.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  28th November 2017

          I don’t have a problem of her being on the defense team if she/the Greens were totally honest about it.

          Smiling photos with people accused of horrible acts & looking very happy with ones self whilst actively defending genocide claims not so much.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  28th November 2017

            how do you feel about Blair and Gadaffi ..then?

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  28th November 2017

              Nor do I, Pants. The silly thing is that had she been honest and not glossed over all that, it would have gone-well, not unnoticed, but taken for granted. The photo was a huge error of judgement.

            • david in aus

               /  28th November 2017

              Blair and Gadaffi; Golriz and war criminals. Nice association but i wouldn’t go that far. She is pretty insignificant but i take your point.

  10. Corky

     /  28th November 2017

    I must say I delight when sanctimonious activist politicians are force fed a dose of their own medicine on social media.

    Reply
  11. Zedd

     /  28th November 2017

    More efforts to ‘cut down a tall poppy’ ?
    What Golriz did before parliament, is her business..

    Im more concerned about what she intends to do IN parliament/in Govt. 🙂

    Reply
  12. alloytoo

     /  28th November 2017

    I don’t care if someone worked as a defence lawyer for Darth Vader, it is neither illegal nor immoral. Misrepresenting it however……

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  28th November 2017

      ‘Misrepresenting it however…is….is…such a common occurrence in politics we should just note it…and move..on.

      Reply
  13. Sunny

     /  28th November 2017

    “Golriz has lived and worked in Africa, The Hague and Cambodia putting on trial world leaders for abusing their power, and restoring communities after war and human rights atrocities” Her bio was an epic piece of virtue signalling as if she single-handedly legal- -wonder -womaned the murderous bad guys and then restored peace and harmony to Africa. In reality she volunteered to defended the guys who committed the genocide and human rights atrocities and complained about not enough budget. The smiling pictures on social media were in bad taste.

    Reply
  14. PDB

     /  28th November 2017

    When Bradbury comes out against you I suggest your days are numbered…at the very least she will become a far less effective MP when this issue can always be raised to discredit her honesty;

    “Which is why I loath having to agree with him (David Farrar) over Golriz Ghahraman’s deception.

    She and the Greens have tried to sell her back story as a human rights defender when she was actually defending war criminals.”

    “Every time she tries to speak up, she will get the ‘but didn’t you defend war criminals and try and gloss over that part while building your reputation as being a human rights defender’ as a response.”

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/28/i-loath-to-agree-with-david-farrar-but-hes-right-about-golriz-ghahraman/

    Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  28th November 2017

      I’ve always thought the opposite – if Wrongly Wrongson puts up a firm position that she’s stuffed…she’ll probably be fine.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  28th November 2017

        look at Collins…Oravida…Key NZ rail…and so on..they survive.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  28th November 2017

          Hardly the same thing, Blaze.

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  28th November 2017

          They didn’t sell themselves as holier than thou! Did Collins really survive?

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  28th November 2017

            She’s still touting, so , yes, Collins hasn’t been silver-bulleted or staked 🙂

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  28th November 2017

              No, but she’s not exactly a person of power like she once was.

            • robertguyton

               /  28th November 2017

              Corky – why do you feel enabled to comment about anything: you didn’t bother to exercise your democratic right to vote! Why should we care what you think about anything? You’ve opted out – are you a hippy? Do you munch lentils and wear flax sandals? Who cares what a non-voter thinks???

            • Corky

               /  28th November 2017

              ”Why do you feel enabled to comment about anything: you didn’t bother to exercise your democratic right to vote!”

              Because my whanau, and others who fought in the war gave me that right, and freedom, to choose.

              ”Why should we care what you think about anything?”

              You are under no compulsion to care what I think. I don’t care what anyone thinks, or doesn’t think.

              ”Are you a hippy? Do you munch lentils and wear flax sandals.”

              No, but going by some of your nasty posts, lentils and and cleansing diet may do wonders for your constitution.

            • phantom snowflake

               /  28th November 2017

              Hi Robert. In case you didn’t see this; presented for your edification and education etc etc blah blah

              There are a few “angles” on the issue of non-voting; here’s one. I’ll use Corky and I as an example. It’s difficult for both of us to find a party that represents our political views; he, because he is somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan, I because I am somewhere to the left of…Pol Pot. That doesn’t invalidate our views, and we both have a keen interest in politics.This scenario explains one cohort of the “missing million” of non-voters.

              https://yournz.org/2017/11/23/a-billion-or-half-more-trees/#comment-234295

            • Gezza

               /  28th November 2017

              @ Snowflake. If you don’t vote it doesn’t invalidate your views but not voting means you took no stake in the government or Opposition you got. So criticising or complaining about what you ended up with isn’t going to make much of an impact on anyone who thinks opting out is copping out. If they want to say so that’s their prerogative. If you don’t want to read them saying so, ignoring them is an option. Continually engaging them on it is too, but then it’s just an endurance contest.

            • robertguyton

               /  29th November 2017

              ” I don’t care what anyone thinks, or doesn’t think.”
              Worth remembering that, should anyone consider having a discussion with you, Corky.

            • Gezza

               /  29th November 2017

              One doesn’t have discussions with Corky. One posts in response to his soliloquies & simply waits to see if it will result in another one.

            • Corky

               /  29th November 2017

              ”Worth remembering that, should anyone consider having a discussion with you, Corky”

              I don’t do discussions, Rober. That’s Parti’s domain. I destroy posters arguments then move on. Call me a Ronin. However, I live by a code of ethics unlike Vagabonds of which Gezza is one.

            • Corky

               /  29th November 2017

              *t*

            • Gezza

               /  29th November 2017

              I rest my case, laugh & shake my head @ Corky’s bizarre claim about his “ethics”, & my lack of them, & lol at his equally ridiculous labelling of me as a vagabond, & move on.

    • robertguyton

       /  28th November 2017

      She’s. A. Lawyer. They do as they are bid: grow up, you guys.

      Reply
      • PDB

         /  29th November 2017

        Nice spin but she volunteered to do the role and then took smiling photos of herself hanging out with and defending mass murderers.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  29th November 2017

          Should she have been sobbing? You are showing your nasty side, PDB. Ordinarily, you just display dimness. I think I prefer that.

          Reply
          • PDB

             /  29th November 2017

            All you ever have Robert is attacks on other people posting on this site – in non-arguments tell everybody everything they wish to know about you.

            Smiling photos with people accused of horrendous crimes against humanity? Even if working for the defense most normal people would have not taken a photo with such people, let alone one showing both smiling and happy in each others company.

            She is obviously a big ‘fan’ of his work.

            Reply
  15. Tipene

     /  28th November 2017

    So many”tells” in this video that affirm she is lying: the constant raising of the eyebrows, the shaking of the head on “yes”, the tone inflection that doesn’t match the context of the words being spoken, the hitch in her tone when being asked a direct question:

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/video-defiant-green-mp-golriz-ghahraman-defends-her-work-un-in-rwanda-after-genocide-denier-allegations?auto=5660676928001

    Reply
  16. robertguyton

     /  28th November 2017

    Wake up. “What we are witnessing is sometimes called “manufactured public discontent’ now being perpetrated by a very ‘bitter broken National Party’ now, as they dearly are trying to fracture this newly formed Labour coalition government as quickly as possible as they are seeing the National Party poll ratings are now in freefall.”
    (from TS)
    This is ugly stuff, people. Grow up.

    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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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