Ghahraman fettering free speech, links Farage to UK MP death

Green MP Golriz Ghahraman has raised free speech eyebrows even higher after linking Nigel Farage to the murder of a UK MP in trying the fetter his free speech.

(fetter v. restrain with chains or manacles, typically around the ankles)

This follows her selective application of free speech to people she agrees with versus those she doesn’t.

But she was challenged on this:

Let’s see appeal for Nigel Farage’s right to speak when he comes to NZ I won’t hold my breath

Her response:

Picking those she things ‘free speech’ and who’s tongues should be chained is controversial enough, but linking Farage to Cox’s death is just about jumping the shark territory.

Gharaman has become a bit of a loose cannon on Twitter, which doesn’t reflect well on the Green Party.


A comment from Missy (from the UK):

She shows her complete ignorance with that tweet.

She obviously believes the left’s spin on Farage, his Brexit campaign was not that much more dishonest than that of the Remain side, and since the referendum hate from the pro EU has risen more than the other way. As for hate crimes rising exponentially, they haven’t, many of the so-called hate crimes have since been proven to be either made up, or not so much hate crimes but normal criminal activity but because the victim was a migrant they were reported as hate crimes.

This is dishonest and misleading from Golriz.

I am not really a fan of Farage’s as such, but he is fair and he gives everyone a chance to air their views whether they agree with him or not – in fact on his show he regularly gets annoyed that no-one who disagrees with him calls in and constantly asks for those that disagree to call in. He is a believer in free speech.

This woman just keeps making stuff up to suit herself.

 

Leave a comment

98 Comments

  1. lurcher1948

     /  August 31, 2018

    Free speech is great if ONLY it’s a rightly,right right

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  August 31, 2018

      No, Lurchy..if only they are not TRAITORS with a rap sheet longer than Labours misdemeanors.

      Reply
    • Missy

       /  August 31, 2018

      The argument for Manning being barred from NZ is nothing to do with free speech as much as you might want it to be, it is about the fact she is a convicted spy, a felon who has committed a serious crime.

      Those opposing her coming to the country are not saying she shouldn’t speak, and have even said if people want to hear her then there is no reason she can’t speak via video link, the objections are based on her criminal record.

      But if you are in favour of criminals doing a speaking tour would you like to let Josef Fritzel in? Roman Polanski? What about Radovan Karadzic? They can come and talk about their crimes too right? After all a spy should be allowed to so why not peadophiles, or those that committed genocide?

      Reply
  2. robertguyton

     /  August 31, 2018
    Reply
    • Missy

       /  August 31, 2018

      Great, so lets open our doors to all convicted criminals and traitors into the country.

      The problem with this whole argument is that the objections are not based on stopping her from speaking, in fact Michael Woodhouse has said there is nothing to stop her from doing what Snowden did and speak via video link, it is about upholding the law and not letting someone convicted of espionage into the country. She is a convicted felon.

      But hey, the left say it is okay for criminals to come into the country, I wonder if they would have been happy for Milosevic to come into NZ and speak on genocide – free speech remember, or let’s have Roman Polanski in to talk on paedophilia, or what about Josef Fritzel to talk about his crimes???

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  August 31, 2018

        Reductio ad absurdum

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  August 31, 2018

        lets parachute former Communist spy trainers who falsify official residency documents into the N Z Parliament then…!

        Reply
  3. Missy

     /  August 31, 2018

    She shows her complete ignorance with that tweet.

    She obviously believes the left’s spin on Farage, his Brexit campaign was not that much more dishonest than that of the Remain side, and since the referendum hate from the pro EU has risen more than the other way. As for hate crimes rising exponentially, they haven’t, many of the so-called hate crimes have since been proven to be either made up, or not so much hate crimes but normal criminal activity but because the victim was a migrant they were reported as hate crimes.

    This is dishonest and misleading from Golriz.

    I am not really a fan of Farage’s as such, but he is fair and he gives everyone a chance to air their views whether they agree with him or not – in fact on his show he regularly gets annoyed that no-one who disagrees with him calls in and constantly asks for those that disagree to call in. He is a believer in free speech.

    This woman just keeps making stuff up to suit herself.

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  August 31, 2018

      Golriz isn’t barring anyone from entering NZ and she has every right to express her support for one and not the other. She’s making the point that where there is harm caused by what a person says, special conditions apply; you aren’t free to incite violence, etc. This post is whipping up emotion thoughtlessly. What’s your point, Pete?

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  August 31, 2018

        Where did I say she was barring anyone from entering the country, or suggest she had no right to express her support for one and not the other?

        I pointed out her ignorance, and that she is making stuff up for her own political ends.

        Please do not infer I have suggested or said something I have not.

        And what harm has Nigel Farage caused? He has not incited violence, nor was he responsible for Jo Cox’s death, and most (if not all) of the alleged hate crimes post Brexit were bogus.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  August 31, 2018

          You said: “But hey, the left say it is okay for criminals to come into the country…”
          But that’s not what the (mythical) Left is saying. There are rules around applications for entry to NZ by people with criminal convictions. They can be granted dispensation from the “no entry” rule and it’s not granted by a politician. That’s what the Left is saying.

          Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  August 31, 2018

          It was certainly implied, but I didn’t infer it because it was nonsense.

          Reply
      • Pink David

         /  August 31, 2018

        “She’s making the point that where there is harm caused by what a person says, special conditions apply”

        Yes that is exactly the point she is making. She is also the one who decides what ‘harm’ is, and also what the ‘special conditions’ are.

        That is nothing more or less than a Fascist view of the world. The wonderful thing about the free speech that she is that we get to know this about her.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  August 31, 2018

          “She is also the one who decides what ‘harm’ is, and also what the ‘special conditions’ are.”
          Bullsh*t, Pink. Golriz isn’t making those decisions; the conditions are already set down in law and the ‘deciders’ are not the politicians.

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  August 31, 2018

            “Bullsh*t, Pink. Golriz isn’t making those decisions; ”

            She most certainly wants too.

            “conditions are already set down in law and the ‘deciders’ are not the politicians.”

            Define harm under the law as it stands. Is that hurt feelings or murder?

            Reply
  4. Reply
    • Corky

       /  August 31, 2018

      She’s been barred from Australia.

      Reply
      • Missy

         /  August 31, 2018

        Good, she is a convicted spy who put not only US troops at risk, but those of NZ and Australia at risk. She shouldn’t be able to profit from the crime, and she shouldn’t be allowed to enter countries that she betrayed, and she did betray us by revealing US classified information that would have also contained classified information about NZ troops in Afghanistan.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  August 31, 2018

          she certainly put them ‘at risk’…she exposed inhuman ,intolerable behaviour exhibited by western military that is anathema to any decent…person.

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  August 31, 2018

          Agree 100%, Missy. You know, even thirty years ago when we still had remnants of a moral compass and standards, we wouldn’t be having this debate. She would be reviled across the Western world. Shunned by most. Nowdays, many support her, they see nothing wrong with what she has done. Maybe because our generation and those who have come after us haven’t experienced the horrors of war, they have no context with which to form their judgments regarding idealism and reality.

          Reply
      • sorethumb

         /  August 31, 2018

        He has too (they both have).

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  August 31, 2018

          That’s so ”now” Thumbs.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  August 31, 2018

            I hope that the ‘we’ who no longer have moral standards and a moral compass was the royal or editorial we.

            Speak for yourself, don’t tell the rest of us that we don’t have moral standards (I assume that you mean ‘good’ moral standards)

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 31, 2018

              Those who use the royal or editorial ‘we’ use it of themselves, although they are an individual.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 31, 2018

              That long word means one person, Corky.

            • Corky

               /  August 31, 2018

              Talking of long words, I see a paucity of such today.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 1, 2018

              One doesn’t use them for the sake of it. It’s supererogatory.

              It’s flattering that you copy words that that I use. Your vocabulary has increased.

            • robertguyton

               /  September 1, 2018

              “One doesn’t use them for the sake of it. It’s supererogatory.”
              Oh dear!

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  September 1, 2018

              Why ? Don’t you know what it means ?

  5. Blazer

     /  August 31, 2018

    So people from all sides of politics are in favour of free speech,only on a selective basis though.

    ‘ so lets open our doors to all convicted criminals and traitors into the country.’…the usual completely OTT rationale favoured by those who don’t really tolerate free speech at all.

    Someone mentioned Jordan Belfort recently…in and out and doing the lucrative speaking circuit ,no problem at all.

    Reply
    • admiralvonspee

       /  August 31, 2018

      In the words of your hero Golriz… “it’s all about the risk”.

      Belfort’s only risk is stealing your mrs Blaze, ergo, nothing to…fear?

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  August 31, 2018

        don’t tell me you live under the sea in an …octopussys..garden…..Admiral… 😦

        Reply
        • admiralvonspee

           /  August 31, 2018

          Aye, a carbon neutral paradise courtesy of the ever-generous, bourgeois…left. Where comrades feast on impossible burgers from said garden, consume endless clean energy from wave-generators and toggle our genders from day to day. One should…join?!

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  September 1, 2018

            too much toggling Admiral …watch out for…spoof.

            Reply
            • admiralvonspee

               /  September 1, 2018

              I’ll take your word for it Blaze, old fruit. Takes one to know one…after all?

    • High Flying Duck

       /  August 31, 2018

      I wonder if Chelsea will get glowing reviews like this one for Jordan:

      “Posted 26/06/2014 by LondonKiwi:
      Poor. Jordan Belfort adapts his straight line method of high pressure selling from penny stocks to gullible audiences. No stories about Wall street or reformed ethics. Just 3 hours of hard sell on his motivational ‘products’ and him telling everyone how great he is. Dull….”

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  August 31, 2018

        That sounds like a variation on that yob whose 7 points video was on YNZ the other day…preaching to the gullible and greedy, with large doses of self-praise.

        Reply
  6. Tipene

     /  August 31, 2018

    Yes, ol’ Golriz Ghahraman is such a fan of free speech, she hired a QC to shut down an Australian author who called her sorry ass out on her multitude of lies.

    I hope she’s saving her salary, because in the real world of employment, no employer of any significance is going to touch her after her one-term -wonder stint as a list MP.

    An energy saver bulb has more intellectual wattage than this chick – her total lack of self and situational awareness is evidence of either a highly privileged upbringing, or a manifesting mood disorder.

    Reply
    • lurcher1948

       /  August 31, 2018

      “An energy saver bulb has more intellectual wattage than this chick”, rather sexist comment Tipene,standard knuckle dragging comment

      Reply
  7. sorethumb

     /  August 31, 2018

    Here is the reality of diversity from Singapore

    The Lion City (singa is Malay for “lion,” pura is Sanskrit for “city”) has always defined itself, in part, by its ethnic heterogeneity. Its citizenry is about 76 percent Chinese, 15 percent Malay, and 7.5 percent Indian. And the trauma that shapes its domestic policies to this day took place in the summer of 1964, when a Malay procession celebrating the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad was beset by interethnic clashes and, with startling speed, race riots scourged the island. A similar riot took place not long afterward. “Our diversity is our strength” would have been a hard sell. So when Singapore’s national independence was certified in 1965, its leaders saw the place as supremely susceptible to violence among groups of varied descent. Its National Pledge, formulated that year, begins, “We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion.” Race, language, and religion were considered the three lethal fault lines. The question was how to stabilize them.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/singapore/568567/

    Reply
  8. robertguyton

     /  August 31, 2018

    Pete – your write:
    “Ghahraman fettering free speech…”
    Whose “free speech” has Ghahraman fettered?
    Your post is a nonsense.

    Reply
    • She is a person in power trying to influence who should be able to speak in New Zealand, and who should have their speech fettered.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  August 31, 2018

        That’s not true; she’s describing existing laws that are in place to manage dangerous speech. Your headline makes a false claim. Is Woodhouse ” a person in power trying to influence who should be able to speak in New Zealand, and who should have their speech fettered.”?

        Reply
        • Woodhouse is also a person in power, but as he is in oppositinn arguably less power than Ghahraman.

          I don’t agree with what Woodhouse has said, nor what Ghahraman has said.

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  August 31, 2018

            “No politician should express a personal opinion about anybody, anywhere!”
            Pete “Freedom of Speech” George

            Reply
            • By depicting that as a quote you’re deliberately misrepresenting me – and as it turns out, by a lot.

            • robertguyton

               /  August 31, 2018

              Satire, Pete. While I agree with some of what is said here about Golriz (I’d like it if she took more care with her public statements for a start) it does seem many of your readers enjoy a good ol’ pile on, especially when the receiver isn’t a big solid bloke like Gerry, and you appear to enjoy facilitating that (where is your “Woodhouse fetters free speech” post??)

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 31, 2018

              Not satire, putting words in someone’s mouth, which is just bad manners.

          • robertguyton

             /  August 31, 2018

            Was Woodhouse “fettering free speech”?
            I’ve searched for your headline, but couldn’t find it…

            Reply
            • I’ve posted about Woodhouse previously, this post is about Ghahraman. I don’t use exactly the same words in every post.

              Are you a dick, or do you just like acting like one?

            • robertguyton

               /  August 31, 2018

              Well, that’s unpleasant. I’m challenging your headline claim that Golriz fettered free speech – she didn’t and your defence is not strong, even to the point of personal insults aimed at a commenter. Or was it satire 🙂

            • High Flying Duck

               /  August 31, 2018

              You appear to have missed the whole bit where GG actually says:
              “It’s not about an unfettered right to speak. It’s about whether the person’s speech poses a risk” in her tweet – look at the post above if you want to see the whole tweet.
              She definitely tried to fetter the speech of Lauren and Steve when they came, and now bizarrely has claimed Farage deserved blame for Jo Cox’s death.
              If anyone should look at fettering speech, it is GG herself. She’s hopeless.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 31, 2018

              If she says that Nigel Farage was in some way responsible for the murder of Jo Cox, she is committing libel and asking to be charged with it. That is a very serious accusation.

            • robertguyton

               /  August 31, 2018

              “If she says…” Well, did she?

            • robertguyton

               /  August 31, 2018

              Golriz has not fettered anyone’s speech, as I’ve been trying to make clear to Pete, who made the erroneous claim in his headline.

            • I think she is clearly against Farage coming to New Zealand to speak.

              She said “It’s about whether the person’s speech poses a risk” she refers to “Farage’s dishonest & callous Bexit campaign” and then dishonestly links that to “hate crimes” including “murder of a pro-diversity MP, Jo Cox”.

              Do you think she would support the right for Farage speaking in New Zealand? Or try to fetter his speech like she tried to so with Molyneux and Southern, citing their ‘hate speech’?

            • robertguyton

               /  August 31, 2018

              Come off it, Pete: your headline claims Golriz is “fettering free speech”. Now you’re claiming, more accurately but less significantly, that she’s “against Farage coming to New Zealand to speak”. Ho hum; Golriz is against something but she’s NOT fettering free speech, is she!
              Then you ask “would she” try to fetter his speech – good grief, Pete – earlier you were claiming she was doing that, at the present time, some wrong-thinking I’m endeavouring to get you to recognise. Are you now making claims based on what you think someone might do, maybe, in the future? If you are, perhaps you should make that clear to your readers. Your headline contains an untrue statement; very unprofessional, I felt. Golriz made it clear that there are rules surrounding visits by such people as Farage and Madding and that it’s with those rules that their fate lies.

            • “Are you now making claims based on what you think someone might do, maybe, in the future?”

              I’m glad you brought this point up.

              That’s the basis people (including Golriz) have used to oppose certain people coming to New Zealand and speaking – that they may something in the future that they or someone else may ‘hate’, or that it might incite someone to do something nasty or hateful.

              “Your headline contains an untrue statement; very unprofessional, I felt.”

              Do you think that linking questionable claims about Farage with the murder of an MP is professional for an MP?

              I think that she is trying to fetter speech of people. That she is successful or not isn’t as important as her intent.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 31, 2018

              Are you a…..?

              Both, I would say.

          • Gezza

             /  August 31, 2018

            Still, it’s managed to attract quite a few comments, so it’s worked on that score.

            Reply
            • robertguyton

               /  August 31, 2018

              Pete’s using click-bait techniques?
              It’s worse than I thought.

            • Gezza

               /  August 31, 2018

              He might just be after one particular snappy fish?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 31, 2018

              A piranha ?

  9. sorethumb

     /  August 31, 2018

    It seems that Golriz has got a QC to take down an immigration lawyers website which argues G is not really an R as they were on the side on the the new regime, had passports etc and so were not under threat. No rockets landed where she lived etc. Only truth is shes aGreen MP Paris Hilton of green Party. Abdel Mageed.

    The claim that Ms Ghahraman was so traumatised by events over 52 days when she was 6 or 7 years old, giving the impression to Kirsty Johnston of the NZ Herald that “most” of her “childhood memories are of war” is not consistent with the facts.

    The claim that she is a “refugee” does not stand up to scrutiny[6]. It is all the more shocking because hundreds of thousands have been killed, imprisoned and tortured since the Islamic Revolution in January 1979. About 3 million fled the regime and mostly went to Europe, USA, Canada and Australia. Opponents of the regime do not dare return to Iran, even for a visit. The regime had death squads operating in Europe in the 1980s and 1990s and there is evidence they have restarted. This is a regime which hunts down opponents even after they have fled the country.

    Reply
  10. High Flying Duck

     /  August 31, 2018

    So the person GG wants in country was thrilled to have “punched a lesbian in the face”…

    And when it was pointed out to her by a Green member – he was blocked.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  August 31, 2018

      I have now ordained Golriz….’own Goal or Gol for short.

      Own Gol Golriz…Greens need to find a muzzle for this liability.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  August 31, 2018

        I would want to have proof that she did actually say this; anyone can post this sort of thing and it wouldn’t be the first time that it’s happened.

        Reply
  11. Reply
    • Pink David

       /  August 31, 2018

      Truth to power? Does this woman get any more ridiculous?

      What truth did Manning come up with and exactly what power will it be spoken too?

      Reply
  12. Trevors_elbow

     /  August 31, 2018

    If Manning gets a visit. All good.

    But Golriz is a prototype dictator the way she positions herself via her pronouncements and actions…hopefully she never has real power as those who oppose her or question her will suffer if real power ever resides in her hands…in my humble opinion of course

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  August 31, 2018

      If she gets turned down all good too. I’d turn her down if it was up to me. Her motivation seemed to have a lot to do with not liking being a gender bender in the military. Dunno why she’s presenting herself as a crusader for truth & justice.

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  August 31, 2018

        “Australia has not yet denied Manning entry despite many media headlines (and the one here on the post re this) stating that Australia has banned her.

        What Australia has done was on Wednesday they issued a Notice of Intention to deny a visa, which allows Manning to put her case why she should be granted a visa despite her convictions etc. (ie the Good Character Test). Presumably she and her sponsors etc have done this and are now awaiting a final decision.

        I suspect that Australia may take a harder line than NZ, but I am really pleased that NZ has gone ahead and now allowed her to apply for a special exemption to the conviction provisions that would normally prevent her getting a visa (according the RNZ because she has not offended anywhere that she has gone to on similar speaking tours).”
        veutoviper@TS

        Reply
        • High Flying Duck

           /  August 31, 2018

          You are comfortable with people profiting from committing crimes?
          Do you have any issue with her bragging about “punching a dyke in the face”? Does that trump “hurty feelings” speech by the right?

          Reply
          • robertguyton

             /  August 31, 2018

            The brag may have been just that. I’d not ban someone because of puffery. Something a yoof said doesn’t meet the exclusion criteria, does it? I hope it’s not true. I don’t know the details of Manning’s crime, but I bet it needs some study and open-mindedness to make a decision on it, given its nature; that is, less clear-cut than say, drunk-driving. In any case, it doesn’t matter what I think. She’s passed the entry test and only those who wish to hear her speak need go.

            Reply
            • High Flying Duck

               /  August 31, 2018

              I have no great issue with her speaking. I don’t like profiteering from a crime that got her 35 years, but cest la vie.
              I guess the wold of wall st did the same, although I think his was more on the reforms made and needed to prevent the same thing happening.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  August 31, 2018

              *wolf

            • robertguyton

               /  August 31, 2018

              Fair enough. Whether or not we like these people and what they have been involved in is immaterial really; we have the choice to listen to them or be busy elsewhere.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 31, 2018

              It is against the law to profit from a crime.

            • robertguyton

               /  August 31, 2018

              “It is against the law to profit from a crime”
              Then we can be assured that she isn’t, given the close attention her actions must be being given by authorities of some sort. You may think she is, but that’s of no consequence, unless somehow you have influence greater than you appear to have.

            • Ray

               /  August 31, 2018

              No worries then unless someone pull the same stunts as the un-aptly named Free Speech Coalition, you know threats of violence, ticking devices they say aren’t bombs, that sort of shit.
              Like I said the Left really, really don’t like hearing any narrative they don’t approve of.

      • Pink David

         /  August 31, 2018

        “Dunno why she’s presenting herself as a crusader for truth & justice.”

        I imagine because it gets the attention she wants, and there would be some profit in it too.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  August 31, 2018

          As you say that you don’t know what her crimes WERE, Robert, your opinion is meaningless.

          Reply
  13. alloytoo

     /  August 31, 2018

    “Gharaman has become a bit of a loose cannon on Twitter, which doesn’t reflect well on the Green Party.”

    Not well, but perhaps accurately.

    Reply
  14. Patzcuaro

     /  August 31, 2018

    Ghahraman certainly knows how to keep her name in the news.

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  August 31, 2018

      A bit like Bridges in that. She probably shares equal rankings with Bridges in the “preferred Prime Minister” stakes.

      Reply
  15. robertguyton

     /  August 31, 2018

    “However, Immigration New Zealand confirmed on Friday morning it had given Manning special dispensation to apply for a visa.

    “While Ms Manning was convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment, it was noted that her sentence was commuted by President Obama in January 2017,” INZ general manager Steve Stuart said.

    “The likelihood of her offending while in New Zealand is considered low … (we) could see no reason to believe Ms Manning would not comply with the terms and conditions of any visa.”
    Again, veutoviper@TS

    Reply
  16. Conspiratoor

     /  August 31, 2018

    I despair. Very few folks will give a shit.

    Let her/him come. She’s a harmless albeit bizarre oddity with a wierd attraction to the lunatic fringe of politics and media hacks looking for a story

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  August 31, 2018

      Her.

      She is quite a pretty girl, although she was an unattractive and odd-looking bloke.

      Reply
  17. robertguyton

     /  August 31, 2018

    “This follows her selective application of free speech to people she agrees with versus those she doesn’t.”
    This makes no sense at all. What is “application of free speech” – speaking freely perhaps? and how does one apply free speech to someone you agree with but not to someone you don’t? I wonder if anything in this post stands up to scrutiny. Certainly not the heading.

    Reply
    • You keep going on about the heading. Have you commented on the key part of that yet?

      How professional do you think “links Farage to UK MP death” was?

      Reply
      • Everything about that tweet was almost as disgraceful as it was spiteful and ignorant. The woman is what my old Glasgow pals would call a bampot. She seems to be forever in the news spouting tripe and trying to cover up what seems a very dubious background. If her political bosses have any sense they will give her what my old English pals would call a P45. I’m sure the Guardian would have her.

        I was reading about the Greens in Britain on a UK forum and someone described them as “like watermelons – green on the outside, red on the inside”. Rather apt, I thought. And how many times do people like her have to be told that any restriction at all on Free Speech makes it Controlled Speech. And who is to be the Fat Controller? Ghahraman?

        Reply
  1. Ghahraman fettering free speech, links Farage to UK MP death — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

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