Key ‘lying’ versus Mana accusations

Internet and Mana campaigners are shitting in the campaign nest, then crying foul.

There’s an interesting comparison of posts at The Daily Blog. In one Martyn Bradbury blasts John Key for ‘lying’

What’s worse than Key lying about Internet MANA effigy burning on Breakfast TV?

The shrill scream of the right at trying to paint Internet MANA as some sort of fascist movement would be laughable if it wasn’t actually being promoted by the mainstream media.

No attempt is made to substantiate the accusation  the John Key lied about anything, although Laila Harre has also promoted the lie claim.

“The Prime Minister cast a slur and told a lie on your programme yesterday,” she said.

“You presented that video to the Prime Minister and you knew from your research, or should have known from your research, that it had no relationship with the internet Party.”

The effigy-burning video appears to have been first posted on a Facebook page called National Party Billboard Makeovers, which features pictures of defaced National Party hoardings.

TVNZ aren’t apologising.

However, although a TVNZ spokeswoman confirmed last night that a complaint had been received from Internet-Mana, “we’re not making an apology”.

Mr Christie had not suggested any connection between Internet-Mana and the video, she said.

“It was the PM who made this association”.

And neither is John Key but he has explained further.

Mr Key later said he was “not in the slightest” worried about the threat of legal action over his comments.

Asked whether he thought Mr Dotcom was behind the effigy-burning video, Mr Key said: “I don’t honestly know. That was the way it was indicated.

“My broader comments were really around the one that internet-Mana put up on their site that they actively encouraged people to watch, and look, in the end New Zealanders will judge whether that’s all positive.”

Harre’s Internet Party left itself wide open to being connected to less savoury campaign tactics after it promoted an abusive video featuring Kim Dotcom with a chanting crowd – a video that Harre defended.

Now she is complaining that an association is made with another video showing similar chants.

Immediately below the ‘lying’ post at The Daily Blog is a featured guest post by Mana Party candidate Joe Trinder:

GUEST BLOG: Joe Trinder – National still destroying billboards? 

This post makes no attempt to back up the headline accusation.

DailyBlog hypocrisy

 

The Daily Blog is strongly promoting the Mana Party, the Internet Party and Internet Mana, led by Martyn Bradbury.

Both Bradbury and Harre seem to be so wound up in campaign attack mode they fail to see their double standards and hypocrisy.

Internet and Mana are dishing it out but taking offence when it’s thrown back at them. They’re reaping what they are sowing, and crying foul when they are the substantialy behind the fould wind to blow over this election campaign.

“Not all men” reactions

Discussions on domestic violence and “rape culture” often get very testy and polarised. Amongst this there seems to be a campaign to marginalise anyone who is deemed to say or think anything like “not all men” are violence or are sexual offenders.

Chloe King has been posting on this at The Daily Blog (she has also started a petition try and pressure Murray McCully into resigning). Today she posted “I got an apology”… said no survivor of rape or gendered violence ever where she opens with some typical blanket blaming…

Saying “not all men” does not absolve you from the actions of other men. It does not mean you get to be excluded from the conversation. It does not mean you get a free pass to not give a shit.

Some women have been subjected to horrific attacks so there’s a lot of hurt and ill feeling, understandably to a much wider target than is causing the problems.

We live in society that does so little to support and protect those who have survived abuse and does so much to exempt and pardon those who abuse. Isn’t it time we challenged and changed this?

Fair enough, to a reasonable extent that’s true.

There were two contrasting responses to this post.

FRAMU got a positive response to a very careful comment.

“Saying “not all men” does not absolve you from the actions of other men. It does not mean you get to be excluded from the conversation. It does not mean you get a free pass to not give a shit.”

okay – im going out on a limb here – and im not trying to be an ass or start a flame war. And in no way should this be considered an attempt to minimise or distract from the very pertinent debate about violence (domestic, sexual and otherwise) in our society. And im not trying to defend the knuckle draggers, because they piss me off as much as any one else

Im trying really hard to word this in a way that reflects an honest attempt to be constructive and work towards good outcomes for society

Do people realise that when some men say “not all men” they arent saying the above? (but yes theres some who say not all men and mean exactly what youre describing – which makes things trickier to discuss)

They are really saying – “im not a violent sexual offender so please dont call me one” – they are using “not all men” to talk about themselves and whether they have personally commited any acts of sexual violence, because the fear they are being labelled as such for being born with a penis.

Which is of course, utterly missing the point your trying to make, but its a real and genuine gut reaction – but one which if you work past it and listen to what women are saying you can quickly forget about.

But dont first reactions matter if we are trying to achieve some sort of change and get more men onside with the collective ownership of the issue of male violence?

I understand the level of frustration and downright anger over this issue – and i unconditionally support the concept of men owning the issue of male violence.

But i wonder how far we would get if we talked causes and solutions instead of blanket blame

From a personal perspective

If you want to call me out and say i need to be part of the solution – then hell yeah! Im with you all 100%! Why? Because its true!

But if you want to say im part of the cause, without knowing anything about me or how i conduct myself in the world, solely because im genetically a man, then your going to meet a *little* bit of resistance.

Isnt that kind of thing just as bad as putting something on women because they were born women?

So – hopefully ive represented this in a way which accurately communicates one very, very small point – please dont rush to judgement on this just because theres some arseholes out there who are being less than human

(and yeah, before any one rips into me, you might say ive earned my stripes with the many very, very staunch feminists and GLBT people ive grown up around)

ROB received a more mixed reaction:

Yeah, we get that.

The problem is that it’s just not constructive to defend yourself or your class, when your class is generally causing to much terror.

I mean, if you were really angry about the daily acts of violence and aggression, then you wouldn’t try to morally defend the oppressive class of people.

I’m male. And I’m pissed.

I’m angry at the daily acts of violence. I’m angry at the violence that doesn’t have to happen, because women are already so scared of what men are capable of and what they do. Angry at the lack of consequence for abusers.

I’m also angry at the ways in which I have contributed to the systematic violence.

That doesn’t mean that I’m ashamed of who I am as a person. But it does mean that I’m committed to standing with the oppressed.

And when survivors tell you their stories, their experiences and their emotional reactions to daily aggression, it just isn’t helpful to say “we aren’t all like that”. It does nothing to improve the situation. And it gives every excuse to the all men everywhere to simply absolve themselves individually from responsibility.

Of the zillion other possible ways to react, why choose “… but not all men”?

Why not choose to say “I’m with you. what can I do?”

Or maybe “I commit to calling my male friends out when they perpetuate rape culture”.

Or hell, why not simple shut up and listen?

It’s also not constructive to blame a whole “class” when a minority of that class are causing most of the problems.

Somehow those who are hurting need to acknowledge that alienating a lot of people (men but also women react against the ostracising) is counter-productive to getting a strong move towards rectifying some of these problems.

Far to many women have suffered because of men, but not all women.

Far too many men inflict awful and lasting damage on women, children and men. But most men will be far more willing to act against this if they are not alienated and attacked.

“I got an apology”… said no survivor of rape or gendered violence ever – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/11/i-got-an-apology-said-no-survivor-of-rape-or-gendered-violence-ever/#sthash.unP6cUpV.dpuf
“I got an apology”… said no survivor of rape or gendered violence ever – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/11/i-got-an-apology-said-no-survivor-of-rape-or-gendered-violence-ever/#sthash.unP6cUpV.dpuf
“I got an apology”… said no survivor of rape or gendered violence ever – See more at: http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/11/i-got-an-apology-said-no-survivor-of-rape-or-gendered-violence-ever/#sthash.unP6cUpV.dpuf

Labour’s self laid GCSB minefield

Labour may have created huge problems for themselves should they lead the next Government. They chose to take a political approach to the GCSB bill rather than follow the convention of cross-party cooperation with legislation on national security.

They have promised to dump the new bill and base any replacement law on an inquiry.

The current law is not much different to the previous 2003 act put in place and used by Helen Clark’s government. If Labour lead government again after next year’s election they will either have to stick with something similar to what we have now, and similar to what was supported by all major parties over the last decade, or they will have to make radical changes to how we use the GCSB and SIS.

The latter is the expectation of many activists on the left. There are calls (from a minority) to dump the GCSB altogether.

Lyn Prentice at The Standard:

This Act has a short lifetime.

I think that we should have a serious look at killing the GCSB at the same time. Throughout this debate I haven’t heard of *anyone* giving some coherent reasons for the retention of their excessive budget or what return we have or are likely to get from it.

Not a single person. All you ever get is fear mongering without any detail. Looks to me like it is an arm of the US intelligence community. Time for it to depart for another country and stop distorting our laws.

Prentice is a long time Labour and Clark supporter but has vowed to vote Green next year. In the same thread he describes The Standard:

The site isn’t a democracy, it is an anarchical cooperative.

The Standard has been prominent in it’s involvement in opposing and undermining David Shearer (by some authors and most commenters).

And on the left wing activist Daily Blog Martyn Bradbury tries to rally ongoing action in The GCSB Bill has passed – if you refuse to accept that, here’s what I think we should do next :

1: Repeal the Bill at the 2014 election:
Call upon every opposition MP to signal before the 2014 election if they will vote to repeal the legislation. Every week until the election the Blogs will post up the names of all those opposition MPs who will repeal the legislation and all those who won’t. We will advise people not to vote for those opposition MPs who will not repeal the Bill. Take the public Town Hall speaking tour around the main cities and provinces in the lead up to the election culminating in Auckland in the week of the election.

This is a part of Bradbury’s grand campaign plan – he’s a paid adviser for the Mana Party. If he gets enough support for this agenda Mana may increase their vote, but that’s most likely to be at the expense of Labour’s vote.

If successful this could cripple Labour and drag it left, something Bradbury and Mana may like, but they won’t be so keen on the fact that it may make a Labour led government unelectable.

‘Bomber’ Bradbury seems intent on blowing up Labour in next year’s election.

It’s worth noting here a Fairfax/IPSOS poll result from yesterday:

53.6% said they trusted the Government to protect their right to privacy whilst maintaining national security.

If Labour survive the election blast they then have to try and cobble together a coalition with Greens and Mana, who both oppose the bill and oppose the GCSB. That could result in some fiery negotiations.

If Greens and Mana (and perhaps NZ First) manage to agree to coalition deals that survive this then Labour’s promised inquiry (unless they simply let the inquiry in 2015 required by the new law) could be a political minefield.

If the inquiry recommends retaining the GCSB and SIS similar to how they are now would Labour have to get support from National to fulfil their promises? It’s hard to see Greens and Mana voting for it, that would blow up those parties.

And Labour can’t hope that the GCSB will just fade away from public interest. The new legislation requires a 2015 inquiry, so if they do nothing else about the GCSB that will come up anyway.

Labour chose what they thought was a populist political approach to the bill that has just been passed.

It’s hard to see them winning a popularity contest over this over the next two years. They have turned their backs on the half of the voters who support GCSB security. And they will find it very difficult to please the hard left.

Labour seem to be caught in a minefield laid by their own strange strategies.

Cough cough, two answers for Bradbury

Martin Bradbury asks two questions of Peter Dunne at The Daily Blog in Cough-Cough – about that whole ‘willing buyer/willing seller’ thing (Two questions)

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm

Tipline throwing up some interesting questions.

Two questions:

1:
When Peter Dunne declared that there was a willing buyer and a willing seller to describe how he gave Key his one vote to pass the mass surveillance State legislation, what exactly did he mean?

An unfortunate term used for a simple explanation – effective politics involves negotiations between two parties who are willing to reach a satisfactory conclusion. This often involves compromise.

It turned out to be win-win-win:

  • Dunne contributed significantly to improving the GCSB Amendment Bill
  • Key got a much improved bill in his name
  • The people of New Zealand will get a much improved bill.

That’s how politics works, for parties willing to contribute directly and positively to the process.

2:
Who is currently paying all of Peter Dunne’s staff salaries?

I believe he currently has the normal quota of staff for an independent MP – something like 1-2 in Parliament and some electorate office reception I guess.

Paid for by whoever in Parliament pays all MP’s their allocated staff.

Someone paid by the Mana Party should know things like this better than me – look at you payslip and you will see who pays MP party staff.