Women’s Affairs Minister calls MP an “irresponsible tart”
March 25th, 2004 at 11:59 pm by David FarrarThis is just simply unbelievable hypocrisy of the highest order. As TVNZ reported, as they caught it on tape, the Minister of Women’s Affairs of all people called National MP Katherine Rich an “irresponsible tart” simply because Katherine was asking her questions at a select committee hearing.
NZPA reports that dictionaries define “tart” as a prostitute or promiscuous woman. My thesaurus lists synonyms as floozy, slut, strumpet, tootsie, trollop, and whore. A lovely thing to call the young highly respected mother of two (and one of the nicest people I know).
First of all I love a Minister convicted of drink driving, labelling someone else as irresponsible. Then we get to see her natural ability to lie by denying that she said, what she was recorded as saying. She claimed she could not recall saying it. I’m sorry but what a lying so and so she is.
Then after TVNZ has played the tape to the nation, does she finally concede she did say it, but tries to justify it by saying it “was not intended to be on the record” as if that matters, and makes her apology totally hollow by saying it was due to her “frustration at her [Rich's] attempt to make political advantage out of notifications”. And even her apology is a Helen Clark type one where she does not apologise for what she did, just for if it caused offence. Hello, how could it not?
Dyson should have simply said that her comments were totally inappropriate, apologised for them, and pledged not to lower her standards again.
No tag for this post.
March 26th, 2004 at 7:54 am
Just a little disturbing to see a Minister of the Crown treat tough questions from a select committee of the House as an “attempt to make political advantage (sic)” out of unimaginable human tragedy. I think that says more about the political cynicism of Dyson and her Government than Katherine Rich.
My flesh crawled to hear Dyson admit that CYPFS case workers delete from their databases notifications they deem (without authorisation or audit) as not requiring further attention. People like Rich and Muriel Newman should be exposing crap like this, and Dyson should be saving her temper for the inept and dangerous practices in her portfolios that endanger women and children every day.
Vote:March 26th, 2004 at 11:57 am
Is the lying, drunken strumpet going to tender her resignation now that she has been caught out?
Vote:March 26th, 2004 at 1:14 pm
I have to agree with Russell Brown’s analysis of this entire escapade.
“In more Parliamentary silliness, Katherine Rich is demanding that Ruth Dyson resign as a minister, after Dyson, under her breath, called her an “irresponsible tart” in a select committee meeting. Rich didn’t hear the comment. No one did, until it turned up later on a media recording, and even then, when it was played on the radio this morning, I confess I couldn’t really hear it. But then, I was eating toasted muesli, and that can make a fairly loud crunch.”
He goes on to suggest both Katherine Rich and Muriel Newman “get a life”. Scoff.
What’s amusing is that we wouldn’t ask for Charles to resign from his job for calling Dyson a “lying, drunken strumpet”. New Zealanders have always employed a colourful vernacular and that’s not going to change any time soon.
Can’t we all just get along……?
Vote:March 26th, 2004 at 2:54 pm
Of course Rob, there is the small matter that both you and Russell are totally wrong. katherine has never called for Dyson to resign over the issue. She just called for an apology.
Never let the facts get in the way of defending the indefensibl eh.
Perhaps answer this question Rob. Do you think Dyson should apologise for having called another MP a tart? I don’t mean apologise for any offence caused, but apologise for having said it?
Also do you think there is possible some difference between Charles and between the Minister of Women’s Affairs when it comes to acceptable terms for women?
Do you still think Katherine Rich should get a life just for asking for an apology? How then can one justify this with Clark’s outrage at Brash’s comments on her views on God and marriage?
Vote:March 26th, 2004 at 5:02 pm
Of course David, you’re totally correct….
Dyson should have never said it. Personally, I’d put it down to making an off-the-cuff remark that she never intended to be heard. It would certainly be a different story if she stood up and squawked at Rich. The point Brown (and in turn, I) was trying to make was that it was never meant to be a remark for public consumption.
Dyson made a rare error of judgement.
Rich has now taken the moral ground and rebuked Dyson’s apology. This demonstrates the depths some members of the National party will go to score some cheap political brownie points.
Do I think she should apologise for making the remark? That
Vote:March 26th, 2004 at 9:09 pm
Rob. In one sense you can argue it is less offensive that it was not said loudly, but the converse can be true. Imagine the outrage if a National MP muttered “cheeky darkie” when questioned by Tariana Turia. It would be worse than Paul Holmes saying it out loud.
I could comment about rare errors of judgement and drink driving but I’ll be generous and won’t. But in politics one bad lapse of judgement can ruin a career. Ask Lianne Dalziel or Ian Revell.
The apology was about as insincere as you can make it. It was the final line in a six paragraph or so press release attacking Katherine, and missed the point that this is not about offence caused, but about Dyson’s behaviour.
I agree the apology does not need to just be to Katherine. She should apologise fullstop for her behaviour.
Vote: