1. The values they espouse are exceedingly fundamentalist and retrograde. This style of belief is a problem in whatever context it arises. We know they are profundly homophobic, anti-science and probably are actively racist as well. If these kinds of extreme beliefs were being spouted by an Islamic sect, nobody here would be defending them, neither left nor right.

2. A long a well-known record of deeply aithoritarian behaviour within their church ranks. If only a fraction of what has been written about them is true, they are petty-monsters who regard themselves above the rules that apply to the rest of us.

3. Their behaviour has been demonstrably underhand and secretive. Their leadership appears to have no accountability to their membership.

4. Up to this point they would be just another bunch of nutters, but on top of that they have access to a wealthy global organisation to fund significant interventions in our local political process.

5. The Westminster system holds to the separation of state and religion for very good reasons, yet this sect appears willing to openly defy this convention.

The sum of the above makes them both mad and denagerous. The correct step is to isolate them at every level, socially, economically and most especially politically.

That suggests something, don’t you think?

“In absence of any real facts…” – yes, a very good reason why we all should be taking a deep breath and not drawing up the indictments for treason quite yet. Just a thought.

But both are pretty serious charges, and I’d think the proof onus very high. Then again, Selwyn would probably differ with me on that.

Depends what they’ve done, of course. I only know what’s been made public, and I get the feeling quite a bit more is going to come out. I think Labour is dishing out rope at the moment for whoever wants to hang themself in the most humiliating way possible.

Yes, I’ve read the 1961 Crimes Act and I think the issue is really what the Act means by the use of “force”. Would a Court in 2006 hold that suborning, browbeating, pestering or threatening a person with disclosure was the use of force? I think they might.

Do we know that Idour and his mates never came on strong to informants, never threatened to tell their employers or their partners something harmful if they did not give the answers Idour and his mates wanted? Never stood over therm and told them they would be in trouble unless they spilled all their beans? Would a Court in 2006 find that to be the use of force?

Would a Court hold that by engaging PIs to carry out such behavior, the EBs were “conspiring”? I think they might.

That is why I reached the conclusion that a charge of treason might be brought.

I think if we were ever to be able

Murray, I don’t touch the stuff. We have another local brew – Emmerson’s – which is very good!

I don’t think anyone has been making light of the EB’s activities. I think the point is that National are not responsible for what they do.

No change there.

I’d welcome sensible discussion on what are serious allegations that lower politics in this country into a whole new sewer, but as ‘sensible’ has never entered into your hysterical anti-Brash rants before I don’t see you changing your tune now.

Red:

If you think Wayne Idour is such an unimpeachable source, perhaps Labour or some person/s connected with the Labour Party owe John Key and Don Brash a lot more than an apology. Or is it a matter of believe what you find politically convenient, and ignore the rest?

I think it’s blindingly clear where Red and James stand, this interview is nothing more than an occasion to pimp some partisan agenda. I think many of us, on all sides of the political divide think these allegations smear us all and deserve to be taken seriously, but with all due scepticism.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10402616

and then aplogize!

But I am interested in your move to have the EB’s ‘inverstiugatzed’, it sounds fun. (whats next, a sscchhhhnap elechin?)

cheers
james cairney (a different james)

Look at the time that you posted it ??

Bet you are overhung now !!

Now a direct witness has appeared to assist Labour’s prosecution of charges against the hapless Mr Brash & co & his Exclusive Brethren associates. This witness says he has heard from others that the other side have been unseemingly investigating National Party MPs. The man’s a trapped fool. And this is hearsay.

The continued Exclusive Brethren association with the NZ National Party (even if only in the minds of the average kiwi voter) should seriously damage the NZ National Party’s chances at a next election – it doesn’t go away. Voters remember. Labour will recall everything in order to use it ruthlessly. And, these will be fairly ruthless jabs into a weakened opposition (weakened because Mr Brash seems complicit and keeps being found out ‘with his pants down’, so to speak). He is an habitual offender, it seems. Further, the Exclusive Brethren (as political activists) necessarily keep making the national political news – working for or alongside the National Party. The facts will emerge, but the impression is overwhelmingly negative (again). So, more damage is likely. Mr. Brash has always looked culpable wrt his knowledge of the foregoing – Nixonian, in fact. Many kiwis think he sanctions this type of behaviour – why?

Well, in recent weeks we have learnt that Mr Brash likes to skulk about New Zealand with his pants down while away from his 2nd wife and his family.

Mr Brash is a sexagenarian love cheat.

And a political fool.

I argue that none of this would have occurred if the perverse Mr. Brash had not been appointed to our House of Commons. Many of you miss this point, or tolerate this abuse. He is an appointee. This is elitist.

Why do Craig and Mr. Farrar & others here prefer a political appointee and fool as well as hopless love cheat like the hapless Mr Brash? Character is everything, guys. Your Mr Brash never had it.

Between the Exclusive Brethren hiring private investigators to engage in seemingly criminal harrassments, and Mr. Brash’s own licentiousness and disregard first for his family’s needs and second for those of his employer (the National Party), Mr Brash is indeed ‘cancerous’ and unworthy for NZ public office. No argument, guys. Our PM – who is rather clever, strong and stable- has described this quite aptly. I think the PM ‘has Mr Brash over a barrel’. With Mr Brash’s trustworthiness disappearing (at home and at work), the NZ National Party’s voice is seriously weakened. This aids the Government’s continued incumbency. Wise up everyone. I support National, but Labour (still) appear stronger, despite all. Why? Well, look at who Mr. Brash is. You guys are being led a fast one.

I want to draw the clandestine Mr Brash-supporters out on this blog. Craig is one of them. But of course, so is Mr. Farrar. They offer a false (& undemocratic) choice: Craig and Farrar et al in effect are saying to you, the reader:

“Either you support Mr. Brash or you are not a NZ National Party supporter”.

This is a False Choice. It is wrong. It is dishonest of them. It is undemocratic. It smacks of ulterior motives. And, in the end, it is a type of disloyalty to an old political institution – the NZ National Party. Mr Brash is not, has never been, nor will be the NZ National Party. Craig and Mr Farrar et al will argue that they work quite diligently for the NZ National Party (and they may do, only as so many others do), and they may cry: ‘how dare you speak so disloyally’ while not admitting to you, the reader, that the National Party remains unelectable while their Mr Brash remains in place. He is far from most people’s choice of leader. He is their choice. Others choose differently.

I am assuming that each man is not a leeming. However, I think that some of them are naively in awe of this former bank administrator with major zipper problems and a seriously deranged political compass; Craig and Mr Farrar et al have no excuse for thinking uncritically about the deeply flawed and hapless Mr Brash. None whatsoever.

Yet they continue blindly – like a herd of sheep. Mr Farrar believes any poll bounce is attributable to his choice (Mr Brash) and unthinkingly slaps cause and effect upon it. Associations don’t exist. Craig is a good footman – but he rants.

All of you now risk being supporters on the wrong side of NZ National Party history – and risk this very soon. How are you going to like that feeling? You will probably change your blooger names, I suspect, and begin to support Mr English, Key or Brownlee.

Mr Farrar has taken to writing fictional posts. A strange first symptom that he is disturbed perhaps. Already, he sees the hawks circling.

If I were a betting man, I’d wager that Ms. Clark will prevail. The NZ National Party must try something different.

Who has a superior political compass to these Brash-Apologists? I do.

I welcome sensible discussion.

Best,

James

For a Winning NZ National Party

Our constitution provides a number of ways for a government to fall.

If they lose the support of the majority in Parliament on a vote of confidence (budget votes are always votes of confidence)
If they lose at an election

are the only two that are important here.

It is clear that we are seeing a deliberate and wilful attempt by a small politically motivated group of people who may be mebers of the Exclusive Brethren sect to subvert our political process in order to bring about a loss of confidence in the government.

That looks like treason to me. They are plotting to overthrow the dulky elected government. Treason doesn’t require force when lying, betrayal and dishonesty can be brought into play.

I suggest we need a Royal Commission to investiugate all these claims, and to inverstiugatze the actions of the Exclusive Brethren group over the past ten years.

Treason or other charges might well folly such an inquiry.

One of our most important strengths in New Zealand is our respect for the rule of law. We should be very careful indeed when we see anything that looks like underming that rule of law.The Exclusive Brethren, who are not elected, who reject the democratic principle and who hjave already demonstrated their poitical engagement and commitment, must be made accountable for their actions.

I think the allegations Idour made (and I’ve said elsewhere why I’m treating the whole thing with scepticism) are quite bad enough, without going off the deep end quite so quickly.

You, sir, might want to take a very deep breath and consider why treason is considered such a serious crime and nobody should throw that word around quite as casually as you do.