Why the “rules” matter
October 29th, 2007 at 9:38 am by David FarrarOne good thing has come out of the Mallard affair – a reminder why the “rules” matter about leaving personal lives and families out of bounds for parliamentary taunting.
Think about how this would have played out, if Trevor Mallard had never publicly taunted Don Brash about Diane Foreman? First of all, I doubt Tau Henare would ever have yelled out “Shut up Sharon” to Mallard in the first place. But, even if he had, look at how differently it could have been handled.
Mallard could have potentially even won sympathy (like John Prescott) if he had got up and said something like “Look it was awful of me to punch him, and I should never have done it, but you know when they go after your family, when they pick on your girlfriend who can’t even defend herself, well something inside me just snapped and I lashed out because I was just so enraged that he had brought my family into this”.
I think a fair proportion of New Zealanders, maybe even a majority, would be on Mallard’s side if that had happened.
But why didn’t Mallard put that up as a defence? Because he couldn’t. Because he had broken the “rules” himself and to then complain about it would make him a first class hypocrite.
And this is the real moral of the story. The “rules” do matter. They have existed for near time immemorial for a reason. When you break the convention to get at an MP you despise (as Mallard did to get to Brash) you might think it is an isolated incident, but as we have seen it does have repercussions. It is exactly because we elect MPs who are human, not saints, that you have the convention around families and affairs.
No tag for this post.
October 29th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Best sermon of the day. Without saying “it serves Mallard right”, you make the point that it was all so unavoidable.
Perhaps if anything, it should remind all future politicians – as you sow, so you shall reap. If there is a lesson in all of this, lets hope it is that in the elections next year politicians of all hues focus on politics and not personal lives.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I’d agree with you, up to a point, but ‘provocation’ doesn’t wash with me – and I certainly hope both Mallard and Henare agree with the Law Commission that it should no longer be a legal defence for murder.
FFS, it is really “”hectoring, lecturing, prissy, do-gooder, PC, pointing-the-finger”(as Winnie The Poo puts it) to expect our legislators to actually behave like adults, and practice what they preach to others? At least the standards a former State Services and Education Minister was quite happy to lay down to other civil servants.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Agree Craig
Vote:I don’t have a shadow of doubt Labour would of demanded the resignation of Brash if he had decked Mallard- as incongruous as that might be.
Mallard has forfeited every right to privacy by taunting Brash in the most public forum possible.
Perhaps Clark could think outside the square as far as punishment in concerned.
My suggestion would be to sentence him to going around schools giving speeches on Anger Management or making him the Frontman for the “It’s not OK” campaign!
October 29th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Why no criticism of Tau Henare? If it was not right for Mallard to taunt Brash then it is certainly not right for Tau Henare to taunt Mallard. Double standards?? Or did you really mean to say that Mallard had it coming to him?
And why is it OK to openly talk about Mallard’s marriage on this blog when, in a similar situation, this very same blog site shut down any discussion on Don Brash’s marriage woes when he was still leader??
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I’m still not convinced all personal stuff should be left out of it.
It’s always a big deal deal when an MP lies to parliament. Why is that?
I would have thought it was around trust issues – we expect our MPs to say what they’d do in power, and when they’re in power do it. It MPs start telling lies then the whole system is in trouble.
But I’d be far more worried about an MP who consistently lied to a loved one – if MP can’t be trusted by someone they love then I’m not sure why the public should be expected to trust them.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 10:20 am
If Mallard had not publicised Brash’s alleged affair, then I would strongly criticise Tau for his comments. If Tau had said what he said to any other Labour MP (except DBP), then I would criticise him.
But if you break the rules, well that is the whole point of my post …
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I’m with Rickyjj on this one.
I think we were failed by our media when they deliberately decided not to mention the Brash affair. There are times when the personal is the political and that fell in that class. Arguably the Minister of Sport dating an elite sports player falls in that class too…
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Dean, and do you think gay Ministers who are not out should be outted?
Do you think a relationship between a Minister and a journalist should be published? What if they only did it once?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 10:50 am
I don’t see how the Minsiter of Sports dating a former elite sports player matters to the public. I also don’t see how MPs having affairs in general matters.
I do see how a leader who bills himself as having an extraordinary amount of honesty and trsutworthiness having affairs matters becuase it exposes that person as a fraud.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:08 am
You spin me round round, baby, round round. Like a record player round round round round.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:16 am
sam – why not call it like you want it: you want to see anyone you oppose nailed to the wall for the most trivial of matters, while anyone you support is given a lifetime supply of get-out-of-jail free passes. like SMM said, spin spin spin
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Sam Dixon: I do see how a leader who bills himself as having an extraordinary amount of honesty and trsutworthiness having affairs matters becuase it exposes that person as a fraud.
Much like signing random paintings and running a party that clamours for integrity and honesty in politics.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am
DPF said:
‘Dean, and do you think gay Ministers who are not out should be outted?’
And here’s me thinking that you HAD to be gay to be a minister in the Labour government (either that or a trade unionist).
Nice all or nothing argument Davey.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:21 am
David you ask if a gay Ministers who are not out should be outted?
Do you do see some situations when they should be outted? A good example would be DBP. He was chosen to promote civil unions because he was meant to be a heterosexual married man with children. If as is alleged in Ian Wishart’s article that DBP is a bisexual surely the public have right to know they have been misled.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I totally agree with DPF — the rules do matter and they have existed from time immemorial for a reason.
Now if we could only apply that same logic to other areas of life.
Let’s say sexual morality for example. The old virtues of self restraint, modesty, prudence and chastity maybe aren’t so bad after all?
Indeed, returning to the issue at hand, some MPs might benefit from some self restraint and prudence!
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:25 am
KK -
Mallard could have taunted any of the other senior National members who are having affairs or are gay but not out (and if you guys don’t know who I’m talking about, you’re really out of the loop), he didn’t and neither does anyone else. He taunted Brash precisely because Brash’s poltiical persona was all about an exceptional level of personal integrity.
And we have to remember that Mallard wasn’t even having an affair, he’s just seeing some woman, hardly scandalous.
The test over whether something private should become public is surely whether it would be a political scandal if the public knew – knowing Mallard is dating a woman or that other members are gay would not cause a scandal – Brash’s affair did.
DPF – ‘do you think gay Ministers who are not out should be outted?’ – they’re not ministers yet, and the way the polls are going…
[DPF: Shows what Sam knows about the current Government. And also shows his blind partisanship]
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Hum… I think the hypocritical panty-sniffers above have just shown the essential soundness of DPF’s original post.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Sam Dixon Said:
And we have to remember that Mallard wasn’t even having an affair, he’s just seeing some woman, hardly scandalous.
Prove it Sam, marriages of 30 years don’t just end because two people can’t agree on what colour to paint the front fence.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Dean, and do you think gay Ministers who are not out should be outted?
For me it’s not about their personal lives, it’s about their telling lies.
If a Minister is gay that has nothing to do with the public.
However if a Minister is in a heterosexual relationship and having secret homosexual liasons WITHOUT telling thier spouse then we should know – because they are telling lies to loved ones.
Likewsie if an MP’s wife doesn’t mind that they have a bit on the side than it’s nothing to do with us. But if the MP’s wife doesn’t know about it then again it seems like the MP is telling lies…
It’s not the personal lives I think we have a right to know about – if an MP was single than they could be screwing a different person every night and it would be none of our business.
The issue is the dishonesty our public figures.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Meanwhile, Sam Dixon accidentally ‘outed’ himself with this:
Thanks Sam – you’ve exposed just how hollow folks who try to justify their purience as being ‘in the public interest’ really are.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:51 am
sam, ridiculous defence mate.
shall we assume all politicians are ethically bereft and therefore permitted/forgiven all failings … however those who lay claim to any ethics should be dragged over the coals for the same failings? there’s an ‘H’ word that springs to mind…
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Surely one of the most important committments a person can make is their marriage vow.
If a person fails to honour faithfully that promise it indicates something about the integrity of that person.
Now if a person stands for public office it follows that he/she is prepared for certain amount of scrutiny to enable voters to judge the degree of integrity they possess.
On the “gay” question, it is simply a matter of whether persons are what they claim to be.
Vote:If a person -for electoral advatage- claims to be happily married when in fact the are living a charade and are violating their marriage contract by having homosexual liaisons, that raise serious issues of honesty and integrity, that the electorate should be able to factor into the voting decisions.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
She said Mallard was defending a woman’s honour and therefore Mallard’s actions were justified. But it did not stop her dragging up Dr Brash’s first marriage into political debate nor allowing Mallard to drag in Brash’s supposed relationshiop with Diane Foreman. She played with a guttersnipe, promoted him into cabinet, gave him a front beanch spot, snarled at Rodney Hide saying he is a hypocrite for complaining about Mallard when he did not support the anti-smacking legislation. Clark can make her decision about Mallard and she will sent her message about violence and we will see who the hypocrite is.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
The hand-wringing and peculiar self-justification from the Left is the most comical aspect to all of this.
Don Brash never held himself out as a poster-boy for marital fidelity. He publicly admitted well before 2002 that he and Je Lan met while they were married to other people.
Trevor Mallard accusing Don Brash of having an affair immediately puts Mallard’s own marital relationship in the spotlight.
[DPF: Well said. Sam lies when he he states Don Brash campaigned on being Honest Don or some such. Don is probably the only MP to have openly admitted he had been unfaithful to his first wife. Sam is depserate for any excuse]
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
DPF: “Why the “rules” matter about leaving personal lives and families out of bounds for parliamentary taunting…… It is exactly because we elect MPs who are human, not saints, that you have the convention around families and affairs.”
It has been said previously on this website that in the House of Representatives we have a mixed bag of humans. The majority in my opinion are sinners.
So they should not ignore the”rules” relating to families? But when it comes to rules relating say to the Electoral Act they ignore them completely – misappropriation of public funds – validation of misappropriated funds, which then break the Electoral rules when it is repaid. To heck with convention?
Then, they break further rules in the Crimes Act, when they sponsor the EFB through the House as it is a proposal to advantage themselves to the disadvantage of the voter and other political parties.
We need a conventional party.
Maori take to the streets to protest perceived legislative attacks on their people. New Zealanders ignore it when their democracy is being undermined?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Sam Dixon wrote: Mallard could have taunted any of the other senior National members who are having affairs or are gay but not out (and if you guys don’t know who I’m talking about, you’re really out of the loop), he didn’t and neither does anyone else. He taunted Brash precisely because Brash’s poltiical persona was all about an exceptional level of personal integrity.
Then how do you explain Michael Cullen saying of a certain National Party Politician that “we all know he likes to get to the bottom of things”? You can find this in hansard. It knocks down your assertions about fair game and all that, and proves Labour are willing to be homophobic bullies if it helps them to score points.
Why don’t you have the honesty to admit contrary evidence and follow your arguments where they lead? As it is, you sound like little more than a self-justifying mouthpiece.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Of course this leaves Tau Henare having broken the rules too. He’d better watch his personal life to make sure he isn’t exposing himself to attack.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Gee MarkS, I think Labour have already left no stone unturned. They’ve used parliament to attack people in parliament for affairs, homosexuality, religious beliefs, assualt, mental health, previous employment … you name it.
Although if you can come up with an attack they haven’t made, I’ll sure they’ll be grateful.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Sam is not lieing by saying that Don Brash campaigned on being “Honest Don”. When the Civil Union bill was being debated he claimed that, “Helen Clark is indifferent to the institution of marriage”. That statement reaches to take the conservative moral high ground, and although normally I wouldn’t care what a MP’s personal life consists of, if a man is prepared to use that kind of language to secure support, he better be prepared to back it up. Which he clearly wasn’t.
I think what Mallard exposed was rank hypocrisy, there was a legitimate reason to expose Brash on this issue. Brash is obviously quite “Indifferent to the institution of marriage” himself. Taunting Mallard on the other hand was… well.. entirely about taunting Mallard, revenge perhaps. It had nothing to do with politics, it was a personal attack and nothing else. After saying that however, provocation is no excuse for his actions.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Brash was talking about the Labour leaders attitude to the impacts of a specific policy. The Civil Union bill was being debated.
I dont recall seeing the Fidelity in Marriage Bill on the debating schedule.
Revenge? Tau Henare was getting revenge for Don Brash? Are you stupid? Sorry… the appropriate question is, exactly how stupid are you?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
David S – thanks for the defence but you needn’t bother. David was there during the events leading up to the Hollow Men -he knows perfectly well how Brash’s political persona was crafted – the ‘non-politican, honest Don’.
KK – you have no subtly of thought – we would hope our politicans are trustworthy and moral, that’s a given, but its not drastically immoral in our society to have an affair. nor does it necessarily make you untrustworthy. But it does matter when you make your trustworthiness the centrepiece of your political persona (much like Key’s persona is centred around him being of a new generation and a rags to riches success, or Clark’s competence and command of policy are hers) .. your political persona is a fair target for attack and if its based on a lie that deserves to be known.
Reg – its not for me to prove that Mallard didn’t have an affair – the burden of proof falls on the accusor.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
David S, you seem to have selective memory. I remember hearing Helen Clark on Paul Holmes on a Monday morning saying if National did not stop calling Labour corrupt in relation to election spending Labour would start dishing out dirt on National MPs.
Mallard started carrying out Helen’s threat so I email Mallard. The start of the email is below. I can post the full email if anyone is interested.
I felt and still do this was more than mudslinging for the sake of it. It was an attack on the democratic process. If Labour was unhappy with the word corrupt they should have used legitimate means to stop the use of it instead of want amounted to blackmail.
That is why I sent my email to Mallard with copies to the opposition and the media.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
It really is amusing to see so many of the people who went wild with exitement over a certain Labour MP’s sex life get so defensive when “Honest Don’s” is brought up. For one, the former’s sexual activities didn’t involve any cheating or deception, yet the latter’s clearly did. Or to put it another way, facts about Brash’s sex life proved that he had no personal credibility – which is clearly important when it comes to politics, where as in the other case it was merely insinuated that a labour MP had non-mainstream tastes in the bedroom – hardly relevant to his political career.
Blind partisanship is a phrase that comes to mind.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
rules? rules?
do you mean the retrospective validation rules?
or the ‘not in the public interest’ rules?
or the no-smacking rules?
credibility sagging by the day
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
this govt is just lucky most people dont give a shit about the idiots in wellington.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Mallard vs Brownlee.
Notice all the Nat types rushing out to the cops to demand that Brownlee be arrested,
handcuffed, and thrown in a police cell for
roughing up a much older man, no, I
am not surprised.
As for Tau, I am the token, dear god, you
Vote:get thumped and run to teacher.
A northern hori, hmm, I want a DNA check
done on him.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Personally, I dont give a shit about Mallard’s love-life, just like I didnt care about Brash’s and why it never occurs to me to think about Helen’s (well, one of the reasons at least).
And DPF is right, nobody would care about Mallards love-life if he hadnt broken the rules in the first place.
“Blind partisanship is a phrase that comes to mind.” It often does when you are involved, Woger.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Yeah, that’s right, Brownlee threw an old man down some stairs. I was waiting for someone to throw in this old canard.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
What a shame that Mallard only got him on the side of the face. A coup[le of black eye’s on Tau might have knocked the smug look he always has on his face.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Mr Dixon. I beg to differ. I think it is drastically immoral to have an affair and it does make you untrustworthy.
I actually think if a politician is sleeping around (while married) then it is newsworthy. It shows they are sneaky and not to be trusted.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
ebsfwan – didn’t vote for the Don then I take it? Perhaps you’re coming at this from a Christian moralistic angle – let’s pray you never voted for Capill.
Fact is dudes have affairs, MPs and non-MPs alike (something like a third of us do), its not a big deal unless they have made their personal honesty a centrepiece of their political persona.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
“but its not drastically immoral in our society to have an affair. nor does it necessarily make you untrustworthy. But…”
Enough said, let me finish your sentence. “But… Brash is a member of National so he is fair game.”
I dont recall Brash running on a Fidelity in Marriage ticket. Because he is a gentlespoken, polite, older male it is ASSUMED he is also not a philanderer. It was this assumed persona that Mallard and Labour unfairly attacked with their taunts.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Heh…I did not vote for the Don.
I was a labour party member up until the retrospective validation of the pledge card fraud.
Call me naive but I expect more from our politicians. I think if a politician is caught lying they should resign from Parliament never mind the cabinet.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Look, every potential MP makes personal honesty a part of their campaign, it is implied. Because everyone does it, it means that everyone is open to be called out on it.
This is the very reason there is an unspoken rule about leaving personal details (note: not business or pre-parliament professional) out of the political arena.
It is what used to be called a gentlemans agreement: You dont talk about the other guys family life.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Fact is dudes have affairs, MPs and non-MPs alike (something like a third of us do), its not a big deal unless they have made their personal honesty a centrepiece of their political persona.
I couldn’t disagree more.
The fact that lots of people do something doesn’t mean it’s ok for MPs to do that something too! They’re our representatives and I think we’re in our rights to expect higher standards from them.
Nobody is perfect, but if somebody is happy to cheat and possibly hurt a loved one then how can we expect they’re not going behave in a way that possibly hurts New Zealand?
After all you’d expect most people love their spouse more than they love their country…
I don’t think there’s anything Christian about it – I’m certainly not Christian. If you want to sleep with lots of people then sleep with lots of people, just don’t promise one person that you’re only going to sleep with them. This is both dishonest and wrong.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
If you break that gentlemans agreement, you have no right to demand other follow it.
If they dont and you deck one of them, the issue is going to be your physical violence and no amount of obfuscation and misdirection by embarassingly partisan labour party apologists trolling political websites is going to change that.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
And a second thing…
Why do so many people think it’s not ok to hit your partner but it is ok to cheat on them?
There’s more to pain than just physical pain, and people can be far more negatively affected by betrayal than by a punch.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
“Why do so many people think it’s not ok to hit your partner but it is ok to cheat on them?”
Would you prefer your partner slept with someone else, or punched you in the face every time they thought about doing it?
Lets assume that you have fallen out of love with each other, you are leading separate lives and barely even talk anymore. Which option would you take?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Would you prefer your partner slept with someone else, or punched you in the face every time they thought about doing it?
There’s a big difference between thinking about cheating and actually doing it! Lots men think about some pretty sick shit quite often – what discerns them from criminals is their lack of action.
If I could choose between getting punched in the face and finding out a long-time partner had been cheating, I’d choose the punch in the face.
Lets assume that you have fallen out of love with each other, you are leading separate lives and barely even talk anymore. Which option would you take?
Well if you’re leading separate lives and not talking it doesn’t seem to be like you’re really together any more, so I don’t think cheating would matter to the other person here.
Again it’s not if you’re married or not, it’s whether you’re being honest with somebody you claim to love and how much this dishonesty could hurt them.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
“There’s a big difference between thinking about cheating and actually doing it!”
The point is that you have a choice. Get punched in the face every time your partner would have otherwise cheated on you, or let them cheat.
“it’s not if you’re married or not, it’s whether you’re being honest with somebody you claim to love ”
So marriage doesnt really matter at all, simple infidelity is meaningless as a judge of character on its own.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
The point is that you have a choice. Get punched in the face every time your partner would have otherwise cheated on you, or let them cheat.
Well you’ve changed what you’re saying now.
Again, I’d take the punches.
So marriage doesnt really matter at all, simple infidelity is meaningless as a judge of character on its own.
Correct. As I said earlier, if your wife doesn’t mind you fucking other people then I have no issue with it. The problem is when you lie to your wife about this.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
re ‘Honest Don’… isn’t it interesting how in the den of ethically bereft behaviour that is otherwise known as ‘nz parliament’… anyone who appears to adhere to some other [even slightly more laudable] set of standards is mockingly bagged as ‘honest’ and therefore subjected to all/any attempts to drag them down to the lowest common denominator.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
A question :
Is it fair game for public scrutiny if a member of the cabinet or a party leader is privately in a relationship that is not the relationship that they are displaying publicly as a Parliamentary spouse ?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Is that not a rule that matters as well?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Castafiore, only if you’ve got cast-iron sources and similarly constructed nads!
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Is it fair game for public scrutiny if a member of the cabinet or a party leader is privately in a relationship that is not the relationship that they are displaying publicly as a Parliamentary spouse ?
Is that not a rule that matters as well?
I think it mainly depends on what they told the other person in both relationships.
Let’s look at an imaginary scenario close to many Kiwiblog readers’ hearts – the PM is having a lesbian relationship with Madam X.
Would the PM’s husband be hurt if he didn’t know about this?
Probably.
But is the public going to be hurt by finding this out?
I don’t think so. It doesn’t really affect anything she does.
So in this case it would be ok if her husband didn’t have any issues with it.
Back to your example, I think it would depend on what this member of cabinet has told the other people in both of his relationships, publicly displayed and real. If one of these two people is being lied to and is going to be really hurt then it seems wrong to me.
But otherwise I don’t see why it’s any of the public’s business, unless it they start behaving hypocritically about such goings-on.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
RickyJJ – “There’s more to pain than just physical pain, and people can be far more negatively affected by betrayal than by a punch.”
I couldnt agree more and posted as such a few daze ago. It is not the physical force applied that hurts so much as the fact of being hit. The psychological hurt. This is overlooked all the time in the violence/smack/punch debates of modern times.
Or actually rather, in reverse, in the past the physical contact was relegated to a lower position of importance. Hence the use of duels etc in days of old. They can actually serve a purpose.
The mental anguish etc is often much more debilitating to people suffering from such attacks. Perhaps Louise Nicholas is one such example – the physical hurt is nothing compared to the psychological hurt.
thoughts anyone? (I usually get ignored!)
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
You’re not being ignored vto. Direct replies to posts are very rare. Doesn’t me we don’t enjoy them. Keep it up.
Meanwhile, Roger Dixon, or Sam Gnome, or whatever. If Don Brash was such fair game, why didn’t Helen Clark out his affair publicly in a press release?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
what vto said
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
A quote i one heard once: “Integrity is who you are when the light is off”.
In other words having integrity is all about holding, and living up to, a single value system regardless of who is looking.
The problem with many of our politicians is that they have multiple sets of ‘values’ which are routinely trotted out to please whichever interested party happens to be nearest. I hate that.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Kimble:
“Revenge? Tau Henare was getting revenge for Don Brash? Are you stupid? Sorry… the appropriate question is, exactly how stupid are you?”
I never said it was revenge for Brash, Tau Henare has had a grudge against Mallard since before Brash was in parliament.
“It’s no secret that Mr Henare doesn’t like the Labour heavyweight. It is said the tension goes back to Mr Mallard’s treatment of Mr Henare’s brother-in-law Tuku Morgan during the $89 underpants affair when both were New Zealand First MPs, but Mr Henare won’t confirm that.
All he will say is that the animosity goes back to his time in the House from 1996-99 – the same time the Morgan controversy occurred.”
- from that herald article.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Let me get this straight. If someone is an old-fashioned moralist but they break down and commit adultery, they’re a hypocrite, untrustworthy, and not fit for high office. But if you’re a modern liberal who subscribes to “anything goes” and you live your life accordingly, you’re not a hypocrite and therefore ARE trustworthy and fit for high office?
If you could compare an administration comprised of people from one end of this spectrum with another from the opposite end, which is actually going to have the most skeletons in its closet? How will history judge Clark’s administration compared to, say, Jim Bolger’s, in this regard? Its starting to look as if we’ve got a serious bias problem when Tuku Morgan’s underpants rated as such a scandal that it virtually brought a government down, but Clark’s mob has got away with tenfold such stuff if recent polling is any guide.
Meanwhile, are there any old-fashioned moralists who actually do live according to their ideals and aren’t hypocrites? (I know, modern liberals across the whole spectrum from politics to Hollywood can’t get their heads around this possibility). If so, they’re like an embarrassing well-kept secret in our society and media today.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
” if your wife doesn’t mind you fucking other people then I have no issue with it. The problem is when you lie to your wife about this.”
How about if you lie to your wife, but she doesnt love you anymore, and she would only care if it meant more money in the inevitable divorce settlement?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
And moronic comment of the day goes to ……. drum role …… kimble (unsurprising I know), with this little gem.
“Would you prefer your partner slept with someone else, or punched you in the face every time they thought about doing it?”
The point he was making, was that cheating is unethical and hurting, as is physical violence. As such neither of them are acceptable behavior. How hard is that to understand?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
If someone is an old-fashioned moralist but they break down and commit adultery, they’re a hypocrite, untrustworthy, and not fit for high office.
Yep.
But if you’re a modern liberal who subscribes to “anything goes” and you live your life accordingly, you’re not a hypocrite and therefore ARE trustworthy and fit for high office?
Yep again.
But I don’t actually think it’s actually anything to do with partisan liberal/conservative crap you’ve added in there. I’d guess over the years that equal numbers of both Labour and National MPs have been guilty of this sort of dishonesty…
Helped of course by the fact that the media don’t report it on – I could be voting liers and cheaters back in every term for all I know…
So I’d re-write your summary to state:
If you lie to (and therefore hurt) people you love then you’re not fit for high office.
This is based on the principle that it’s harder to lie to people you love then people you don’t even know…
As krazykiwi noted, our politicians seem to have multiple sets of morals, and as far as I’m concerned the only way we can see which set they really believe in is to see how they act around those who truly know them.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
O.K.
So a marriage or civil union is a commitment to integrity that a vow has been given on.
If the holder of senior public office breaks down on that vow, does that not bring into question their integrity in other areas or is integrity only something that is turned on and off by its owner ?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
DPF (a bit late and even though the thread has moved on):
If their personal position touches the political. And if they’re gay, in the current context, that probably means yes. It’s even more stronger where a politician has acted or spoken inconsistently with their personal lives – because it becomes a question of credibility.
That said, if the media outed them, I doubt it would rock the electorate. I think the media get more excited by these things than the general public. Which makes their hestitation to report these things somewhat odd.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
So a marriage or civil union is a commitment to integrity that a vow has been given on.
If the holder of senior public office breaks down on that vow, does that not bring into question their integrity in other areas or is integrity only something that is turned on and off by its owner ?
Realistically, married people fall out of love all the time. It’s one of the reasons we have so many divorces, and it’s unrealistic to think this couldn’t happen to public figures too.
I think integrity is how you handle the fact that you no longer love this person you made a vow to.
Honesty is integrity, and the best policy here. Assuming their partner still loves them, their partner is going to be upset no matter what. But I think the right thing to do is to explain how they are feeling to their partner, this person they made a vow to. Explain they’ve thought about it for a while, they no longer love them, they think they want to see other people, etc etc.
Cheating on the other hand perhaps says these same things a lot quicker, but it is far more devastating and hurtful to the partner…
It’s a different story of course if you made a vow for reasons other than love. After all you don’t have to promise to love someone forever in your vow – the standard registry office ones rather state that you see no legal reason why you can’t take the other person as your husband or wife.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I think its generally accepted that the public hold conservatives-especially Christians- to a higher standard of conduct than others.
This is to be expected as their policy platform is usually based around family values like fidelity and taking responsibility for ones actions.
When such a persons doesn’t live up to the values that they espouse they are accused and rightly so of hypocrisy.
The howls of outrage generally come from the left, from people who pride themselves in an amoral perspective, knowing that by taking this position they won’t be held to the standard of morality that they demand from others.
This situation is changing however with the left adopting politically correct policy stances with -almost- religious zeal.
Trevor Mallard has infringed 2 of these “dogmas” and now risks being “defrocked” by the “high-priestess” on the 9th floor.
Firstly he “erred greatly” in mentioning the name of Brash’s supposed girlfriend. This violated the cardinal principle of the liberal left: What ever consenting adults do is never anybody elses business.
Secondly and more seriously, having been guilty of such back-sliding he left himself vulnerable to counter attack and when this eventuated he “lapsed” again and “contravened” the non violent mantra he had been taught from the days of his political “novicate”.
It must bee difficult for the left now that they are being treated like they treat others.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Get fucked Woger, if you bothered to read every word you would see that my question had a proviso.
My point, as anyone can see (except braindead, academic wankers who cannot think laterally to save themselves from embarassment, obviously) was that you cannot simply assume that all cheating is equally bad.
So hearing that somone cheated on their partner can mean little, as rickyjj admitted, unless you know the other specifics of the situation.
Sometimes cheating on your wife is understandable. Sometimes punching someone else in the face is also understandable. But the situations where infidelity are understandable outweigh the situations where physical violence of the sort seen recently.
THAT is why cheating isn’t generally considered as bad as punching someone, despite the emotional hurt that can eventuate.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
You should have let this lie Kimble, but instead you’ve chosen to make a bigger fool of yourself than you already had.
Rickyjj originally said:
“Why do so many people think it’s not ok to hit your partner but it is ok to cheat on them?”
You responded by saying:
“Would you prefer your partner slept with someone else, or punched you in the face every time they thought about doing it?
Lets assume that you have fallen out of love with each other, you are leading separate lives and barely even talk anymore. Which option would you take?”
No you idiot – if you’ve fallen out of love with someone you do the decent thing and break up with them, you don’t act hurtfully and deceitfully. Not only do you seem to be incapable comprehending and construction a logical argument, but you also seem to have a kind of moral retardation as well. Well I guess the two often go together, so it’s not that surprising.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
“The “rules” do matter. They have existed for near time immemorial for a reason.”
Time immemorial? Someone forgot to tell Charles Parnell. Or Colin Moyle for that matter.
And lets be honest, Trevor Mallard was only doing it because National broke the rules by spreading rumours about Peter Davis.
Now Labour is free to break the rules about the rent boys that the Member for……frequents.
I am all for it, let the mud fly!
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Again I ask the question – if Mallard’s new woman is named Brenda, why did he go ballistic when someone mentioned the name “Sharon”? Are we missing something, or is the Minister a serial philanderer as well as a serial sledger?
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
brendas and sharons were all born between 1962 and 1969. he is a serial 60s snogger
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
My read is Mallard having his personal life attacked was fair enough, my issue is doing it a week after his dad had died, that was uncalled for, not to mention being more than retaliation but an extension.
Vote:Any other time I would argue Mallard was in the wrong, but in this particular case I think it was understandable.
October 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“Are we missing something, or is the Minister a serial philanderer as well as a serial sledger?
”
I am guessing Sharon refers to what Fran Sullivan called a false rumour published by Bridget Saunders, the gossip columnists that the Natural Party of Government uses when it wants to spread dirt with plausible deniability.
If Mallard had been, for example, shagging a member of the Union movement and his private secretary at the same time he would have released a press release accusing National of hacking into his email account and stealing his emails.
That is how it generally works.
Vote:October 29th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Rules matter in NZ…..?
Bwaaaa…
Mid 90s, $980,000 plus of Maori residental rates in Taupo “forgiven”….
Whites doing the same refusal would have had their homes sold from under them when the amount owing accumulated.
Racist council bastards are still doing it ….under the counter.
NZ remains unchanged.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 12:20 am
it’s obvious that people haven’t changed either… Tina you’ve set the distinction that there are only Maori and ‘Whites’ in New Zealand. Just when I thought apartheid was only something Winston has recovered as political leverage
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 12:26 am
cv,,
The NZ situation is primarily Maori/European. Thats who the treaty was signed between. The crown and Maori.
Tina is expressing her frustration that it seems only ones ide of that agreement is being honoured and is being consistent to all her postings.
She doesn’t need me to defend her but you’re obviously and ignorantly ranting without thinking and definitely show you have no understanding of the primary issues.
Tina is definitely being pertinent.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 1:03 am
The jackboot of authoritarian capitalism is little different to the jackboot of any other dictatorship. Then government is handed over to the free market capitalist who use the police to crush any terrorism/dissent/opposition, whereas other tyrannies rule in their own name and simply make dissent/opposition itself illegal.
Some on the left can accept that some on the right are as much checks on this as they are themselves. This is why our civil liberites, human rights centred liberal democracy is hated by all tyrannies – because they have to divide us against each other to win totalitarian power over us.
So in the area of this principle, I can only agree with mein host on this.
In specifics the arguement of raising private relationships is relevance. I disagree that many are. Many monogomous men of the utmost fidelity -Nixon etc are untrustworthy. Whereas those who play around may have a higher set of public ethics than their contempioraries, Eisenhower etc.
In the Brash case, relevance was in the “idea of some influence” on National’s political agenda from his liason (purportedly because of the presumed financial support from BR figures to National because of Brash’s leadership). Yet the real story was in the increased anonymous donations, not in the personal relationship. The political purpose in what Mallard did was to link the increased financial support for National with the personal impropriety of Brash – suggesting some sort of infidelity towards most fellow New Zealanders in his special relationship with the BR.
So while it was at one level bringing personal relationships into the public domain – it was done as part of a political strategy. Like also suggesting outside American money …
Whereas the recent case, is … just personal payback, or political retaliation …
The Minister’s future appears to be as an example to other men who avoid the criminal court process after commmitting acts of violence – apology, getting help with anger management, and some loss of public life “status” while he “rehabilitates”. I expect he will probably enjoy the time off over summer …
And why has no one said what he did as Sports Minister was simply the way many AB supporters react in their House after a defeat/death of a Cup dream … release all the hurt pride and disappointment non verbally …
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 1:18 am
cv….oh dear …..cherub, are you serious?.
The left seems to want the rest of the country to refer to themseves as “Non Maori”……
That’s mostly White plus some Asians….not a difficult concept I thought.
Now, racial privlege in Taupo as far as cv is concerned is not as important as whether Asians are specifically named as “non Maoris”.
So corrupt governace depends only on whether it is “correct” language according to cv.
Keep it up pal…we want the journo students with half a brain to take it all in.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 8:30 am
I agree with vto (4:47 pm). The pychological hurt is usually significantly worse than the physical – it usually last far longer (although not always, of course). However, society at the moment (Government plus various other groups) focuses entirely on physical abuse (It is never okay…). Understandable in part because it is much easier to define and therefore convict. But it does lead to a situation where effectively on-going pychological abuse is effectively condoned. I always get annoyed when the Government (local and national) gets on a hobby horse about a single issue that is only a part contributor to a complex problem, and ignore all of the other factors. Recent examples are:
* Speed kills
* It’s never okay
* Sugar is evil
Just off the top of my head.
Although a National supporter, I’d say that Tau is just as guilty as Trevor.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 9:44 am
natural party of govt, Where is your proof?
Helen Clark and her lackey, Brian Edwards have repeatedly claimed that National has spread the rumour that Helen is a lesbian without supplying any proof.
Does anyone else remember Mike Moore’s support’s carrying signs with words something like “Mike or the dyke”?
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Gee, I get tired of repeating this. Helen Clark accused the National Party of spreading smears about her to the press gallery. A couple of senior press gallery journalists went on the record denying that this had ever happened. This is unprecedented as far as I can tell.
And yet posters on this blog of a certain persausion keep repeating these lies again and again, despite the above facts being repeated again and again. It seems to be a deliberate strategy of lying propaganda.
So moderators … what is the penalty for persistent barefaced lying to gain political advantage? Unlike parliament, we can’t vote against these practices.
Or is Redbaiter right?
rakaunui(moderation): Truth : Spin : Lies, are all part of a continuum. It just depends on the view point of the commentor to what their perception targets. The moderator cannot be right.
Vote:The many READERS are the judges of correctness, and their decisions are split.
I personally try to keep Kiwiblog an attractive place TO READ….
October 30th, 2007 at 10:23 am
“Then how do you explain Michael Cullen saying of a certain National Party Politician that “we all know he likes to get to the bottom of things”? ”
I have noticed that smearing people because of their sexuality is fine if you are a hyprocritical labour cabinet minister. Even Helen Clarke has said that accusations that her husband was gay were disgraceful and disgusting. Why? I thought there was nothing wrong with being gay.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Has anyone answered the basic question yet? Really. I may have missed the spin on it but how can the government spend $14 million on a non-violence campaign and keep Mallard after this?
It’s simple isn’t it? They either have to fire him or cancel the campaign – it’s a waste of $14 million otherwise.
You can’t expect everyone to agree “it’s never ok” if it’s actually ok in some instances. It just clears the way for everyone to take a Mallard defense when they get a bit bothered. Put up or shut up.
DPF – why shouldn’t he be sacked?
If he isn’t at least sacked, Henare has an OBLIGATION to beaten kids and wives all over NZ to press charges. I don’t care what buttons he pushed or how hard. It’s never OK, remember? If he doesn’t he is as responsible as Mallard for greenlighting more violence in NZ.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Labour tolerates violence against their political opponents. It’s as simple as that. The Prime Minister will ‘punish’ Mallard, but her rhetoric is giving messages of support:
“He was defending a woman’s integrity”
…. Translation: Henare deserved it.
“I would say that day in, day out, scuffles of this kind occur mainly between men and go unnoticed”
…. Translation: There’s nothing really wrong with it – stop obsessing.
And that is her basic message – Labour can and should do whatever they want. Maybe they cross the line sometimes, but because they are inherently the morally virtuous party, you can easily forgive those transgressions.
The worst crimes are always committed in the name of virtue.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Well said milo – all the left can come up with is “but you started it”! Prior to the last election, Clark misled the country with regard to both Benson-Pope and TPF – both of whom have subsequently fallen from grace as far as Dear Leader is concerned.
Chuck Bird’s post from 2.41pm yesterday is right on the money:
“David S, you seem to have selective memory. I remember hearing Helen Clark on Paul Holmes on a Monday morning saying if National did not stop calling Labour corrupt in relation to election spending Labour would start dishing out dirt on National MPs.”
The “cancerous and corrosive”, “how’s Diane” and “speaking of affairs” comments had nothing to do with Investigate Magazine’s Davis/homosexual angle, which didn’t hit the newstands until after the comments about Brash had been made in and out of the House.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 10:37 am
TMC
exactly.
Can someone who supports labour in this please explain? IS IT NEVER OK?? OR IS IT OK SOMETIMES??
Silence will be taken as answer – by me, and most of the country I suspect.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 10:54 am
vto
It’s never ok – UNLESS you’re a Labour MP, in which case, there is an exception to the rule. Just like “prima-facie” – applies to you and me, and we would be left to mount our own defence, but doesn’t apply to them.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 11:16 am
hinamanu,
Thank you for your brief history lesson on the Treaty of Waitangi.
I agree that ‘when’ the treaty was signed, those mostly concerned were indeed Maori and the Crown (the Crown consisting an ethnical backing of British, Irish and other smaller European groups).
However nearly two centuries on, that ethnical makeup has certainly changed where the Crown consists of not just ‘Europeans’ (there can also be coloured Europeans) but also other ethnic minorities, namely Asians
and Polynesians.
My ‘ranting’ is merely an attack to that of narrow-mindedness, where somebody has definitively decided that only the Whites
and Maori are of importance within NZ. A feat only succumbed by the inhabitants of hill country within Mississippi and Virginia
Tina, being a little presumptuous aren’t we?
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“Helen Clark accused the National Party of spreading smears about her to the press gallery. A couple of senior press gallery journalists went on the record denying that this had ever happened. This is unprecedented as far as I can tell.”
Since when was Bridget Saunders a senior press gallery journalist?
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
natural party of govt, Can you support your allegations that National spread any rumours about Helen Clark or her homosexual rights lobbyist husband?
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Treaty of Waitangi: The Treaty was intended to facilitate the annexation of the North Island as the first step to bringing law an order into a lawless, uncivilized, growing colony. It also made Maori British citizens, to join with the influx of settlers.
When the British Home Office viewed the Treaty, they described it as a legally naïve, hastily drawn-up document in order to annex the territory.
The Tribunal can only consider any breaches of the three Articles:.
The first extinguished all their rights, including customary practices that became illegal under British law at the instant they became British citizens. It is difficult to envisage any breach of this by the Colonial Power. But the same cannot be said of Maori, particularly when they often assert a right of custom that is not lawfully available to other citizens. There is no ‘Tribunal’ to rectify these increasing breaches. The 2nd Article is the one used (and abused) to claim a breach and this is where the other major flaw has crept into the interpretation.
Vote:October 30th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
“natural party of govt, Can you support your allegations that National spread any rumours about Helen Clark or her homosexual rights lobbyist husband?”
How did you know I was recording the conversation between Brash and Saunders at their lunch together before she ran her infamous column?
Does John Key have lunch with gossip columnists as well……?
Vote:October 31st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
natural party of govt, Why not use your real name and state what you allegedly claim you have recorded? Show us your proof.
Vote: