After smacking, tuckshops and showers, now it is your number of kids

October 18th, 2008 at 12:45 pm by David Farrar

The , proud champions of regulations for showers, have their brightest and boldest policy – a zero population policy.

In fact it is even worse than that – they want negative growth so NZ can have room for Pacific Island climate change refugees.

Rodney Hide has the best comment:

Act leader Rodney Hide said it was a first step toward zero-population growth. He suggested that perhaps if parents planted a field of trees, they might be able to have twins.

Yes, you will have to build up enough carbon credits in order to get permission to have a child.

And Tariana:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said it was a case of “middle-class” Greens trying to tell others how big their families should be.

“Tell them to go to China where there is a One Child policy. But don’t start trying to control fertility and social engineering like that here.”

The defence:

Greens population spokeswoman Metiria Turei yesterday denied it was an attempt to discourage people from having large families. She said awareness of the impact their families had on resources and the environment would allow parents to make an “informed decision” about their family size.

For fuck’s sake. Having kids is the biggest decisions parents make anyway. Having Metira tell families they need to make an “informed” decision is as offensive as laughable. What she means is she wants people to feel guilty if they have kids as kids use up scarce resources.

There is a problem with over population globally, but for most of Europe the problem is under population – not enough children are being born to replace those dying.

The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. Current fertility rates according to the UN are:

  • Greece 1.33
  • Russia 1.34
  • Germany 1.36
  • Italy 1.38
  • Canada 1.53
  • Australia 1.79
  • UK 1.82
  • France 1.89
  • NZ 1.99
  • US 2.05

So NZ already has a declining population growth from fertility, being under the replacement rate of 2.10. And we are at the top end of European countries. So where is the global population growth happening:

  • Niger 7.19
  • Palestine 5.09
  • Tonga 3.83
  • Pakistan 3.52
  • Saudia Arabia 3.35
  • India 2.81
  • Libya 2.72

So let’s make sure we have this right. NZ already has a shrinking population from fertility. But in order to allow India, Libya, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and the Niger to carry on with their over-populating, NZ families should have less children.

The Greens policy even includes:

Facilitate the development of regional population plans, in partnership with local tangata whenua.

So what the fuck will a regional population plan be?

They also advocate:

Support initiatives to raise awareness amongst parents and potential parents regarding the issue of sustainable global population levels.

What this means is taxpayer funded bureaucrats working on pamphlets and seminars to frighten parents off having more kids. Can you imagine every school in NZ having some dour faced do gooder preaching to all the kids they they should not have children, in order to save the planet.

How about a nice pamphlet “About your foetus and save the planet today” – have that in every doctor’s surgery.

The Greens are saying of course it will be up to each family to decide for themselves how many children they have – but nevertheless they want to run education programmes and awareness initiatives to help those parents make the right decisions.

Tags: , ,

196 Responses to “After smacking, tuckshops and showers, now it is your number of kids”

  1. adamsmith1922 (890 comments) says:

    Truly Orwellian

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Lee (610 comments) says:

    DPF hits the nail on the head. The West (culturally speaking) is in decline. Much of the Muslim world is not.

    I would like to offer to pay for the entire Green Party leadership to go to Saudi Arabia and tell them to stop breeding.

    I have a funny feeling I would only need to pay for one way tickets. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Dyan22 (6 comments) says:

    Probably Labour’s new electioneering policy.
    “It’s not us, it’s the Greens who are the Nanny State. Give your vote to Labour.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Gravelroad (155 comments) says:

    Maybe that’s how they plan to pay for the student allowance?
    less kids means less WFF .
    This is totally communist

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. JC (956 comments) says:

    Someone should rush out a replica of the Greens little girl saying “Vote For Me”, and underneath

    “The Greens are trying to kill me”

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. reid (16,457 comments) says:

    Interesting isn’t it how lefties get so obsessed with their causes they fail to see wider realities.

    The earth can’t support the gobal population. Agree.

    Their solution: encourage the most educated proportion to stop breeding.

    The fact this very proportion are the most capable of developing workable solutions seems to escape them.

    The only answer to resource overconsumption (if you believe it’s critical which I don’t), is to either dramatically change global behaviour or dramatically reduce world population within a short, say 40 year, timespan. There are no others.

    Changing global behaviour means global government action on pooling scientific resources to develop energy alternatives and simultaneously changing consumer behaviour to prevent for example the growth of India and China vehicle fleets. These are rather hard things to tackle so instead The Greens reach for their well-thumbed commie playbook and ban something. Yeah that’ll work.

    Funny also how they haven’t announced any solutions to the global financial issues. Being so well versed in global economic theory you’d expect them to be brimming with ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Zippy Gonzales (485 comments) says:

    What a Methuselah of Malthusian mumbo jumbo. What’s more, the policy sabotages their very successful billboard campaign. The Greens would have achieved a similar goal without the collateral damage if they’d just pushed for something straight-forward like free vasectomies. Instead, they’ve shot themselves in the genitals with this environmental eugenics policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    We now know why there are so many Greens billboards with one child on them, saying “vote for me”

    It’s discovered that the coded message means: vote for one child… per family.

    In the billboards with two children, they appear decidedly uneasy… as if they know one of them will be “culled”. Who is watching them? A greasy haired aging hippy with an old Leica? Or a lecherous cargo garbed urban communist, armed with a digital camera?

    my message for the commie Greens is this:

    Fuck off. Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, FUCK OFF! Fuck you and the lame horses you rode in on. Fuck your ideas and your criminal insanity. Fuck your appeasement and support of leaders who practice genocide. Fuck your derision of the culture that allowed you to rise to prominence. Fuck your hypocrisy and cowardice. Fuck your abandonment of real environmental concerns. Fuck your condescension, your hubris, your lack of logic. Fuck your constant whining. Fuck your total arrogant isolation from sane NZder’s. Just go fuck yourselves, because if you ever come anywhere near me or mine during this campaign, I will fuck you up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Viking2 (11,471 comments) says:

    Ha, just traveled into town and noticed all the Greenies billboards with TWO kids and the slogan Vote for US.
    Perhaps they can’t count and two goes into one or some other strange form of maths that gets taught these days. Mind you perhaps Turie is just talking about her lot. Be a change from handing out DPB’s just so there lot can increase the voting strength for the Maori Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lindsay Addie (1,514 comments) says:

    What would be next, ban bonking or even better slam a tax on it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Lee (610 comments) says:

    We live in a solar system with vast resources and energy. The ideology of “limited resources” is at best a half-truth, and an excuse to justify more nanny state control.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Turpin (342 comments) says:

    If anyone needed to know where Labour/Greens could go in another term – here it is.

    “The Greens are saying of course it will be up to each family to decide for themselves how many children they have – but nevertheless they want to run education programmes and awareness initiatives to help those parents make the right decision”

    Yeah like we can decide whether a samck on the bum if acceptable for disciplinary purposes!
    If you want further info the Gaia proposal being agitated by Greenies & NGO’s in the UN and around the world to bring the earth back to where it was before we came around go have a look at http://www.sovereignty.net/p/ngo/iucn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Turpin (342 comments) says:

    If anyone needed to know where Labour/Greens could go in another term – here it is.

    “The Greens are saying of course it will be up to each family to decide for themselves how many children they have – but nevertheless they want to run education program mes and awareness initiatives to help those parents make the right decision”

    Yeah like we can decide whether a smack on the bum if acceptable for disciplinary purposes!
    If you want further info the Gaia proposal being agitated by Greenies & NGO’s in the UN and around the world to bring the earth back to where it was before we came around go have a look at http://www.sovereignty.net/p/ngo/iucn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Spider_Pig (62 comments) says:

    How many other parties have a “population” spokesperson?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. helmet (807 comments) says:

    They should spend more time developing environmentally sustainable economic policy and less time producing this bullshit.
    The greens could do real well in the election if they could manage to appear credible for a change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Turpin (342 comments) says:

    so DPF if the system say to me – “its a duplicate comment” – how come my comment wasn’t published ?

    go to http://www.sovereignty.net/p/ngo/iucn..

    To see what the Greens and their friends really really want.
    wankers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    It’s plain as day that this all part of the commie plan to weaken western countries, while infiltrating us with immigrants who plan to rise us and conquer us when the timing it right. Just wait for the immigration floodgates to open in the USA should radical Obama be elected!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    This is really ‘off the planet’ stuff.

    Clearly their Major Donors list is in error. It must surely include Michael Appleby distributing ‘pot’ (or stronger) to the entire Green’s caucus to have them so out of their heads.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    I think this is a great policy, but that it should only be implemented after one generation of the Green Party demonstrating that it can be done (by having zero children themselves).

    Perhaps Darwin was right after all?

    :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    DPF, that is a very good posting, anyone would think you had been reading Mark Steyn. Episcopalian Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori often exhorts her flock to have no more than two children each for the sake of “responsible stewardship of the Earth”. Mark Steyn asked her a two-part question: did she know what the birth rates in Muslim countries was, and into whose hands did she think “stewardship of the Earth” was going to fall……….but of course, I KNOW, I KNOW, Steyn is completely beyond the pale, a peddler of racist bigotry, yadda, yadda, yadda……..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Lee (610 comments) says:

    I have said for years that the Greens friendly-fluffy-bunny-kind to trees and small animals image is a facade to hide the most extremist and dangerous agenda in NZ. But until now they were relatively good at keeping that agenda away from the public eye. Now I think a lot of people with moderate pro-green ideas who had been prepared to vote for them will be having a second look.

    It will be interesting to watch their standing in the polls over the next couple of weeks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    The best form of population control is to simply shoot these Watermelons!

    What audacity, and pompous rhetoric.

    There is no population issue in NZ. With Winstons no immigration policy there is no danger.

    Why do we need any more coconuts, ragheads, and wastrels.

    To be fair mental Somalians are good at stabbing Pilots.

    What a crock of shit from holier than thou peacenicks.

    Go to India and look at the problems there and leave us the fuck alone!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Buggerlugs (1,592 comments) says:

    Just because no one in their right mind would fuck Turei doesn’t give her the right to stop me spreading my demon seed…who’s up for a shag?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    The Greens are overflowing with deceitful ideology that lacks any semblance of wisdom. I hate everything they represent. Why can’t some of the intelligent from among their 7% see this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    It might be a cover story for ‘Don’t be an Austrian Dungeon Incest Father’.

    You can’t smack your kids (that is not battery, assault or violence)

    And for the rest of you that will persist putting them in tumble driers, and hanging them on washing lines etc.

    Please don’t fuck your kids either.

    This is truly bizarre, and gets even more sinister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Lee (610 comments) says:

    Sadly, the current Bishop of the of the Episcopalian (Anglican) Church is not a true Christian, but a Gaia worshiping New Age socialist. Which is why most of the rest of the global Anglican Church is rapidly dissasociating from them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    There’s a wonderful old jazz song which the Greens can adopt as their signature tune.

    Momma Don’t Allow

    Here’s the appropriate line.

    Momma don’t allow no fucking around here
    Momma don’t allow no fucking around here
    We don’t care what Momma don’t allow
    Gonna fuck ourselves stupid anyhow
    Momma don’t allow no fucking around here

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    “The Ultimate Resource”
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Ultimate Resource
    Author Julian Simon
    Country United States
    Language English
    Genre(s) Nonfiction
    Publisher Princeton University Press
    Publication date 1981, 1996
    Media type Print (Hardback & Paperback)
    Pages 734 (1996 edition)
    ISBN ISBN 0-691-00381-5 (Revised 1996 edition, pbk)

    “The Ultimate Resource is a 1981 book written by Julian Lincoln Simon challenging the notion that humanity was running out of natural resources. It was revised in 1996 as The Ultimate Resource 2……….

    “………The overarching thesis on why there is no resource crisis is that as a particular resource becomes more scarce, its price rises; this rise of price creates an incentive for people to discover more of the resource, ration it and, eventually, develop substitutes. The “ultimate resource” is not any particular physical object but the capacity for humans to invent and adapt……..

    “…….A plurality of the book consists of chapters showcasing the economics of one resource or another and proposing why this resource is, for human purposes, infinite.

    Simon argues that for thousands of years, people have always worried about the end of civilization brought on by a crisis of resources. Simon lists several past unfounded environmental fears in order to back his claim that modern fears are nothing new and will also be disproven.

    Some of the “crises” he notes are a shortage of tin in the 1200s BCE; disappearing forests in Greece in 550 BCE and in England in the 1500s to 1700s CE; food in 1798; coal in Great Britain in the 1800s; oil since the 1850s; and various metals since the 1970s.

    A large section of the book is dedicated to showing how population growth ultimately creates more resources. The basic argument echoes the overarching thesis: as resources become more scarce, the price rises, creating an incentive to adapt. The more people a society has to invent and innovate, ceteris paribus, the easier the society will raise its living standards and lower resource scarcity. People, on average, add to a civilization more than they take away. People are the ultimate resource…….”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. bringbackthebiff (99 comments) says:

    I’m with good god. I think this is a reflection of the frustration felt by Kiwis at home, and in other places. The left have screwed NZ beyond all recognition. They have successfully driven 80,000pa out of NZ to Aus as part of the grand scheme to fill the country with worthless imports who will suck the life out of those remaining. They will show their gratitude of the socialists who have stolen for their comforts by supporting them, thus ensuring they remain in power.

    I want to vomit when I see the greens or Helen Clark on TV

    Fuck them, may they rot in hell.

    BBTB

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Phil Best.

    Great research.

    The perfect examaple is oil futures.

    Above $200 a barrel we get to crush a third of Canada and Siberia.

    There is no shortage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. homepaddock (408 comments) says:

    Greens are for the planet not people. Their perfect world would be clean, Green and child free.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. LabourDoesntWork (290 comments) says:

    Remember when leftists like this use “choice” to justify abortion that they are anti-choice on every other issue under the sun, including number of children. Women who vote Labour/Green need to understand that abortion “choice” is no more than a social-engineering goal for leftwing feminists, who are nothing other than totalitarian control freaks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Southern Raider (1,829 comments) says:

    I agree with the concept of the policy but for completely non-environmental reasons.

    For too long left wing Govt’s have encouraged out of control breeding without education of the consequences (not to the economy, but to the children).

    Look at the Palestinian birthrate, even without all the other factors they would still be below the poverty line with the second highest birthrate in the world and a country the size of a small city.

    Even in NZ we have Labour supporting irresponsible parents on low inomes having large families and then complaining about the poverty gap.

    If low income people had smaller families the kids would be healthier, better educated, have a bigger share of their parents attention and we would get less of the downstream effects.

    This is what the Greens should be concentrating on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    This is more evidence the greens lack a fundamental understanding of political leadership. While we must consider the wider world around us, the primary objective surely is managing our country well before we start looking to solve the worlds problems.
    Anyone suggesting NZ is at a stage where we can offer the world solutions to social problems is particularly deluded, we are inventing new ways to stuff up under the current leadership.
    We had Jeanette Fitzsimons recently writting to the govt in Tasmania urging them to stop their forestry industry. She proceeded to brag about how the West Coast of the South island is now prospering due to the greens banning logging and increasing eco tourism. This is an outright deception. She did not mention record coal prices, or the 120 million compensation package or the fact that the exotic forestry on the Coast is completely colapsing, or that labour/greens policy has played a major part in our entire forestry industry becomming doubtful.
    The greens have a belief that they have attained enlightenment that the rest of us haven’t, and this is how they justify their arogant presumptious control freakery.
    I don’t care whether someone tries to control me with a smile on their face or a gun to my head, it is exactly the same flaming thing.
    This population thing is just the latest attempt to incorporate green “religion” into law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Madeleine (230 comments) says:

    They have got to be kidding.

    No seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Madeleine (230 comments) says:

    They have got to be kidding.

    Seriously.

    Their definition of racism is insane. They reason they want to leave family size up to families is because it might be racist? Other races might have differing opinions (so mere disagreement is racism)?

    What about reasons like because its facist and statist and totalitarian and genocidal and outright wrong!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    The bottom line is no shagging.

    Tree hugging and lentil munching only!

    Oh and a bit of same sex loving? (No kids then!?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. reid (16,457 comments) says:

    “This is more evidence the greens lack a fundamental understanding of political leadership.”

    All lefties, every single one, have made a wrong turn somewhere on the reality road. The Greens are just too naive to hide it as well as some of the others do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    I blame the Magic Mushrooms for their state of mind…

    FFS, I hate to consider this but Winnie’s starting to make sense! :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. voltaire (40 comments) says:

    Does the Greens policy mean that in the future there will be no more philu’s?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    Fuck off. Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, FUCK OFF! Fuck you and the lame horses you rode in on. Fuck your ideas and your criminal insanity. Fuck your appeasement and support of leaders who practice genocide. Fuck your derision of the culture that allowed you to rise to prominence. Fuck your hypocrisy and cowardice. Fuck your abandonment of real environmental concerns. Fuck your condescension, your hubris, your lack of logic. Fuck your constant whining. Fuck your total arrogant isolation from sane NZder’s. Just go fuck yourselves, because if you ever come anywhere near me or mine during this campaign, I will fuck you up.

    You took the words right out of my mouth!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. reid (16,457 comments) says:

    “Winnie’s starting to make sense”

    What do you mean DA?

    Re: the lefties mindset, they all believe a bigger state is the answer to human problems. When people believe that, what can you do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Mr Nobody NZ (391 comments) says:

    While I disagree with the Greens Policy I have to say good on them and I now expect to see Sue Bradford advocating restrictions on all Social Welfare benefits to cover only the first child.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    # LabourDoesntWork (58) Vote: Add rating7 Subtract rating 0 Says:
    October 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    “Remember when leftists like this use “choice” to justify abortion that they are anti-choice on every other issue under the sun, including number of children. Women who vote Labour/Green need to understand that abortion “choice” is no more than a social-engineering goal for leftwing feminists, who are nothing other than totalitarian control freaks.”

    LabourDoesn’tWork, I POSTED THIS on a “general debate” thread a few days ago……..

    # PhilBest (3097) Vote: Add rating 5 Subtract rating 2 Says:
    October 15th, 2008 at 10:45 am

    Close followers of this blog may have noticed my arguments recently to the effect that it is the height of hypocrisy for the “liberal” left to only be liberal when it comes to sexual morality but seek to control every other aspect of their citizens lives. As some old curmudgeon said in a letter to the DomPost, he didn’t appreciate a bunch of “free-lovers” telling him he needed to exercise self-control in his eating. I have also pointed out that when Socialism progresses to its totalitarian conclusion, it becomes severely proscriptive of sexual behaviour after all, as it then becomes an issue of national and societal strength that they do not want undermined. Up till then, it was a handy means of undermining national and societal strength as an element in their agenda of takeover.

    Anyway, here is a great thinker who just a few days ago made a similar argument much more succinctly:

    The esteemed Norwegian blogger “Fjordman”, in “Sweden; The Triumph of Cultural Marxism”.

    “….According to Gramsci, the Socialist revolution, which failed to spread following the Russian Revolution in 1917, could never take place until people were liberated from Western culture, particularly from their “Christian soul.” As Lukacs said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” This could be done through breaking down traditional morality and family patterns and undermining the established culture from within by a long march through the institutions, the media and the schools. We can now see that this strategy has been successful in Western media and academia, which are not only lukewarm in defending our civilization but in some cases actively side with our mortal enemies. The irony is that most Westerners have never heard of Gramsci, yet ideas similar to his have had a huge impact on their lives.

    The British historian Roland Huntford wrote a book in the early 1970s about Sweden called The New Totalitarians. He noted how equality between the sexes was aggressively promoted from the late 1960s and early 70s. This was closely linked to a campaign for sexual liberation:

    “Indeed, the word ‘freedom’ in Swedish has come to mean almost exclusively sexual freedom, product perhaps of an unadmitted realization that it is absent, or unwanted, elsewhere. Through sex instruction at school for the young, and incessant propaganda in the mass media for the older generations, most of Sweden has been taught to believe that freedom has been achieved through sex. Because he is sexually emancipated, the Swede believes that he is a free man, and judges liberty entirely in sexual terms.…The Swedish government has taken what it is pleased to call ‘the sexual revolution’ under its wing. Children are impressed at school that sexual emancipation is their birthright, and this is done in such a way as to suggest that the State is offering them their liberty from old-fashioned restrictions.”

    By old-fashioned restrictions, read Christian morality. Huntford noted that this came together with efforts to downplay or attack Western culture prior to the French Revolution. As Mr. Olof Palme, who was Swedish Socialist Prime Minister from the late 1960s until 1986, said: “The Renaissance So-called? Western culture? What does it mean to us?”

    “As political and economic freedom diminishes” said Aldous Huxley’s in Brave New World, “sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.” This fits perfectly with Huntford’s description. The state strips away your personal, economic and political freedom, yet grants you sexual freedom in return, boldly hailing itself as your liberator. Sweden in 2008 is a society with no real freedom of speech if you deviate from the ruling ideology. The more crushing ideological censorship and political repression become, the more frantic the displays of “sexual freedom” get. Sex is freedom; freedom means sex, and only sex.

    State authorities present this as liberation of women and sexual liberation, but it is actually about breaking down rival sources of power: The traditional Christian culture and the nuclear family. This leaves the state more powerful since it can regulate all aspects of life and, most importantly, can indoctrinate the nation’s children as it sees fit, without undue parental interference. The state replaces your family, raises your children and cares for your elderly……”

    READ THE WHOLE THING:

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3582

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    # Mr Nobody NZ (113) Vote: Add rating1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
    October 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    “While I disagree with the Greens Policy I have to say good on them and I now expect to see Sue Bradford advocating restrictions on all Social Welfare benefits to cover only the first child.”

    TOUCHE, Mr Nobody…….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Southern Raider (1,829 comments) says:

    The Greens will be spewing that the Pike River Coal project struck black gold this week.

    How long before this company gets banned if the Greens get in?

    The West Coast is a joke. We had a perfectly functioning selective logging system creating wealth for all NZ. Now we have native trees rotting in the forest and adding to the countries carbon loading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. freethinker (691 comments) says:

    Lindsay Addie (628) Vote: 5 0 Says:
    October 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    What would be next, ban bonking or even better slam a tax on it?
    Dont give Dr Sullen any more ideas for tax, oh shit he,s already formulating it for his next budget – Fornication duties – so now we have Jeanette in the bathroom checking the shower,Russel in the garage checking the water cylinder, Sue in the lounge checking we don,t smack the kids and Sullen in the bedroom assessing how much to tax our private pleasures – the ultimate Dicktator!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Christian... (4 comments) says:

    Hmm seems to confirm what Russel Norman told me at Victoria University clubs day earlier this year, after calling me “Fuckin’ stupid” when I questioned this policy and saying as I study Law I don’t know anything about the environment, he didn’t seem to have a reply when I asked what he’d studyd…When I asked him what they’d do with the resultant rapidly aging population he informed me he supported Euthanasia then walked away. It would appear Russel and the Greens care more about the eels than the elderly. Charming bunch.

    I also really appreciate being called fuckin stupid and told my degree is worthless, really, good work Russel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. reid (16,457 comments) says:

    “The West Coast is a joke. We had a perfectly functioning selective logging system creating wealth for all NZ. Now we have native trees rotting in the forest and adding to the countries carbon loading.”

    Absolutely nuts isn’t it SR.

    Disgraceful really, but shows the dangers of an active-negative leader. Clark can’t reverse herself on anything even when the evidence is clear the decision was wrong.

    Unfortunately the rest of us have to suffer the pain of her hubris.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Southern Raider (1,829 comments) says:

    And the people fight back. From Stuff

    “The poll puts National on 51 per cent and Labour on 33 per cent – figures virtually unchanged from a month ago.”

    And last week she believed the rogue poll that showed a closing of the gap yet this week? “Mr Key said yesterday that the poll was encouraging, but there was still a long way to go, while Miss Clark made it clear she did not believe the result.”

    The woman has serious reality issues!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Seán (397 comments) says:

    Yes, now we know why so many Green Party supporters are pro-abortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Southern Raider (1,829 comments) says:

    And then you get this shit.

    “The Family Court will now decide the future of a seven-year-old girl at the centre of a trans-Tasman custody row.”

    The father already has a custody order and the mums a drop kick P head loser. Yet of course the left will support the mother as all dad’s are evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. william (46 comments) says:

    i only hope the right continues to hammer at the media on thıs one. we know from the shower debacle that the public ıs sick of being dictated too …. so if you have influence please make sure the lunacy of this polıcy at its most extreme gets ridiculed in the mainstream media. it will make the difference between the greens being above 5 percent or below it .. imho

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    The Greens aren’t really objectionable except when they have a lapse and forget the Green Party rule.

    This is: pass round the waccy baccy only after the media releases have been completed and sent off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. s.russell (1,642 comments) says:

    Fools!

    Don’t you realise that DPF and the National Party are engaged in an even more sinister plot than the Greens’ plan to destroy society?

    They are acting under all your noses in a plot so vile it is unspeakable. They are trying to subvert proper grammar!

    “Children” is a countable noun. The appropriate modifier is “fewer” not “less”. Soon, they will be applying “fewer” to uncountable nouns , eg “There should be fewer alcohol in my beer”.

    The ultimate objective of this plot is to make all words meaningless, leading to the end of reality.

    The spread of such meanlinglessness must be defeated. We must be meanlinglessnessless! Act now before it is too late!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. southtop (265 comments) says:

    FFS! Darwin got it good.
    Superb billboards effectively keeping the faces of genetic fitzsimmons, ginga norman, watermelon keith, feedme keggy, spanky bradford et al away from reminding the voters who they would actually be voting for….only to be shot in the foot by the most amazing policy.
    I thought this was a Whale Oil piss take initially, surely they couldn’t be THAT stupid? But then they are moving through my house room by room:
    Garage – ban cars
    Kitchen – tell me what to eat
    Bathroom – how much water to use ……………only a matter of time before they tried to get my bedroom door open.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Well a picture of Sue Bradford on my bedroom wall would certainly end my breeding capacity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    I do hope that this is the Greens’ last gasp. It would be a fitting end before the electorate aborts them. The population of idiots in parliament needs to decline.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    These people have to be a few cans short of a six pack. On behalf of the 95% of the population that uses more then half their brain when thinking I would like to nominate this policy for a Darwin award. Surly this policy deserves nothing less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Rakaia George (313 comments) says:

    I’ve got a population policy – we need a population of about 12 million to be able to afford decent infrastructure and armed forces capable of defending us once over-populated Indonesia decides it wants our resources.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. petal (706 comments) says:

    Can someone make a list of the number of children each of the people standing for the Greens have?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. petal (706 comments) says:

    (I’m going to get some thumnbs down for this, but here goes)

    “The Greens will be spewing that the Pike River Coal project struck black gold this week.”

    MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!

    “The West Coast is a joke. We had a perfectly functioning selective logging system creating wealth for all NZ. Now we have native trees rotting in the forest and adding to the countries carbon loading.”

    Err, that’s where trees are supposed to be rotting. It ain’t an eco SYSTEM if you take part of it away. The Coast needs to get over the fact that they live in a place where there are some trees the rest of us want to keep. Pop over the Alps and see what it starts to look like without them. A big dusty bowl in need of artificial irrigation and continual droughts. Woohoo!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. radvad (765 comments) says:

    “Can someone make a list of the number of children each of the people standing for the Greens have?”

    Bradford had five.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. reid (16,457 comments) says:

    They could have had it both ways petal, that’s the point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Lornimouse (1 comment) says:

    Putting to one side the misrepresentation of the Green’s policy I have to say that the the UN Statistics mentioned in the original blog here way out of date, the birth rate is currently 2.2 per woman under Labour (working for families and paid parental leave, both supported by the Green’s have probably been a factor in this.)

    http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/hot-off-the-press/births-and-deaths/births-and-deaths-jun08qtr-hotp.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Lee (610 comments) says:

    XavierG,

    I noticed you didn’t have the guts to stick around and explain it to us.

    I think everyone here understands it perfectly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    “Err, that’s where trees are supposed to be rotting. It ain’t an eco SYSTEM if you take part of it away. The Coast needs to get over the fact that they live in a place where there are some trees the rest of us want to keep. Pop over the Alps and see what it starts to look like without them. A big dusty bowl in need of artificial irrigation and continual droughts. Woohoo!”

    Petal, Sorry to expose your ignorance but it is the Southern Alps that keeps the west wet and the east dry, not the trees.
    And selective sustainable management is one of the most environmentally friendly forms of forestry there is, taking the odd tree out actually increases the amount of carbon that a forest is capable of removing from the atomosphere.
    And Petal, Cantabrians need to get over the fact that they are a more “red neck” part of the country than the West Coast has ever been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Stupid policy.

    But, having said that, some in the west seem to think it is necessary for our population not to shrink. What issues would it really cause if our birth rate stays at or about 1.9, and our population slowly declines? If people don’t want to have lots of kids, so what? Might stuff up retirement savings a bit, but that is about all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    I’ll keep it simple, the greens are INSANE!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Why can’t some of the intelligent from among their 7% see this?

    Ok so I’m quoting myself here. The reason is that my wife has just suggested a plausible answer to this question.

    Every person we know who is voting green is a middle-class average Joe or Jane. Each of them likes to known as a ‘free thinker’, often controversial in dinner-time discussion and happy to play devils advocate. They don’t like being bound by traditional rules. My wife suggested that these friends vote Green not because they support Green policy, but because they want to be seen to be ‘alternative’ in their voting decision.

    The next time I have a conversation with one of these folks I’m going to challenge them with this… and implore them to be a controversial as they like for three years… but to not stuff up our country by wearing their personal brand on their sleeve at the ballot box.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Yes getstaffed, many greenies I meet are actually just ignorant dull people desperate to have a real personality, ask them a question and they call you a bigot!!.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    It could be the Greens are seeking the perfect coalition and modeling their policies on Helen Clarks life?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. noskire (842 comments) says:

    Of course, this is natural policy for the Greens. When you match a female socket with a female socket, what do you get?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    “When you match a female socket with a female socket, what do you get?”

    Vaginamight!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Lee (610 comments) says:

    “When you match a female socket with a female socket, what do you get?”

    Two sockets that do not fit and will not work. You would think that intelligent people would get this, but about 2% of the population are apparently confused. That or their just lefties being sexually fashionable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Dyan22 (6 comments) says:

    No wonder Helen is the Greens preferred PM – no kids.
    Though I think I did read that she hoped other people would keep having kids because she needed them to keep her in her old age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    JC says:

    Someone should rush out a replica of the Greens little girl saying “Vote For Me”…

    Ask and you shall receive.

    :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Rex – Very funny!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    very good Rex!
    How about one from ACT saying “Vote for my Brother too”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Southern Raider (1,829 comments) says:

    Getstaffed I have noticed that.

    Most of them think it is cool to vote Green, feel guilty about having money and no absolutely nothing about any of the policies or people behind them.

    Its almost like saying your into a certain band because its the in thing, but you own none of the records and have only heard one song on 91ZM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. GJ (329 comments) says:

    The Greens have not been hiding anything.

    They promote their ONE child policy on their billboards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    The upside of this is that the water melons might stop breeding to support the cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Whats that sound?

    Labour and the Greens loading the revolver, placing it to their temples and pulling the trigger.

    Bye bye Commies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    # Southern Raider (623) Vote: Add rating 5 Subtract rating 0 Says:
    October 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    “The Greens will be spewing that the Pike River Coal project struck black gold this week.

    How long before this company gets banned if the Greens get in?

    The West Coast is a joke. We had a perfectly functioning selective logging system creating wealth for all NZ. Now we have native trees rotting in the forest and adding to the countries carbon loading.”

    Forgive me for always going on about Patrick Moore, Greenpeace founder who quit the movement in 1986 because it had lost its way, but HERE is his CLASSIC essay, “Trees Are The Answer”; he says exactly what you are saying, Southern Raider. Nothing is as GOOD for the environment as CUTTING DOWN LOTS OF TREES and planting more…….

    http://www.greenspirit.com/trees_answer.cfm

    And that hysterical, shrill, absurd “response” from “Petal” EPITOMISES everything that is WRONG about the anti-human Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    petal thinks Geography and the Canterbury Plains are green milk bars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    Know anything about a Fohn wind Petal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. idiotboy (66 comments) says:

    hi guyz – i’m quite tempted to get out my legendary cure-for-all-ills roll of tape so’s i can tape some vaginas shut – i shall then proceed onto pee-holes. i can only hope that my handiwork once again makes it onto the front-page of the nz herald.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. WebWrat (516 comments) says:

    petal:

    “Pop over the Alps and see what it starts to look like without them. A big dusty bowl in need of artificial irrigation and continual droughts. Woohoo!”

    Know anything about a Fohn wind petal?

    Google … the answer to so many questions.

    The East Coast will ALWAYS be drier than the West Coast.

    If you pinkos want to run the world, we’d appreciate you doing a bit of research thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. tom hunter (4,843 comments) says:

    I’m off for big juicy steak but I must just leave you all with the following quotes and link – all of which should be kept in mind the next time a Green Party supporter claims that they’re not extremists, or that they have nothing to do with extremist thinking, such as when they criticised this character’s anti-whaling efforts. Not good enough – they really do think the same way:

    http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_070504_1.html

    For those who don’t want to read the whole thing here are some choice quotes:

    “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion……………….. We need to stop burning fossil fuels and utilize only wind, water, and solar power with all generation of power coming from individual or small community units like windmills, waterwheels, and solar panels. Sea transportation should be by sail……………….. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary. All consumption should be local. No food products need to be transported over hundreds of miles to market. All commercial fishing should be abolished. If local communities need to fish the fish should be caught individually by hand.”

    “Preferably vegan and vegetarian diets can be adopted…. We need to remove and destroy all fences and barriers that bar wildlife from moving freely across the land…. We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles….Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans….

    and lest this all be taken as some reducto absurdum type of fringe thinking old Bruce makes it absolutely clear that all these efforts naturally derive from a single point that the majority of Greens agree with:

    This approach to parenting is radical but it is preferable to a system where everyone is expected to have children in order to keep the population of consumers up to keep the wheels of production moving. An economic and political system dependent on continuous growth cannot survive the ecological law of finite resources.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. The Silent Majority (88 comments) says:

    Oh for f***s sake!! Come on guys we have to make sure these idiots don’t get in to government November 8th. Vote in a centre right government, either National or ACT, doesn’t matter it’s the total vote National + ACT that counts. This girls voting ACT, because it’s the best chance I have that my kids will choose to settle in NZ when they grow up. AND it’s the best chance that these f***ing idiots will be marginalised.

    Rodney Hide, Roger Douglas…sanity and sense…NZ needs you more than ever. Even our children are starting to say “Lets leave now Mum” and they are not even teenagers!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. noskire (842 comments) says:

    Brilliant Rex.
    Actually this needs a domain name all to itself. Submit your idea for a suitable dot com.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    noskire / rex – just get these goodies posted up to Don’t Vote Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. simo (150 comments) says:

    I had the misfortune to be accosted by a clipboard carrying, dreadlocked Green Party hag in Hastings today, how are you today she said, flicking back the dreadlocks, I said – “Fuck off you watermelon and get a fucking real job”, I think most voters would agree this was the appropriate response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. GK (97 comments) says:

    I think the Greens should all be rendered down and turned into personal lubricant.

    Well, now that problem is solved, lets move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Very good!

    I recal saying to a Labour party hag who accosted me in Muswell Hill during the London Mayoral election, emploring me to vote ‘Ken’ – “Not even if hell froze over”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    Please, somebody PINCH me!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. adc (595 comments) says:

    Anyone who truly believes we have a population problem should really put their money where their mouth is, and contribute to the solution by offing themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. shady (246 comments) says:

    I have a friend who has always been a green voter – he would NEVER vote National or Act and really is a true conservationist – recycles everything, only eats healthy food – honey not sugar, etc – I could go on about his truly “green” attributes.

    However – this election I have been encouraging him to vote for the Maori Party. My reasoning is this…. Maori Party have an environmental conscience without all the social engineering and looney deep red rabble that come with the greens. Maori Party have a social conscience that although targetting Maori, would hope will benefit all. My main reason for persuading him to vote MP is that they are going to have far more electorate seats than their party vote would allow – creating an overhang – which would also nullify his vote.

    But by upping the Party Vote – that overhang will lessen and there is a much better chance that the MP would go with the Nats than the Greens (who never would). I would also like to see the MP’s party vote increase to give then the confidence and mana that they don’t need the Maori Electorate seats to be in parliament – they should be a voice in their own right.

    So if you come across a disenfranchised Labour, NZ First or Green voter who would never vote Nats or Act, persuade them to vote MP.

    Otherwise – GO Nats/Act!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. adc (595 comments) says:

    also – it’s common knowledge that western industrialised nations use a lot more energy per capita than non-industrialised or 3rd world countries.

    So simply by taking in a refugee, their use of resources increases. Therefore we shouldn’t take in any refugees at all by the Green’s reckoning. We should only take immigrants from nations whose average resource consumption is higher than ours.

    And all the greenies who don’t want to off themselves can go live in a 3rd world country to reduce their carbon footprint.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    here’s what I posted on frog blog

    “I find your logic incredibly disturbing.
    As a father of three, soon to be four wonderful children, the idea that it is only my religion that saved the lives of two of my kids is deeply disturbing.
    You cannot value human life on one hand and come up with a policy that will end it on the other, it is disgusting.
    That a couple similar to my wife and I will be encouraged to execute some of their natural offspring due to an unneccessary govt policy is revolting.
    You are fighting this battle from the wrong end and then have the nerve to put children on your bill boards.
    Like one comentator said about radical Islam “they put their ideology ahead of their survival”, it is sad that its true about secular NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    The Greens could start up a market of “TRADABLE BABY CREDITS”

    Then couples that want additional children can buy BABY CREDITS off other couples with surplus credits from around the world.

    Alternatively we could realise that the Greens are talking out their arse again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    So an initial household quota of 4 baby credits allocated to heterosexual married couples.

    Unmarried couples would have to earn credits by cohabitating and hold joint utility bills whiolst attending counselling sessions to determine their suitability for baby credit allocation.

    Homosexual couples can’t procreate so wouldn’t qualify. But in true green style we’d have to have some positive discrimination in case someone was offended. Therefore:

    *Special credits available for gays
    *Pacific peoples would immediately qualify for 10 credits as their social histpry is one of high family numbers
    *Refugees qualify for additional credits as they are removed from family in the homeland and therefore would be discriminated against if they couldnt immediately use a credit to buy immigration rihts for other family members in the homeland.
    *Lefties would have to give all credits to the government collective that would manage their child production on behalf.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. kiwi in america (2,452 comments) says:

    With the population replacement rate at 2.1 births per woman, the only 1st world country to reach that level is the US. When you break down the US rates, you find the liberal urban East/West coast states have birthrates closer to Europe whilst in the so called red states or middle American more conservative states the birth rates are far higher. In the US athiests and non church going Christians have very low birth rates whilst church going Christians have much higher than 2.1 birthrates. The fact that the US actually replaces its own population and adds to it with immigration leads to a constant healthy population growth rate that helps fuel economic growth.

    In western Europe countries such as Spain and France, their native born core ethnic group (ie non-immigrant) populations are actually shrinking. Only immigration from poorer nations keeps their actual populations from shrinking. The birth rates of the major ethnic minorities of Europe such as Indians, Pakistanis, Turks, Algerians, Morroccans etc are usually double that of the dominant local population. Over the next 30 years this has profound cultural implications especially for those ethnic minorities that are Muslim. What happens when France and Holland have over 35% of their population as Muslim – already there is pressure in England and France for parallel Sharia law courts, Sharia bank loans and pressure that now allows polygamous men to receive government benefits for their mutiple families etc.

    In NZ only the signifcantly higher birthrates of Maori and Pacific Islanders raise NZ’s birth rate to slightly below replacement rate which is better than almost all 1st world countriies.

    As David rightly points out, family reproductive choices are the most intensely personal of all choices and should never be the subject of government interference unless you want NZ to be like the Marxist states and control every aspect of life. The Nanny state over-reach is one of the subconscious negatives that is underpinnning Labour’s slide to electoral oblivion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    >> already there is pressure in England and France for parallel Sharia law courts

    Only from that Fucktard, the bishop of bath and wells Rowan..

    But that sa good point – the greens and commies should be careful what they wish for as the middle class liberals will find they dont like all the ‘foreign’ people once they reach a critical mass.

    Just ask joe sixpack what he thinks of the asian-caucasian mix in auckland. “aw mate, glad its in auckland eh, and not here’ is the typical, cleansed response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    Anyone seen Philu & Paul???

    Guess they’re consoling each other after finally waking up to the fact that the game is over for their bunch!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Maybe attending a Gaia conference were they publically apologise for being male and promise to try and become more attuned to the mater-sphere whilst nibbling meat replacement bars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    Expat, unfortunately your breakdown on credits is slightly wrong…I have no doubt that the homosexuals are actually the 2% that the Greens/Labour believe to be the only ones capable of child rearing :(

    People you can keep giving up your personal & family rights, step by step or you can make a stand against this creeping evil, on Nov 8th.

    Give Family First a look if protecting our children means something to you: http://www.familyfirst.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. KG (11 comments) says:

    goodgod, I put up your great comment at my site as a post.
    Not much to add, is there? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    DPF, I have been away from the blogs most of the last 24 hours, so haven’t picked this post up till now.

    You completely misrepresent the Green policy – Green Te Atatu candidate Xavier Goldie explains how here:

    According to Farrar:

    “The Greens want negative population growth

    Wrong. If Farrar had bothered reading our FULL Population Policy, rather than relying on that bastion of objective analysis, the New Zealand Herald, he would have noted nowhere in our policy to do we advocate or promote negative population growth.

    Current projections from Statistics New Zealand indicate our population is likely to level off at around the 5.5 million mark. Funnily enough this is under the predicted ecological carrying capacity of New Zealand anyway. Nowhere in our policy implicitly or explicitly do we advocate negative population growth. But that’s not important to Farrar or his readers: why let the truth get in the way of a good angry ignorant rant?

    If Farrar had bothered to read our population policy – hell, if he’d bothered to browse the policy summary so kindly available for him on the Greens website rather than cherry pick some things to twist out of context – he would have seen that the maximum sustainable population for New Zealand that will keep allowing him to enjoy the lifestyle he’s so hell bent on ruining by voting for National is not final or fixed, but flexible. That means that if we get our arses into gear and stop consuming natural resources beyond what our systems can provide, then we can support more people. But if we insist on, and indeed advocate for as Farrar and the National Party do – consuming more than our fair share and beyond our means, then we’re up shit creek.

    Methinks the reason Farrar and his ilk are so angry is that they recognise the truth in what we’re saying. The fat over fed chickens that have eaten beyond what they can afford are coming home to roost, and the roof is caving in.

    You will have to build up enough carbon credits in order to get permission to have a child.”

    Wrong. This line’s so retarded I shouldn’t even have to address it. Yes David! And if you have more than the limited number of children, we’ll turn them into organic fertiliser. Would you like to take that line and run a wild eyed post on that too?

    “So let’s make sure we have this right. NZ already has a shrinking population from fertility. But in order to allow India, Libya, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and the Niger to carry on with their over-populating, NZ families should have less children.”

    Wrong. Again. If Farrar had bothered to read the damn policy, he would understand that we do not advocate people having less children. What we suggest is that people and are informed about the issues of constrained resources, something that Farrar clearly isn’t. I especially find this part deliciously ironic because you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be someone from the Kiwiblog Right who would make the first utterance about Bloody Useless Maoris Breeding For Business™. Maybe it’s only ok to talk about how many children people should have if they’re brown? Wasn’t it National that advocated putting a limit on how many Useless Teenage Mums could have last election?

    “What this means is taxpayer funded bureaucrats working on pamphlets and seminars to frighten parents off having more kids. Can you imagine every school in NZ having some dour faced do gooder preaching to all the kids they they should not have children, in order to save the planet.”

    Wrong. Unlike the National Party, the Greens don’t believe in frightening people into making decisions. Communities need to know about the consequences of their collective decisions. People are free to have as many babies as they want. People also need to know that lots and lots of babies will put pressure on our resources, and we need to get prepared now to deal with extra pressure if we collectively choose to go down that path.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    Hard to believe that we’ve given these interferring, agenda driven, scumbag radicals, a mandate to fuck with our kiwi-way for 9 years now!

    Isn’t it time for the MAJORITY to RULE again???

    If not, there WILL be BLOOD!

    Might be time for a Citizens Army to start training…pig hunting parties anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    New Blog headline for DPF:

    GREENS WANT TO TURN CHILDREN INTO ORGANIC FERTILISER!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. DamnedAngry (231 comments) says:

    OCED, you read my mind! Great movie and just where we’re currently heading if we don’t put a stop to this nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    I have always understood that the basic reason people have lots of children is so that they will be looked after in their old age. That is apart from the political endeavours of organisations like the Catholic Church who seek to promote their views by overwhelming the opposition.

    In countries with an adequate old age pension scheme this need is removed so people tend to use their income to enjoy their life.

    The world most certainly doesn’t need an increasing population so negative growth is the most sensible thing it can do, short of exterminating a few hundred million with a world war.

    Personally I welcome the migrants becuase they are hard working and law abiding members of our community the way the Dutch and English arrived following WWII.

    The solution is to promote superanuation for everybody in the world and encourage birth control.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    Further to the population argument …. the reason that we are faced with all these regulations that David and others rant about is becuase the world population is exploding. When the world population was smaller more people were in productive activities rather than trying to run each others lives. With more people per square mile there is less room for the individual to do their own thing so we all nbeed to be more aware of a out fellow man and resdtrict our activities to make allowance for others.

    It is one of I consider the sad facts of life in our age …. I rant and rave to myself at all the restrictions but understand the need for them. Basically too many human beings on Gaia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    My youngest is 1, the oldest 49. my wife and I have 10 children between us. I have had 8, but then, my grandmother was 1 of 13. There are presently 5 children living at home, 3 of them under 8. I regret having to stop. Have to to console myself with the grandchildren (12); should be about 8 more to come. Prospectively 40 great grandchildren; the first has already arrived and I know of more planned.

    The supergold card is neat: can now take take the littlies for free train rides to from Tawa to Masterton for the day.

    The Greens are the new Deep Red.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    The new Dangerous Deep Red.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    I thought it was time to do a little research on the Slimey Greens

    A party who will happily use the face of a NZ child on their election billboards, and write legislation that attempts to criminalise good NZ parents, waffle on about human rights, the same party who supports 17,000 abortions each year and now want to tell New Zealander’s to have less children.

    This info from Wikipedia

    Dr. Norman was born in Brisbane, Australia, and came to New Zealand in 1997 to witness the red-green coalition that was the Alliance. He wrote his political science PhD thesis on the Alliance, and was active within the party editing its party newsletter

    An Australian who has only been in NZ a few years now telling us how many children to have!

    Locke was born and grew up in Christchurch, to Jack and Elsie Locke, prominent members of the Communist Party of New Zealand. Because of his far-left affiliations, the Labour Party attempted to expel Locke in 1974.

    This was the same man who wanted to send our cricketers to Pakistan recently to be exploded by terrorists

    Mike Ward was an unsuccessful candidate at seven New Zealand general elections before being elected in the 2002 elections at No. 9 on the Green party list

    Another MP who came to power on the “list”

    Metiria Turei (born 1970) is a member of Parliament for the Green Party of New Zealand. She was first elected at number 8 on the Greens’ list in the 2002 election, She was a candidate for the McGillicuddy Serious Party in the 1993 election and for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party in the 1996 election.

    What can you say?

    Kedgley has written a number of books on Feminism-issues, and was one of the founding leaders of the women’s liberation movement in New Zealand New Zealand Parliament since first becoming a Member of Parliament as a list MP in the 1999 elections

    As a mother the safety of our food is one area I take particular interest in, but here again you see an agenda not just to protect our food, but for feminism

    Fitzsimons’ first entry into politics was as a candidate for the Values Party, an early environmentalist based political party.
    She was unsuccessful in the Coromandel electorate, but entered Parliament on the Alliance list. In the 2002 election, Fitzsimons was defeated in Coromandel, placing third.

    I used to think Fitzsimons was okay until I met her after the Electoral Finance March, she was arrogant and condescending, which I guess she gets from her school teacher days. I think she is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Bradford had a high profile as an activist against various New Right style social and economic reforms pursued by the governments of the day.Bradford first won election to the Parliament as a list MP in the 1999 elections.”She’s long ago forgotten exactly how many times she’s been arrested. “30 or 40 times,” she thinks. She once spent “4 or 5 days” remanded in prison” and was first arrested at 16

    When you read their backgrounds these are not New Zealanders who have stood in electorate seats and been voted into power because of their good works. They have slinked into power on the back of a Party List, or through the back door of the Alliance party and almost without exception they hold strong secret socialist agendas

    Their recent policies are completly in keeping with their own agendas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Unlike the National Party, the Greens don’t believe in frightening people into making decisions. What utter bullshit. The Greens are at the forefront of the fear industry. The Greens exist because citizens can be made to feel fearful and guilty. It’s sickening.

    People are free to … Bzzzzt. Wong again. Given the chance the Greens would regulate freedom out of our lives thereby ensuring that their warped ideology could protect us from ourselves.

    Given a choice between a cure for cancer and a cure for the Greens, I’d opt for the latter. I know more people who are suffering from that illness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. GJ (329 comments) says:

    PhilBest: Very good blog which comes right down to the root cause of the issue we are dealing with.

    This is exactly why I am voting for a true Christian party, being The Family Party. http://www.familypartry.org.nz

    They will bring a much needed balance to a new government. They could work very well with both Act and National. They are pro growth, pro business and understand the need to work to get ahead. However they will fight to bring a balance back to the huge breakdown of the generational family and our current moral decline.

    Likewise the majority of their MPs have a track record of success in a wide variety of occupations.

    If you live in either East Coast Bays or Mangere make sure you give your electorate vote to either Adams (East Coast Bays) or Filipina (Mangere).

    National is campaigning to win an election, but labour is campaigning to form a government.

    The Family Party is exactly the party we need to bring a much needed balance. National, Act and the Family Party would be a hard mix to beat.

    Why National is still trying to govern alone absolutely astounds me! They are even campaigning hard in Epsom to get the electorate vote off Hyde. That is just straight DUMB! They still simply do not understand MMP after all these years.

    About time they shifted there campaign to one of formation of a government like Labour is before it is to late. Another three years of this current lot and we will all be in very deep yogurt indeed!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. cha (4,017 comments) says:

    My youngest is 1, the oldest 49.

    Compared with men in their early twenties, men over 55 were more than two-and-a-half times as likely to father a child who would go on be hospitalized for manic depression before age 20.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    cha from standard sewer – the mere thought of the slimey two faced slippery greenish bearded lady stoners and weak gutted wimpish eunuchs is enough to send any sane person spiraling down manic depression road.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. johnbt (90 comments) says:

    Generally, I am a bit to the right of Attilla the Hun so I surprised to find myself agreeing with those idiot Greens. I appear to be the only one who does.
    Along with water, population growth is the biggest problem we face. Worldwide, growth is increasing at the rate of NZs population about every 2 weeks or NZ and Australia every 3 months… or another China in about 12 years. That is a lot of people needing food and water. I appreciate that the biggest breeders are the poor and the stupid but something must be done eventually.
    I think that in 15 or 20 years the current hysteria over global warming will be replaced by problems caused by the never ending population growth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. LC (162 comments) says:

    Just looked at the Greens population policy. There on page 1,

    ‘Excessive levels of consumption and global population numbers must be drastically reduced’

    Note key word is ‘must’. That means some sort of coercion…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    Lets start with a green hunting season? Only joking you timid wimps frog and Toad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. LC (162 comments) says:

    Greens should taste nice.. all that organic food and healthy lifestyles makes for good tucker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Did somebody anounce a “stupid” competition and only the greens got the memo?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    toad:

    You completely misrepresent the Green policy

    Much like Xavier totally misrepresents National Party policy in his response? Oh wait. It’s only bad if your enemies do it. Gotcha. Toad, to be honest – DPF could have missed the mark. I don’t know, I’m not about to wade through pages of Green Social Engineering to find out.

    What I do know is that you represent a party that is communist at heart and has been at the root of almost all the unwanted legislation this country has seen for a good long while. You represent an untrustworthy party who’s one purpose is to create a communist state in New Zealand.

    Would I believe Xavier? No. Not on your life. He’s a Green.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. James (1,338 comments) says:

    This is exactly why I am voting for a true Christian party, being The Family Party. http://www.familypartry.org.nz

    “They will bring a much needed balance to a new government. They could work very well with both Act and National. They are pro growth, pro business and understand the need to work to get ahead. However they will fight to bring a balance back to the huge breakdown of the generational family and our current moral decline.”

    Nah….they are socialists of the soul….authoritarian Nanny Staters who want to nose their way into your bedroom by virtue of “God”…. their made up fantasy fascist.

    ACT should have nothing to do with these nazi’s…..and ACT needs to speak up a bit more on their social liberalism…gone quite a bit there guys. Wheres the decriminalisation of drugs policy at?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Mike Readman (363 comments) says:

    Once again, you’re wrong about the replacement rate as I pointed out last time. It can’t be 2.1, it would have to be 2 if life expectency was staying even, but it’s dramactically increasing. In the 20th century, it increased by 30 years. In the last 10 years, it’s increased by 6 years. As I pointed out last time, that’s why there’s 2 births for every death in NZ. Check the poulation clock at – http://www.stats.govt.nz/populationclock.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. tknorriss (327 comments) says:

    These dipstick greens still fail to realise that New Zealand does not have a population problem, unlike the third-world where population explosion is more of an issue. Here in NZ we probably need to encourage the economically successful, well adjusted people to breed more and the dysfunctional, uneducated, emotionally unstable, genetically disadvantaged people to breed less. At the moment, its the other way around, which is a bit of a worry for ongoing demographics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Zarchoff (100 comments) says:

    Fuck the Greens – Party Vote ACT!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    “Unlike the National Party, the Greens don’t believe in frightening people into making decisions.”

    When toad is writting utter crap like this he is only revealing his total disconection from reality.

    “What we suggest is that people and are informed about the issues of constrained resources”

    Yes and informed about the options to manage and dispose of “un sustainable” pregnancy no doubt.
    Just like Sue Bradford now wants govt funded seminars to go around the country “explaining” the anti smacking law to parents. Mobile re-education camps comming to a town near you soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. kismet (6 comments) says:

    this just confirms my beliefs that marijuana should not be legalised, it obviously really does stuff your brain….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. jackp (668 comments) says:

    This should be a good time for John Key to associate Labour with the Greens. I even think some Labour supporters are turned off by the light bulb, shower heads and now population control. Wow, it would be easy to do because of Helen Clark’s voting record in Parliament proves they are “joined at the hip”. Helen had to give away quite a lot of freedoms you and I enjoy now to get the greens on her side to pass the ETS bill. He shouldn’t have backed down when Clark vehemently opposed shower heads during the debate. John Key could just go right in with her voting history and flip flops.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Lee (610 comments) says:

    Toad,

    “What we suggest is that people and are informed about the issues of constrained resources”

    “People also need to know that lots and lots of babies will put pressure on our resources,”

    You just admitted what almost everyone here objects to. That in order to have children we will have to be lectured first about your personal political beliefs, and YES, the idea of what the Greens consider “constrained resources” is a belief. Your entitled to your beliefs. What you are NOT entitled to do is lecture people about them before they have children.

    How many children my wife and I choose to have is our personal business, it is between us and God, and has nothing to do with a bunch of drug taking hipiies and pol pot supporters.

    Get your nanny state hand OFF my wifes womb you arrogant fascist creep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    yes it is all very satisfying to get all morally outraged a la: “those fucking greenie socialists trying to control my life” yet again isn’t it?

    For those that may be interested in what was ACTUALLY MEANT then you can get it from the horse’s mouth here:
    http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20179

    (Wait, what am I saying? Look up both sides of the story? Honestly! Smithers, release the hounds..)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Yes, it is all very satisfying to get all morally outraged a la: “those fucking greenie socialists trying to control my life” yet again isn’t it?

    For those that may be interested in what was ACTUALLY MEANT then you can get it from the horse’s mouth here:
    http://www.greens.org.nz/node/20179

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    tknorriss: “Here in NZ we probably need to encourage the economically successful, well adjusted people to breed more and the dysfunctional, uneducated, emotionally unstable, genetically disadvantaged people to breed less. At the moment, its the other way around, which is a bit of a worry for ongoing demographics.”

    OMFG!!!

    Are you for real??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    LC:Greens should taste nice.. all that organic food and healthy lifestyles makes for good tucker.

    Do you have any idea what a truly stupid idea this is? We don’t know what causes people like the greens – there’s been bugger all scientific research on this – so its possible that it might be caused by, say, some sort of Green Spongiform Encelopathy, analagous to BSE, and might be transmissable! Its bad enough with a few of them but imagine if we turned them into food and then infected the entire population with GSE! We should clearly look to some sort of non-food use like brickification or something.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    I suppose we should be grateful Keith Locke wants to depopulate NZ using Mao’s methods and not Pol Pot’s. LOL at the racism of everyone having to live by the same rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    Ari

    With the exception of Jeanette Fitzsimons and Sue Kedgley (and even she has a strongly feminist agenda)
    there are only two Green MP’s that have any credentials to speak on “Green Issues” such as food and the environment.

    The other 5 are socialist idealogues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Ari: you’re right, it is disgusting that the Greens are made up of “drug taking hippies and pol pot supporters”, but that’s the crowd you choose to run with…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Do you have any specifics on your first point, or are you going to just peddle your rubbish because you’re confident that not too many people on the Right (and there seem to be precious few lefties who comment here) disagree with you?

    Ari, could you tell me when NZ should expect it’s first en masse arrival of pacific nation evacuees who’s homes have disappeared under ‘rising’ seas? Just a date and shipping port will do. I’ll diarise to be there to welcome them.

    While I’m sure you are well intentioned, your party representation is loaded with communists, uber-control freaks and worshipers at the alter of environmental religion. We don’t need any of those attributes to create a better New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Ari: What if all the “problems” with these people are caused by poverty and lack of education and values that lead them to succeed?

    LOL and they’re going to learn the values that lead to success from a party which plans to reverse economic growth ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Ari (5 comments) says:

    Democracymum,

    Social concerns are part of our party principles. They are derived from the approach we take to environmental issues (because campaigning on Environment alone does not make for a cohesive party) For those not aware, these principles, which we call our Policy Pillars, are agreed to by each and every member of the Green Party, and most decisions are made by direct vote of those members, with some decisions being decided by elected delegates.

    Keith and Russel, among other candidates, have demonstrated that people from socialist background have an affinity with Green (that’s the party and the moment) values, and can be effective advocates for environmentalism, conservationism, and social concerns at the same time. Even those who have a passion for feminism, or foreign relations and international human rights, or the welfare of New Zealand society must still have a commitment to ecological wisdom in order to even be members of the party. To be candidates they need to be able to aggressively defend and promote all four of our principles in every aspect of policy they are responsible for.

    You can find the policy pillars at this address: http://www.greens.org.nz/node/117

    The only pillar that isn’t encompassed to some degree in broad socialist thought is environmental responsibility.

    As for being ideologues- I’m afraid you’re drastically mistaken. The Green Party is committed to a pragmatic approach, and if you look at the compromises we’ve made from our policy positions in previous elections, I don’t think you could reasonably accuse us of acting like ideologues. We might be very interested in sorting out what parts of our ideology could make practical policy and how, but that doesn’t mean we won’t compromise to actually get as much of it implemented as rigorously and fairly as we can according to our own principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    “All we’re proposing is to arm people with the information that there are consequences to having more children.”
    Duh! This is so self evident that there can only be some other agenda behind it. We have chosen the kids , gaia can go to hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Lee (610 comments) says:

    Ari,
    “you are free to go ahead and ignore any information you don’t like.”

    Its not information I would be ignoring, its propaganda.

    “I don’t know how we’d lecture you without you consenting to be lectured”

    Thats the policy.

    “the mere suggestion we might ask for a bit more responsibility from you and your family.”

    Can you not see how arrogant that statement sounds?

    More importantly, your not asking for more responsibility, your asking for Pakeha and Maori kiwis to commit national and cultural suicide.

    “Your last two paragraphs are just disgusting”

    Did not Nandor take drugs? Did not Locke support Pol Pot?

    My statements were accurate descriptions of your party and it thinly disguised far left communism.

    “Even if we disagree over some issues of minor education programmes”

    Minor? Hardly. And we disagree about far more than that. I am utterly opposed to your parties entire ideology.

    “that is no reason to Godwin the comments for this post by comparing the Green Party to Pol Pot”

    Pol Pot killed a million innocent people. Your party supports open slather abortion which kills millions of innocent children, and your foriegn affairs spokesman thought Pol Pot was a good guy. He also supports Marxist terrorists in Latin and South America, and Arab/Islamic terrorists who kill Israeli citizens. When Americans were being targeted by Al-Qaeda terrorists based in Afghanistan your party wanted to leave them alone so they would be free to continue and arrogantly opposed America’s right to defend themselves against those terrorists.

    So take your whining about political discourse and shove it. You and your party are evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    I think Ari is delusional and in need of urgent psychiatric treatment. Mad as a March Hare.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Ari, my point on the sea level matter was to demonstrate one example of the Greens peddling fear. We need to have less kids, using less resources which also makes way for pacific climate-change refugees. Irrational fear mongering.

    Picking up on your comments that ‘democracy is better than tyranny’ – you’d agree then with the HRC when they commented on the chilling effect that the EFA[B] would have on our democratic freedoms. It’s a pity the Greens so actively supported this dialogical, nay tyrannical, legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    Ari

    I have a worm farm, grow my own vegetables, my children (I’m sorry I do have two) walk to school everyday and my husband catches the train to work. I have a compost bin, and we recycle our plastics. As a family we are passionate about our environment, and hate GE. We also eat vegetarian a couple of times a week.

    You see in my mind this makes me a Greenie

    I have one question for you
    After three years supporting this corrupt government, how is it that you haven’t even managed to get the fresh food supermarkets labeled its country of origin, so I know what I am feeding my children. They manage this in the States why not here?

    Perhaps it was because you were putting all your effort into stopping NZ parents from smacking their children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    ari: “people from socialist background have an affinity with Green … To be candidates they need to be able to aggressively defend and promote all four of our principles in every aspect of policy they are responsible for.

    > Ecological Wisdom:

    Every communist regime in history has raped the environment beyond belief.

    > Social Responsibility: Unlimited material growth is impossible.

    Well the communists certainly tried. Five Year Plans, Great Leap Forward…

    > Appropriate Decision-making: For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social
    responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the

    Every communist regime in history has made decisions from the dictator at the top and imposed their whims on everyone below.

    > Non-Violence:
    Oh my god, Where to begin…

    Do yourself a favour and expel all communists from the Greens as historically proven to be fundamentally against all your pillars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    You see in my mind this makes me a Greenie

    Note quite democracymum. You MUST support a wealth tax so the Govt can issue everyone with worm farms. You MUST grow organic vegetables on shared plots. You MUST make sure it’s a solar powered train, or walk. ALL meat is murder and I see nothing about smoking dope. Two kids? Resource glutton – you WILL be taxed!

    Nah, you’re a wannabe greenie ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Ari, I don’t care how politely you plead your case, whether you seek to control with a gun to my head or a smile on your face is irrelevent.
    Your multi point rubuke’s above are not only patronising, they are pathetic, you have not addressed anyones concerns, rather you continue to spout leftist rhetoric as though we are all to stupid to to engage in real debate.
    You critisize the strong reaction you find here as if that in it self is reason to dismiss the individuals concerned. You, like every other leftist control freak see any reaction in your opponent as some sort of irrational deep seated personality disorder that justifies your dissmissal of legitamate discussion.
    GET OVER YOURSELF People get passionate about issues that affect them especially when its blind ill conceived garbage like this legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. democracymum (648 comments) says:

    getstaffed

    Thanks for pointing out my failings in this area.
    I guess the real Greens will just have to do without my vote again this election.

    Alas like Kermit the Frog, (I love frogs by the way)
    I am a greenie without a hidden socialist agenda
    Which in their minds doesn’t make me green at all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Lee (610 comments) says:

    How a political party that supports open slather abortion, and who’s foreign affairs spokesman has expressed support for the violent Zaptistas in Mexico, as well as the PLO and Hamas, (not to mention his sick demand that no action be taken against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan) can then turn around and claim to be “non-violent” is something that honestly escapes me. It is utter bullshit.

    Shunda hit the nail on the head. Many kiwis, incudling those of us who consider ourselves traditonalist small government conservatives, do care about the environment. I agree with country of origin food labeling. I agree with the importance of recycling. I agree very, very strongly with the moral concerns about industrialised farming and mass food production and the ill-treatment of farm animals. As a conservative I would like to see a turn away (voluntarily) from urban sprawl and towards small communities that encourage cultural roots and more traditional community living.

    But the Greens seem to think they and they alone are the guardians of environmental concern and the rest of us are rednecks who need to be lectured.

    Plus, whatever good there is in Green Party policy is vastly outweighed by the far left socialist/communist ideology of control, and a rabidly anti-family liberalism that sees spanking as violence but thinks the mass murder of unborn children is perfectly acceptable. And no party with an extremist terrorist monger like Keith Locke in it has any right to talk about non-violence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Lee (7:30pm) – Direct hit. Well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Pascal (1,969 comments) says:

    Ari:

    Where did Xavier misrepresent National?

    Read the post Toad quoted. If you cannot see it, all I’ll say is that you share in the prejudice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. heathcote (104 comments) says:

    In the opening to this topic the following quote is in the second to last para

    ‘about your foetus and save the planet…..’ surely this is meant to be ABORT …..

    Perhaps this has already been brought up somewhere in the above 160 odd responses, but I can’t see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    It’s not here yet, but I look forward to future Kiwiblogger rants about alleged Greens eugenics plans and family size spies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Christian... (4 comments) says:

    Hmm seems to confirm what Russel Norman told me at Victoria University clubs day earlier this year, after calling me “Fuckin’ stupid” when I questioned this policy and saying as I study Law I don’t know anything about the environment, he didn’t seem to have a reply when I asked what he’d studyd…When I asked him what they’d do with the resultant rapidly aging population he informed me he supported Euthanasia then walked away. It would appear Russel and the Greens care more about the eels than the elderly. Charming bunch.

    Fuck you greenie bastards…The Germans call them Eco-Facists…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Christian... (4 comments) says:

    heathcote
    Just what we need, more senseless murder of unborn children..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Lee (610 comments) says:

    “When I asked him what they’d do with the resultant rapidly aging population he informed me he supported Euthanasia”

    That says it all. Kill the unborn (drain on limited resources) kill the elderly (drain on limited resources) and let terrorists and tyrants have a free reign to kill Zionists and Americans (drain on resources).

    And these pond scum call themselves “non-violent”.

    What is chilling here is how close this ideology is to what the Nazi’s believed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Wonder what their position is on disabled, or metally impaired folks is?

    Euthanasia as well?

    Non – violent my arse.

    They are controlling monsters. Just add Gypsys, Jews, and Slavs, and you have the full flush!

    Herr Hilter would have been proud.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    These greenie socialist stealth engineers are hell bent on destroying family bonds, because like Heinrich Himmler they know that family loyalties are the hardest to control. This green party is family destructive and responsible for installing widespread fear into decent loving parents. They are both evil and sick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    the greens are just know it all naval gazing busy body handwringing semi educated knobtwisters – not nazis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    The Greens are to point towards their favoured partner party to-day.

    Even if it means not having a National Led Goverment, surely it is better than having to pander to

    these obnoxious, manipulative, lying, Plonkers.

    We don’t want anything to do with them.

    Frankly it would be better to do a deal with a Goff led Labour Party.

    Anyway the MP is going to-wards the Allies, away from the AXIS.

    No need for Green Greenies or Labour, or Winston First poodle party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Lee (610 comments) says:

    No, they are not Nazis exactly. But for Green Party co-leader Russell Norman to claim he supports euthanasia as a way of dealing with an aging population is no different to Nazi style eugenics.

    I would also point out that some fascist parties like the Nazi’s and and the Romanian Iron Guard were amongst the first political parties to have strongly pro-green policies and ideas. The Nazi party itself grew, in part, out of an earlier hippy style “back to the land” youth movement called Wandervogel that emphasized many of the same “values” that modern green parties do.

    Now that does not mean they are the same thing, and as I pointed out above reasonable green values can be held across the political spectrum.

    BUT, when such values are combined with a strongly pro-eugenics attitude we should start to worry.

    And think about this. Fascist parties also advocated Labour party style “third way” economics (rejecting both the free market and Marxist communism and seeking a third way between them). Combine that with Labour’s rabidly pro-statist authoritarian attitudes then I think it is reasonable to say that a Labour/Green government would be very close to real fascism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    The GP will be EVEN MORE irrelevant post 8 Nov.

    At least Nando was kinda cool, the rest of them are just hairshirt wearing beatniks or academic loafers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Keith and Russel, among other candidates, have demonstrated that people from socialist background have an affinity with Green (that’s the party and the moment) values,

    I’m not convinced of this. I’ve met a lot of people who are interested in the environment- from Chinese communists through to American libertarians. There is no peculiar affinity by socialists for the environment.

    Where you get a coincidence of interests is the types of policies espoused by the “Greens” and the socialists. A small elite commanders the power of the state to advance their own vision. I flirted with socialist politics in the 1980s, encountered the Harawiras and Leadbetters, and participated in the brief occupation of the Fench embassy during the Beyond Anzus conference of 1984. My reading of the situation was simply that the Lockes et al were political opportunists, anchoring themselves to whatever social movement would give them power. If the cause of the day was nuclear warfare, they jumped in bed with the anti-nuclear protests. If it was feminism, they became feminists. Now it’s the environment and they’re environmentalists. They’re looking for Trojan horses and the environment is just one more on their list of attempts to acquire politial power. You can get $10b for insulation, but can’t find $10m to prevent job cuts in DoC? Anybody that puts propping up a fellow-travellers in Government is worth the price of native species getting ripped apart by stoats right? Because at the end of the day, that’s all that really matters. If it’s a choice between socialism or endangered wildlife, lets lock and load baby, we’ve got some kiwis to shot- it’s really all about power.

    Fwiw, I’ve been a vegetarian longer than the Greens have been a political party. To date, I have avoided getting shot in Papua New Guinea, almost blown up in the Philippines, was tracking tiger-part smugglers in Yunnan earlier this year, and escaping large crocodilians or small venomous reptiles is a normal part of my work. I’m never going to be voting for that joke of a party- Greens- masquerading as a environmentalist party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Lee (610 comments) says:

    Chthoniid is spot on about the Greens being a Trojan horse party for extremists. If they came out of the closet and were open and honest their political views and goals, as Russell Norman seems to have been on the euthanasia issue, they would scare the crap out of most kiwis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    I’m not convinced of this. I’ve met a lot of people who are interested in the environment- from Chinese communists through to American libertarians. There is no peculiar affinity by socialists for the environment.

    I agree, but I would also say that those on the ‘pro-business’ end of the spectrum are the first to dump environmental measures in the name of being practical. Quite interesting to read about the farmer in The Omnivores’ Dilemma who calls himself a Christian-Environmentalist-Libertarian – fascinating character!

    Chthoniid, the insulation is an environmental/health measure – you seem to be looking for a conservation party more than a Green party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    sorry Chthoniid – I should have added – trojan horsing charlatans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Ari (5 comments) says:

    Lee, seeing as it looks like you’re intent on painting anyone with views like my own as completely irrational socialist drugged-up hippies, I’ll make this my final say to you on this matter so we don’t consume David’s entire post in a flamewar.

    Propaganda is defined in much the same way as electioneering- it is information designed to support a particular group of people, or attack their opponents. There is no mention of issues in any definition I have ever seen of propaganda, and this policy is about education of the wider consequences of having more kids- which seems like an issue to me, rather than a person, faction, or group.

    Lecturing usually implies a degree of power imbalance where you are compelled to listen. The policy does not advocate anything along those lines and people can be free to ignore any information they like. There is no compulsion involved.

    I apologise if my statement was arrogant, but I will not be weak in advocating what I think is right for New Zealand and the wider world. I am asking for New Zealanders to consider EVERY consequence of their actions, not just the more immediate ones. If that isn’t an issue of responsibility, I don’t know what is. Talk of freedoms without responsibilities sounds equally arrogant to me. To be perfectly clear on this issue, I agree (and have never said otherwise) that ultimately, the choice of whether to have a child should of course rest with the parent(s) involved. One of the Green candidates made a press release to the same effect just recently, too. If you want to continue to chase a misinterpretation of our policy, then good luck to you.

    Did Nandor take drugs? Yes, Nandor is a follower of a minority religion whose observance requires taking a marijuana, which as drugs go is one of the less harmful ones. (but still quite bad in the overall picture of harm from drug use, and worth doing whatever we can to minimise the harm its usage causes- and we believe that the best way to do that is to remove the criminal charge for possessing it and instead focus on black market dealers) As religious beliefs go, this is one of the less harmful ones, and I certainly take a lot less issue with it than some of the radical anti-contraception groups derived from more orthodox religious beliefs. I guess it’s just a matter of what you view as harmful- and to me, someone choosing to damage their own lungs as part of their religion, however hard I find that to understand, is a lot less harmful than someone who tries to control sexuality for their own purposes.

    Did Keith Locke make statements supporting Pol Pot? No. It’s there on Hansard, (and therefore it’s also available on http://theyworkforyou.co.nz/) but Keith explained that like many people, he welcomed the new regime in Cambodia as an opportunity for change and humanitarian rule, but was sickened by the authoritarian crackdown and ethnic cleansing that followed. If you read what he said, I think you’ll understand just how hard a topic that is for him and that there’s some real lessons that have been learned there, especially about how socialism has its own imperfections.

    What I find disgusting is that you have to resort to that level of hyperbole and misrepresentation in your personal attacks to say your piece instead of actually offering some substantive criticism.

    As for our level of disagreement- I don’t care if it’s minor or major, either we can disagree respectfully or we don’t deserve to call ourselves adults. There is no need for either of us to make personal attacks or hasty moral judgements on each other.

    Open Slather abortion? I’m not familiar with that term, but did find an article referring to “open slather on abortion”. Officially the kiwi Green Party isn’t pro-choice or pro-life, and whether or not the number of abortions in New Zealand has reached the millions yet, you certainly can’t pin that on the Party itself, having done no work to advocate availability or free choice in the matter of abortions. I found mention of the Green Party of Australia (who I have no involvement with and who don’t consult us or vice-versa on most national issues) being very pro-choice in Victoria, but that was about it. I’m not entirely sure what you’re going on about here to be honest. Even if we did support abortion on demand for third-trimester abortions, there is no objective measure of whether an abortion is justified, or even at what stage a baby or potential baby might qualify as being “alive” or having a “right to live” in a meaningful sense. It’s all subjective and it’s a very difficult situation where ALL the decisions seem wrong, and even when you save a life, you’ve often trampled over the autonomy of a woman and a mother, and even where you preserve free decision making, you’ve- at best- left a baby to die. (Well, I’m sure there’s people who would say leaving an embryo to die isn’t a moral evil, and some who think that it has the capacity to feel pain right from conception. Alas, it will be very difficult to prove ANYTHING) In that sort of situation, my instinct is to put the decision in the hands of the person most effected by it, in this case, the mother, assuming she is mentally capable of making the decision. But that’s only my personal view.

    As for supporting terrorists- I suggest you look into the situation a lot more clearly and I doubt you’ll come away with such a cut-and-dry picture. International affairs aren’t like that, and often one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. Even Osama has some convincing points about the oppression of imperial-like capitalism, but of course the minute he turned that into an attack on another country he lost any respect he and his ideas could’ve had in the rest of the world, and quite deservedly so.

    As for whining- I apologise if I wrongly assumed that you’d support a higher standard of debate where we attack each other’s ideas before we resort to attacking each other’s character, but I think that if more people realise that politics is a subject with no absolute “right answer” for every situation, we’ll have a better and more informed society that can have respectful debate on our different ideas. I get the impression you just want to ignore me and find a way to dismiss me that satisfies you rather than think that your political opponents might actually have something worthwhile to say from a vastly different perspective which may have fundamental disagreements with your own, that perhaps, sometimes, can be bridged or resolved for the greater good. Don’t worry though, I’ll take my whining somewhere it’s appreciated for now and leave you to your comfortable echo chamber. ;)

    To everyone else who has left me a reply, thoughtful or just plain negative- thanks. I’ll get back to you later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    Hi Ari.

    Could you paraphrase, I’m a bit pressed for time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    I agree, but I would also say that those on the ‘pro-business’ end of the spectrum are the first to dump environmental measures in the name of being practical. Quite interesting to read about the farmer in The Omnivores’ Dilemma who calls himself a Christian-Environmentalist-Libertarian – fascinating character!

    Chthoniid, the insulation is an environmental/health measure – you seem to be looking for a conservation party more than a Green party?

    I don’t see that conservation issues are separate to environmental issues, and indeed, in most parts of the planet conservation departments are part of an environment ministry (not separate as in NZ). I just tend to use conservation examples more. I am a vegetarian largely for environmental reasons afterall.

    Even the Chinese communists I’ve been working with understood that environmental measures cost money. There’s tradeoffs and they’re a lot easier to afford when you’ve got the money. Bringing back the Chinese alligator from the very edge of extinction would have been impossible in the China of 1990. We might yet succeed with the South China tiger.

    I think it would be relevant to point out that Labour did cut DoC’s budget in either 2004 or 2005 (can’t remember which I’m sorry). Cutting spending when the public sector is actually expanding and the economy is growing is quite an achievement in political expediency- especially if you don’t have a weak economy as an excuse.

    The realpolitik of environmental politics means that most policies that depend on Government support or financing, eventually fail. The West Coast Forest Accord lasted only so long as to the time when Labour decided that 50,000 green votes were worth breaking the agreement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Lee (610 comments) says:

    In response to Ari.

    “sometimes international affairs are not black and white”

    Terrorism is wrong. Which part of that do you find difficult to understand?

    “there is no objective measure of whether an abortion is justified, or even at what stage a baby or potential baby might qualify as being “alive” or having a “right to live” ”

    Bollocks. The first step in advocating mass murder is to dehumanise those you want to kill. Saying that your not sure what qualifies a human baby as being alive or having a right to live has, once again, proven my point about how sick you and your party are. The objective scientific evidence is that once conception has taken place we have a human being. Killing innocent human children is wrong.

    The ideology that human population is growing out of control and must be reduced is an opinion, and when held strongly and promoted, a form of ideology. That does not make it wrong, but it does mean that you are in fact saying that your party wants its opinion/ideology promoted. Its not simply “information”.

    Since finding out about this I have talked to over twenty women I know, 13 of them Labour supporters, and every one found the idea of being given this kind of “information” deeply obnoxious and offensive.

    And thankyou for proving my point about Locke.

    When the Communists came to power in Russia millions were murdered. When Mao came to power in China millions were murdered. It would not have taken a rocket scientist to figure out what would happen when the Khmere Rouge came to power. Your point that Locke expected something “humanitarian” only goes to show how extreme he is and how deeply unfit to be in the position he is in your party.

    His excuse that “oops I got it wrong” after a million were slaughtered is pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    “I just tend to use conservation examples more.”

    I see. Well I do look forward to seeing more of this perspective around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, actually says somewhere concerning the reasons he got out of it, that too many Greenpeace offices are staffed by Che Guevara fans.

    Ari, if you visit this thread again, kindly tell me where you stand regarding “good intentions”: on the part of Bjorn Lomborg and Patrick Moore.

    I feel quite strongly that the Green movement is actually having it too much its own way on what is “commonly believed” by the great majority of people……..like, for example, on air pollution and water pollution and deforestation……..there is actually so much GOOD news that people quite frankly are never told. There is actually a connection between these things and WEALTH; it is lesser developed countries that have the worst problems.

    So much Green activism is based on the assumption that development and wealth increase per se, will be bad for the environment. This will certainly lead to unintended consequences, just like almost every natural assumption that was made by the “Planners” of the USSR was almost certainly WRONG. The real world is such a truly chaotic place, that it is impossible to tell what policies they adopted were right and which were wrong; but the overall result is not in doubt; they failed BOTH in economic growth AND in environmental destruction.

    Yet if YOU were to look line by line at their list of policies, you would probably find yourself in agreement with all of them. I will give you just one example; relying on public transport and doing without cars altogether. YOU would say, wouldn’t you, that of course that had to be better for the USSR’s environment, there must have been other factors that negated the Soviets “advantage” in this area. I presume you would not dispute that there were serious losses in economic efficiency for them as a result of the inflexibilities that public transport impose.

    We actually do not possess the omnipotence to decide this argument, but it will probably shock you that I believe that the Soviets use of a public transport based economy was WORSE for their environment in the final analysis, than a purely private-vehicle-based one. I believe this conclusion on my part is just as valid as your assumption to the contrary.

    I believe that a Green-governed country would suffer the same problem with “unintended consequences”. You people are simply too blinded by your ideology to be able to grasp observable realities. But it certainly appears that Greens have no moral difficulty with worsening peoples quality of life IMMEDIATELY in efforts to address some alleged potential future greater loss of quality of life. The trouble with this is that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy; with steps taken BACKWARDS in economic efficiency, we kill the goose that lays the golden eggs: progress. Some modern day Orwell needs to write a “Green” “Animal Farm”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. PhilBest (5,121 comments) says:

    ARI: It is nice if Keith Locke “welcomed the new regime in Cambodia as an opportunity for change and humanitarian rule, but was sickened by the authoritarian crackdown and ethnic cleansing that followed. If you read what he said, I think you’ll understand just how hard a topic that is for him and that there’s some real lessons that have been learned there, especially about how socialism has its own imperfections.”

    One of the things that needs to be understood at every level of society and taught to our children, is that socialism of the type that explicitly disinherits a sizeable proportion of the population, WILL BE of necessity A VERY VIOLENT regime. I cannot understand how anyone ever thought otherwise, or how anyone ever thought that these massive disinheritances were part and parcel of a movement that was going to be about “peace and justice”. This thinking involves such a deep character flaw that I would want to see considerable evidence of a person’s repudiation of it before I would regard them as fit to exercise any sort of leadership role in society again.

    We have a serious problem when the few people who HAVE repudiated this past, like David Horowitz, are submitted to such ostracisation by the “mainstream” that it is akin to the government in Orwell’s “1984” writing people out of the historical record or holding “5 minute hate” sessions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Ari if you are confused about abortion, do what I did and educate yourself on the full facts of this holocaust.

    Here is a link to a video on youtube that everyone should watch, it is deeply disturbing (to everyone who still has a soul that is)
    and it is happening on our watch.
    If you want to keep your head in the sand about the reality of abortion I recomend you do not watch this video, as it will burst your bubble.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLaai6o0O0A

    Until this video or similar is shown to kids as part of sexual education there will never be full understanding of the abortion issue, after all its only cells right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Lee: I>I The objective scientific evidence is that once conception has taken place we have a human being.

    Equivocation. The objective scientific evidence, in the sense you presumably intend, is the opposite. Personhood does not begin at conception. The antiabortion movement understand science about as well as creationists, or, ironically, given the context of your remark, the greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    Watch the damned video chiz.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    EVERYBODY should watch that video. It’s horrific. Mind you we can have the law makers re-define horrific to ‘just a bit nasty but necessary’ and presto it becomes ok. Absolutely disgusting.

    chiz: Did you watch it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    getstaffed
    That video gave me one of the biggest wake up calls of my adult life, really throws out the “its only cells” argument dosen’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Shawn Tan (23 comments) says:

    The Greens’ Population Policy isn’t just draconian; it is truly scary.

    During my time as a Green Party member, I was responsible for developing Green Party Immigration Policy. Population policy was part of immigration policy in the early stages, and the Issue Group was dominated by xenophobes and social engineers. This remained the case even after population policy was developed separately.

    I still remember the 2007 Green Party AGM in Rotorua where I chaired the discussion group on immigration policy. I began the meeting with an ice-breaker, and invited all participants to share with the group their reasons for being involved with immigration policy development. Over 80% of participants stated that there are too many foreigners in NZ, especially those who “spit everywhere”, “don’t speak fluent English”, “drive recklessly”, “buy up all our land”, “place more emphasis on materialistic pursuits” and “have no regard for our ecology”. (Yes, I took minutes at the meeting.)

    I thought I had either entered the twilight zone or had been accidentally teleported to a NZ First Conference.

    I have trawled through my e-mail records this evening, which revealed much sentiment amongs Green Party members in favour of dictating not only how many–and what kinds of–migrants ought to be allowed into NZ, but also which parts of NZ they can live, and what industries they should be directed to seek employment in.

    This is the kind of social engineering that would make Hitler proud.

    And in light of the above, I submit that it is the xenophobic undertone of some elements within the Greens that explicates why the Greens are so inimical toward population growth. Therefore, the Greens’ Population Policy isn’t just about stopping you from breeding; it’s also about closing the doors to migrants, under the guise of “sustainability”.

    That is why a Labour-Greens-NZ First coalition will spell disaster for this country.

    I don’t think it is in good faith to publish these aforementioned e-mail records – an act of courtesy the EPMU failed to afford me. But re-reading the correspondences within the discussion groups has reinforced my conviction in the necessity of challenging the big-state, nanny-knows-best mentality of the Left.

    The Greens will have you believe that they are defenders of social freedoms, and stick up for the “little man”. Yet, they propose that the state dictates:
    – The parameters of your political campaigning;
    – How parents should discipline their children;
    – What you’re allowed to have in your lunchboxes at school (and what a school can sell at tuckshops);
    – How long you can shower;
    – What kind of lightbulbs you should have; and now
    – How many kids you should have.

    David Farrar is spot on when he says: “The Greens are saying of course it will be up to each family to decide for themselves how many children they have – but nevertheless they want to run education programmes and awareness initiatives to help those parents make the right decisions.”

    Of course, “education programmes and awareness initiatives” is a euphemistic phrase for “state-sanctioned indoctrination and propaganda”.

    It must be remembered that when the Chinese government introduced the one-child policy, it knew how unpopular it would be; hence the extensive “education programmes and awareness initiatives” run nationwide, including in schools.

    And then there are the uncanny parallels and inconvenient coincidences:
    – China defends the one-child policy in the name of the “greater good”; the Greens’ Population Policy is promoted “for the sake of sustainability”.
    – The Greens’ predecessor, the Values Party, explicitly advocated zero economic growth; compare that with the underlying “zero (net) polulation growth” thrust to the Greens’ Population Policy.

    If you like the idea of politicians and bureaucrats entering your homes and tinkering with your lives, go ahead and party vote Green.

    But if you’re a believer in a minimalist state that is restricted to the core functions of protecting our basic freedoms and ensuring law and order, your only choice is to party vote ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Shawn, I largely agree with what you say…..but;

    “sentiment amongs Green Party members in favour of dictating not only how many–and what kinds of–migrants ought to be allowed into NZ, but also which parts of NZ they can live, and what industries they should be directed to seek employment in This is the kind of social engineering that would make Hitler proud”

    My understanding this is immigration policy now (and has been going back to Norman Kirks time)

    also – the Values party also advocated zero population growth

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. wikiriwhis business (4,002 comments) says:

    I wonder if we all should’ve have just leftt his thred empty thus giving it the disrespect it deserves.

    or alternatively, perhaps this should be the only thread until after the election (which I’m suspecting David has prompted for a few days now.)

    Has anyone seen or heard this announced in the media ??

    At any rate, this is the surest sign we’re turning into a mini China. (without the cash)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    The Greens are fools.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    Since DPF deigned to misrepresent this topic into existence I thought I would drop by to see if there was any actual debate worth having, but I found this thread instead.

    I will leave you to your onanistic rhetoric.

    I know you will enjoy yourselves… after all ignorance IS bliss.

    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,752 comments) says:

    The Greens are trying to destroy the New Zealand economy, especially with their support for the ETS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote