The Greens banned list
The Greens are often a contradictory party. They stand up for civil liberties on the one hand, but want to ban almost anything they disagree with or think is bad. They advocate in favour of scientists when it comes to climate change, but campaign against science when it comes to genetics.
In many ways they are the ultimate nanny state party. The list of things they want to ban puts Labour in the shade. In recent days I got wondering how many things do they want to ban? So I engaged my masochistic side and decided to find out by reading every Green policy they have released. Yes I have now read every single one. And below is the list of 85 things the Greens want to ban.
Now of course with any list that long, there might be one or two different people agree with. But what is scary is looking at the list as a whole, and seeing how banning is their first instinct.
Now this is only stuff they officially want to ban as detailed in a policy statement. I haven’t even attempted to go through the masses of press releases and speeches where MPs have advocated additional bans on anything that moves. So this is a conservative list.
- Ban fizzy drinks from schools
- Ban fuel inefficient vehicles
- Ban all gaming machines in pubs
- Ban the GCSB
- Ban violent TV programmes until after 10 pm
- Ban feeding of antibiotics to animals that are not sick
- Ban companies that do not comply with a Code of Corporate Responsibility
- Ban ACC from investing in enterprises that provide products or services that significantly increase rates of injury or illness or otherwise have significant adverse social or environmental effects
- Ban commercial Genetic Engineering trials
- Ban field testing on production of GE food
- Ban import of GE food
- Ban Urban Sprawl
- Ban non citizens/residents from owning land
- Ban further corporate farming
- Ban sale of high country farms to NZers who do not live in NZ at least 185 days a year
- Ban the transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours
- Ban crates for sows
- Ban battery cages for hens
- Ban factory farming of animals
- Ban the use of mechanically recovered meat in the food chain
- Ban the use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed
- Ban animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans
- Ban cloning of animals
- Ban use of animals in GE
- Ban GE animal food
- Ban docking of dogs tails
- Ban intrusive animal experimentation as a teaching method in all educational institutions
- Ban smacking
- Ban advertising during children’s programmes
- Ban alcohol advertising on TV and radio
- Ban coal mining
- Ban the export of indigenous logs and chips
- Ban the use of bio-accumulative and persistent poisons
- Ban the establishment of mustelid farms
- Ban new exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves
- Ban mining activities when rare and endemic species are found to present on the mining site
- Ban the trading conservation land for other land to facilitate extractive activities on.
- Ban the further holding of marine mammals in captivity except as part of an approved threatened species recovery strategy
- Ban the direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals
- Ban sale of chips and lollies on school property
- Ban any additional use of coal for energy
- Ban fixed electricity charges
- Ban further large hydro plants
- Ban nuclear power
- Ban further thermal generation
- Ban private water management
- Ban imported vehicles over seven years old
- Ban the disposal of recyclable materials at landfills
- Ban the export of hazardous waste to non OECD countries
- Ban funding of health services by companies that sell unhealthy food (so McDonalds could not fund services for young cancer sufferers)
- Ban healthcare organizations from selling unhealthy food or drink
- Ban advertising of unhealthy food until after 8.30 pm
- Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food
- Ban the use of antibiotics as sprays on crops
- Ban food irradiation within NZ
- Ban irradiated food imports
- Ban growth hormones for animals
- Ban crown agency investments in any entity that denies climate change!!
- Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in tobacco
- Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in environmentally damaging oil extraction or gold mining
- Ban non UN sanctioned military involvement (so China and Russia gets to veto all NZ engagements)
- Ban NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defence
- Ban NZers from serving as mercenaries
- Ban new casinos
- Allow existing casinos to be banned
- Ban promotion of Internet gambling
- Ban advertising of unhealthy food to children
- Ban cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes
- Ban new buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles
- Ban migrants who do not undertake Treaty of Waitangi education programmes
- Ban new prisons
- Ban semi-automatic weapons
- Ban genetic mixing between specieis
- Ban ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ
- Ban limited liability companies by making owners responsible for liability of products
- Ban funding of PTEs that compete with public tertiary institutes
- Ban the importation of goods and services that do not meet quality and environmental certification standards in production, lifecycle analysis, and eco-labelling
- Ban goods that do not meet quality and sustainability standards for goods which are produced and/or sold in Aotearoa/New Zealand
- Ban new urban highways or motorways
- Ban private toll roads
- Ban import of vehicles more than seven years old unless they meet emission standards
- Ban imported goods that do not meet standards for durability and ease of recycling
- Ban landfills
- Ban new houses without water saving measures
- Ban programmes on TVNZ with gratuitous violence
If you discover further things they want to ban, add them on below!
October 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Is there anything the Greens don’t want to ban? How about a ban on front doors, in the interests of a free & open society.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
86. Ban all use of brain cells.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
The really scary thing is, as it is likely it will be the greens that will allow Labour to govern if it is to govern at all, which part of this list would become reality as the price of Labour remaining in power?
I vote that we do not find out, and encourage you all to vote accordingly!
October 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Bloody hell.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Ban Phil Best.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ban open, democratic debate
Ban Dihydrogen Monooxide
October 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Well, given that one of the conservation threats facing the native gray duck is breeding with the mallard, can I inquire as to how they will make mallards stop having sex with gray ducks?
October 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Actually, you forgot Ban Breeding!
October 28th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
It is easier just to ban the Greens is it not ? It would be far less disruptive for everyone. Or maybe just ban banning.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
If they get banned from parliament by the voters would that count
Seriously though they need to put down the ban stick …. thats a little excessive.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
How often the word “ban” appears on a few websites:
Green Party – 1010
Contrast that with:
Libertarianz – 76
Family Party – 3 (with each one speaking against a ban).
http://sjdennis.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/freedom-family-vs-green/
These Green psuedo-liberals are very frustrating, but what is more frustrating is that most people voting for them probably don’t actually realise what they want to do.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“Ban new urban highways or motorways
Ban private toll roads”
Basically, the Greens wont build roads.
Do you think a ban on all non-public transport is very far off?
October 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I skimmed the list – did you get ban free speech and political debate? (EFA).
October 28th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I know it was deliberate, but the use of the word “ban” in a prejorative sense is quite misleading – many of the policy proposals are really about “regulating” activities. But I know that’s not much comfort to many of the right-wing folk who don’t believe in government intervention…
October 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Chthoniid, you’d also have to ban Tim Shadbolt from going anywhere near Sue Kedgely when both are in a drunken and/or spaced out state.
Oh and also, does this mean that all Greens Party press releases are Banner Headlines?
October 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“how they will make mallards stop having sex with gray ducks?”
{insert gratuitous Trevor joke here}
Imagine living your life in the negative like that. How depressing it must be when your first thought is how can we ‘ban’ this and that. No wonder they all look so pissed off ( or is that stoned) all the time.
A few suggestions for their list:
Ban banning
Ban negativity
Ban interferring in my life you pack of useless wankers.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I support the Greens on the following points;
16. Ban the transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours
17. Ban crates for sows
18. Ban battery cages for hens
19. Ban factory farming of animals
22. Ban animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans
26. Ban docking of dogs tails
27. Ban intrusive animal experimentation as a teaching method in all educational institutions
57. Ban growth hormones for animals
As for the rest, well what do you expect from communists?
October 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Ban regulation.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
What about
# Ban fixed electricity charges
# Ban further large hydro plants
# Ban nuclear power
# Ban further thermal generation
# Ban coal mining
How the f@ck are we going to keep the lights on, oh that’s right they want us all to live in the dark ages – morons.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I’d like to know how they plan to ban NZer from being mercenaries. I’ve been offered two merc jobs, didn’t take them because that chapter in my life is over, but what would Keith Locke do? Arrest me on the spot when I re-enter the country?
October 28th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
This is an absolute beat up!
Ban violent TV programmes until after 10 pm
Ban advertising of unhealthy food until after 8.30 pm
So in other words, not a ban.
Ban new casinos
Allow existing casinos to be banned
They want to ban all new casinos? And they want to ban current casinos? Under what conditions, DPF?
And the good old “Ban smacking” makes an appearance, too. Perhaps Family First wants to Ban the ban on smacking?
Some of them, a little strange I agree and would like to see some context around them…
Ban ACC from investing in enterprises that provide products or services that significantly increase rates of injury or illness or otherwise have significant adverse social or environmental effects
What?
And some of them, what would you propose they do? i.e. the animal welfare ones (docking, antibiotics, experimentation). What about ensuring that companies adhere to a code of conduct? Not really a ban as they have to choose to break it, like any other regulation.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Ban Common Sense ?
October 28th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Slightlyrighty says “I vote that we do not find out, and encourage you all to vote accordingly!”
I’ll vote for that, pass it on
October 28th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Can’t be long before toad hops on over to join deanknight and convince us that ban and regulate aren’t the same thing. Yawn. My son can either buy a pie at the tuck shop or he can’t because it’s been banned. or regulated. or whatever the doublespeak phrase de jour is.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
many of their food-related ones I agree with, but
ban Limited Liability Companies??????
If they don’t want ANY companies, that’s the way to go about it.
As for banning live animal exports… humans are allowed on a ship for more than 24 hours, so why not a sheep? Surely it’s not that bad being on a ship compared to other places? Or do the greenies suffer from extreme motion sickness and therefore consider transportation by sea to be a form of torture as opposed to other forms of transportation. Bizarre.
Ban landfills… what are they going to do with the rubbish? burn it? Maybe we could feed it all to the greens?
Looks like they just want to ban civilisation.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
They want to ban freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Ie they support the “chilling effect on democracy of the Electoral Finance Act”
October 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
oh
and banning cellphone towers within 300m of homes… That would wipe out all urban coverage in the country, they may as well just ban cellphones.
And I guess they don’t care about HT power lines being close to homes then?
October 28th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
47 and 81 appear to be the same.
That is over a 1% reduction in the Green Party Ban list in just one day.
If everyone could just remove one item on the ban list just think of how that is helping New Zealand!
October 28th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I used to get one shilling and six pence (15c) to buy school lunch. That got me a delicious meat pie and two big cream buns. Of course it was mock cream and it had a little dob of strawberry jam on top. If Kedgely had turned up in those days the Maori kids would have beaten her up and thrown her into the nearest river.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
What a coincidence – the Libertarianz noted the Greens’ addiction to bans in a recent press release and pointed to a recent video production that illustrates their affliction.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Ban private property.
Ban families (the State should bring up children).
Ban wealth-producing activities.
Ban wealth.
Ban cellphones (it can’t be too far away).
Ban sunbeds and sunbathing.
Ban private schools, integrated schools and homeschooling (to ensure all children are indoctrinated).
Ban unregistered blogs (follows on from EFA).
Ban hot-air ballooning (causes global warming).
Ban all motor-racing (ditto).
Ban all competitive sport, including rugby from schools (we can’t have some losing).
Ban all right-wing publications.
Ban all unacceptable content on the Internet (like China, Iran, etc).
Ban all firearms (to avoid revolution — does not apply to Tuhoe and “peace activists”).
October 28th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Pro-choice on abortion but ANTI-choice on almost anything else.
You’d think if “choice” justifies the former that it would justify the rest… unless it’s just a propaganda term used by anti-choice hypocrites, who don’t actually believe in it, to justify the unjustifiable (abortion).
October 28th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Where is the ban on incandescent bulbs?
How about the indecent shower nozzles?
October 28th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
For those of us freedom fighters who just want the Gumint to defend the shores deliver the mail and get the hell out of our lives the Greens/Reds are the ultimate enemy.
They are the command and control freaks who must be everywhere and anywhere Of course when you examine their own behaviour you find they are the total 2 faced arseholes
They want to stop you but not them They are like the Russian Commisars who drove around Moscow in the Zil limos while the people walked thru the snow and ice.
They had fresh bread delivered daily whilst the people queued for hours to buy stale loaves.
The Greens are the enemy of free thinking citizens and must6 be destroyed on November 8th
October 28th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Agreed. If I were made Dictator of the World, I would ban battery farming of hens immediately. It is, to my mind, a disgusting practice that should be stopped immediately.
As for the others….
Because there’s NO scientific basis for climate skepticism, right?
(If anyone’s interested, I can nerdrage about climate change for hours at a time without the need for food, water or rest)
AMEN BROTHER
October 28th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The Greens hit double figures in the opinion polls, and right on cue David Farrar starts up the central HQ talking points… I could set my watch by his predictability!
October 28th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Cheeses! Can’t be bothered reading all that crap, but I assume ‘ban the bomb’ is in that lot somewhere?
October 28th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Slightly off-topic, but still on things Green: This outstanding comment from democracymum this morning.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Ban Redbaiter!
October 28th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
The Greens should really ban breathing, since that produces CO2 and contributes to global warming. That would also solve the flatulence problem…
I don’t care if they sit up a tree and worship Gaia, but what really gets my goat is Greens/Marxists trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/the-liberal-left-agenda-in-new-zealand/
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/the-motives-of-the-liberal-left/
October 28th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
BANZAI!
October 28th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
This is all part of the broad sweep of Green belief that includes at its most extreme, the belief that mankind is a “cancer” or a “blot” on the earth.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
If you want a real world example of the “effectiveness” of Green movement governance look to the Province of Naples which has been Federazione dei Verdi from 1995. Landfills were banned, incinerators were banned and NIMBY-ism did flourish. The streets piled high with months of uncollected trash and Commorra profits went through the roof.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
What about Church Bans for weddings and the like?
October 28th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
dpf – ‘In recent days I got wondering’ – hardly! Carefully timed to undermine, but nevermind, few but the rabid believers come here anyway. Try this; replace the word ‘ban’ in the list with ‘encourage’ and see why it is that the Greens stick their necks out over so many issues. They’re not afraid to expose the efforts of those who exploit the ‘freedom to do anything’ clause so many of you here adore. I’m betting there is much in that list that commenters here agree with, but, while the pack is howling, best to keep it to yourself, hmmmm?
[DPF: I only included the actual bans. If I included all the sinister sounding "encourages" then it would be much much longer"]
October 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Few points, if the greens ban coal mining, thermal electricity generation, then the West Coast railway line will go broke. They have already squandered part of our investment in Kiwi Rail.
Most of all I think they are extremely hippocritical. They want to ban unhealthy and genetically modified food for health and safety reasons. However, nothing about banning tobacco. Nothing about banning cannabis which is more destructive to lung function than standard tobacco. More people die from smoking than from eating a few hamburgers. They also do not mention wanting to prohibit alcohol which is implicated in injuries, assaults, unwanted pregnancy, rape and general antisocial behaviour. How about having some Kahunas here! Or is it important for people like Tim Shadbolt to look sexy from time to time?
On the other hand, imagine how boring life would be if we could not drink, smoke, eat junk and root.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
It would be simpler for the Greens to make a list of what they wouldn’t ban.
Shorter and easier for their cognitively challenged supporters to understand.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Do they really mean to ban inter-racial marriage and procreation?
And please tell me what makes MacDonalds food non nutritious. A good meal of Mac products would save hundreds of lives around the world any day of the week.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
“The Greens are often a contradictory party. They stand up for civil liberties on the one hand, but want to ban almost anything they disagree with or think is bad.”
Oh dear… Maybe, just maybe, this is because the Greens have a specific and clearly-defined view of right and wrong, good and bad, which they invite you to vote for if you agree? Scary, I know, when your hero is John “we’ll-be-a-releasing-policy-on-that-sometime-later” Key and the rest of his suit-wearing mates who don’t really appear to stand for anything at all… (apart from a tax cut.)
October 28th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Ban birth. That should fix everything.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
47 and 81 don’t seem to be in agreement. Maybe two different committees thought them up?
October 28th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I’ve got black aphid on my broadbeans.
They should be banned!
October 28th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Well I don’t think they will be banning have a burn off on your farm during a total fire ban, that would inconvience Jeanette too much… Wont be wanting to ban hypocrasy either I guess.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10362592
October 28th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
The Greens stance against Genetic modification was a direct result of what they were smoking.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
That’s funny, because I thought it was a direct result of wanting to get NZ(TM) a competitive advantage in the premium “Organic”/”GE Free” food market for free, by simply preserving the status quo…
October 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Ban limited liability companies?! What the Fuck?! hahaha those greenie fuckers are dumb fucks. hahaha!
October 28th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I am currently banned from consuming food or drink on Wellington City buses. I expect this hideous impingement upon my freedoms to be lifted IMMEDIATELY once the National 4-headed monster takes office
October 28th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
# Redbaiter Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Ban Phil Best.
# PhilBest Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 5:02 Says:
Ban Redbaiter!
Lover’s quarrel???
October 28th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Ratbiter – I don’t buy your politics, but your humour was quite sharp there
October 28th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
73 :Ban genetic mixing between species
So they’re opposed to plant hybridisation now? These people are seriously clueless not only about biology but about there own policies. Although they purport to be opposed to genetic engineering they can’t define it. If you look at the literature from the anti-GE movement one of the things you’ll evetnutally notice is that everybody has their own definition of what constitutes genetic engineering and they don’t always agrre with each other. Some of them are using definitions so narrow that only certain types of GE would be banned and others are using definitions so broad that it would catch crops currently being grown by the organic food cult. I once saw a definition that was ambiguous but that under one interpretation would have included every living organism. I even heard one of the Greens own candidates – Claire Bleakly – admit a few weeks ago that she didn’t know what scientist meant when they used the term. Its ironic that these people jump up and down demanding that we ban or label stuff but can’t actually agree on which stuff we should be banning or labelling.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
chiz, I think #73 was intended to keep non-Greens breeding with humans, and Greens breeding only with other Greens.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
If Labour gets another go it will be because the Greens have not been called to account , they release an economic policy and are not asked for any costings. I have long held the belief that the Greens need to be made accountable for their policy and that the myth that their policies are good for the environment needs to be exposed. They were founded in the Values Party and now call themselves the Greens to catch the vote of the deluded left wing liberals who think it is fashionable to be green.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
WOW!!! Great list!!! I think that has changed my mind about the Green Party, they’ve lost my vote. And I also feel it’s really important that a lot of people see this so have posted it to my own blog adoubleyou.blogspot.com attributed of course to your work. If this infringes on any type of intellectual property or you’d rather not me have it, I’ll happily take it down.
But 5/5 for the effort, wow.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
coge: Is there anything the Greens don’t want to ban?
Yes. They don’t want to ban toxic agro-chemicals. This may sound strange at first since they want to ban pesticides chemicals from agriculture and everyone thinks that organic farming is chemical-free but its not so. Organic farmers sometimes use copper sulphate as a fungicide even though it is toxic and builds up in the soil over time. Since they don’t have access to the other (synthetic) fungicides that everyone else uses and which are kinder on the environment they end up using excessive amounts of it. Soil scientists have been pointing out for years that this practice isn’t sustainable but the greenies conveniently ignore those scientists.
The EU tried to ban the use of copper sulphate in organic farming at the start of the decade but the UK Soil Association etc all protested, pointing out that many of them would go out of business if the ban went ahead, and the EU relented. Apparently financial self-interest comes before the environment. Neither Greenpeace nor Friends of the Earth held a single protest about this. Now if, say, Du Pont, had behaved this way we would have heard about it. If the EU tried to ban some chemical and they protested that they would go out of business if the ban went ahead then you can bet that Greenpeace and FOE would have had people in funny outfits and with placards and camera crews in tow pointing out that the environment should come before profit. But when the organic food cult do the same thing – putting their profit and existence ahead of the environment – neither organisation will utter even a peep in public. This has nothing to do with any financial conflicts of interests with regard to the directors ( or rank and file members) of either organistion of course its because … uh … um … er.
The copper problem hasn’t gone away either. One german company is currently conducting a field trial in the UK of potatoes that have been genetically modified to be resistant to potato blight and …. there aren’t any anti-GE protests directed at it. Apparently, according to rumour, they’ve realised that if they protest about it then someone from the media might just possibly ask them how organic farmers deal with potato blight and they would have to start talking aboput copper sulphate. And the one thing the eco movement is scared of is that the british tabloids might discover that organic farming uses toxic chemicals and isn’t sustainable contrary to what they keep claiming.
If you want to attack the Greens this is one of their Achilles Heels. Ask them when they intend to ban copper sulphate, and ask them whether organic farmers should be prosecuted for making claims (chemical-free, sustainable) when those claims are false.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
The last one leaving, turn out the lights please!
October 28th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
So the Melons want to ban semi autos, now why would that be?. Prehaps they figure they would have more of a chance if everyone was limited to a single shot or better still no gun at all. Don’t worry you Melon bastards even with a single shot I would have one of you two bobs name on it.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
And this is the party led by Russel Norman – he criticised National’s welfare policy saying “No-one likes compulsion”.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
PMSL
Their drug intake is showing again…
October 28th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
It’s worth bearing in mind that this is not an actual list of Green Party policy. Maybe half of it is true. But some things, like “Ban limited liability companies” have clearly just been made up by DPF for a laugh.
[DPF: By removing limited liability for products, it effectively does end limited liability companies - as I noted.]
October 28th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Save yourselves……
Party VOTE ACT
October 28th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
big bruv (1884) 6 6 Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I support the Greens on the following points;
16. Ban the transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours
17. Ban crates for sows
18. Ban battery cages for hens
19. Ban factory farming of animals
22. Ban animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans
26. Ban docking of dogs tails
27. Ban intrusive animal experimentation as a teaching method in all educational institutions
57. Ban growth hormones for animals
I totally agree with this too. Glad to see some people here care about animal welfare
October 28th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
You know, most of the points here that you haven’t grossly misunderstood or misrepresented are eminently sensible. Why should people be able to mistreat sows or chickens, for instance?
October 28th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Whoa!!! A handful of proper suggestions but mostly nutjob stuff. I’m not surprised. These idiots don’t like mining or conventional energy generation do they. My cousins in Waihi will have a dim view of the Greens,….probably by candlelight!
No wonder Jeanette couldn’t hold her seat there.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
excellenti post Farrar,
what can I say but that
mostly you are a gifted person,
but not always Farrar not always,
do things to save New Zealand
from the socialist doctrine,
October 28th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
“So they’re opposed to plant hybridisation now? ”
Possible contextual issues…
October 28th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Ari, If the Greens legislate for protection of sows and chickens but fail to do so for cats… does make felinicide ok? (it would, at least, make the young Helen Clark happy…)
Let’s not stop with the aforementioned animals. Flys in my home experience terrible inconvenience at best, and brutal assault at worst yet the Green propose no legislative protection. Heartless bastards!
October 28th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
“You know, most of the points here that you haven’t grossly misunderstood or misrepresented are eminently sensible. Why should people be able to mistreat sows or chickens, for instance?”
More patronising crap from green smarty pants Ari,…. oh, if only we were smart enough to understand.
People understand perfectly well when they see a group of people so blinded by their ideology that they would happily destroy the country to prove a point.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I think the Green Party should ban people who were never born in NZ and have spent less than 10 years living here telling us what we can and can’t bloody do.
Reading the paper in the weekend it showed up the GP candidate for Waitakere who only came from England a few year ago. Her and Russel should fuck off back to their home countries and leave us to our BBQ, rugby and hot showers.
They should also ban people from voting who’s parents forget to give their names the right number of letters.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Side Show, of course they want to ban semi automatic firearms, just think how scary governments find the idea of a population capable of resisting them.
Personally I would very happy to see a situation where New Zealand adopted gun laws/training etc along the same lines as Switzerland,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
October 28th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
yes Southern Raider, russel is just some aussie loser looking for a gullable croud to indoctrinate, the guy is so arrogant he even managed to upset labour mps when he tried to claim NZs labour movement as the foundation of the green party.
Which accidently revealed the greens “red” roots, when I pointed this out on frog blog there was a strange silence.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Exactly.
Name one green MP who is actually an enviromentalist.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
The bitch who head up Greenpeace NZ was on Alt TV the other night being interviewed by Oliver (I’m so left I’d go down on Helen) Driver and she was openly advocating the destruction of private property.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Man you people really are a bunch of losers – do you have any clue as to the meaning of the word sustainability? It’s pretty much about leaving the world in a liveable state for your offspring – oh yeah that’s right all your children are also your nieces and nephews and are for hitting…
October 28th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
yes, yes… I’m a little slow. perhaps you could define it exactly for me?!?
BTW, every time I see the word sustainability, it appears to be [ab]used to justify whatever the subject feels passionate about.
so your exact definition should clear it up for all NZers and chart of path for future happiness. thanks.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Fitzsimons is suppose to be the most honest political canidate. So was Hitler. This green party has one huge problem, letting other people decide for themselves. Choice!!!! I didn’t like Fitzsimons not backing up a referendum reform for mmp. She and her communistic-socialistic mates would be gone. The public has no idea what a bunch of turds this party is composed of. The results of the poles to get rid of mmp was 75 percent! Again, these nonsense people do not want to know what the pubic wants and the public is paying their bills. They have to go!!!!
October 28th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Sauces do you know the meaning of sustainable development?
Unfortunately not everything in this world is black and white or can be turned off at the whim of a watermelon.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Man you lefties really are a bunch of fuckheads. Don’t you understand that the vast vast vast majority of people respect and care for the earth and all that’s in it far far far far far more than any of you lefty banning idealists?
You self-righteous fucks, you impose your limited set of city-bred naive idealistic values upon others while accoutning for nothing of the ineffectiveness nor inefficiency of the impositions you propose.
I mean how fucking stupid are you? If you had any fucking brains at all, you’d be troubling yourselves to understand why business operations operate the way they do. And do you? NO. All you ever do is munt on about how tewwible it all is for dairy to take so much water and for cars to pollute so much without NOT ONCE, EVER, coming up with a PRACTICAL solution.
Fuck off, moron.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Getstuffed do you really want the Oxford definition doesn’t “leaving the world in a liveable state for your offspring ” spell it out clearly enough for you?
Wow limited gene pools really do make people slow……
BTW what’s the definition of sarcasm?
October 28th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
> Man you people really are a bunch of losers – do you have any clue as to the meaning of the word sustainability? It’s pretty much about leaving the world in a liveable state for your offspring – oh yeah that’s right all your children are also your nieces and nephews and are for hitting…
I agree that it would be nice to have some sort of definition.
The offsping, assuming environmentalists don’t ban them, will be initially concerned with being able to but a 500GB iPod Nano for $3.95, in my view. How exactly are environmentalists going to sort that out?
October 28th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
While I was looking that up in the Oxford dictionary (‘adj. able to be sustained’) I also looked up sauce. I think you are spelling this wrong.
So where did this ‘leaving the world in a liveable state for your offspring’ definition come from? And who are you to tell me what they want, anyway?
October 28th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
From the Green Dictionary: Liveable (colq), adj; Where the State provides poverty-level welfare, endless weed and nightly lectures on the evil ways of capitalistic rich pricks in return for favourable consideration at the ballot box once every three years.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Hey Reid how about all you country bumpkins look down stream…. all that irrigation feeding your cow’s depletes sediment carried down stream which depletes longshore drift increasing coastal erosion and fucking up the natural turbidity flows in the offshore trenches. This fuck with ocean currents and in turn screws the whole water cycle….. You want some productive answers? How about not trying to grow more than your land can actually carry in times of hardship (Drought)?
BTW have you seen this before?:
Economic Models explained with Cows – 2008 update
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away…
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.
ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty
times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called ‘Cowkimon’ and market it worldwide.
A GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the **** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of Democracy….
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Ok, we’re all happy about the animals and so on, and there seems to be a bit of consensus about treating animals better being a good thing, but banning the docking of dog tails? Is this an outright ban? Do the Greens not know that some breeds and their coats make keeping a tail clean an absolute nightmare, and that it can infact be dangerous as some dogs can’t groom their tails properly and they also get infected. I’m just curious, as an outright ban on this is completely impractical.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
ThinkBig – a close family member is a Vet. what you have observed is 100% correct.
welcome to blind ideology over informed pragmatism.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Very impressive DPF, I hope you’ve sent this to some media outlets, saying this is your research, and you think its valid, but they’re welcome to do their own checking, and you think they should run stories on it. Bet none would do it, but they should.
Some of those bans are idiotic to say the least.
I think they’re ultimate goal is to ban white men
October 28th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Hey sauce of knowledge you stereotyping piece of shit. I live in the city, I have never farmed in my life. I don’t own any animal whatsoever, and I resent your farmist attitude you farmist arsehole.
I’m going to take you to the Human Rights Commission for your offensive farmist attitude you self-righteous piece of shit.
Now what’s your full name and address? And if you don’t give it to me I’ll assume that’s because you’re a cowardly wanker. I’m kidding of course, but apparently, that’s how lefties behave, so I’m told.
As a good kind sensitive conservative I would never dream of doing such a thing and I forgive your ignorance and I’m sure you’re a really super person, under that nasty lefty exterior, which I’m sure is just a facade erected to protect you from your own insecurities, just like Hulun’s is.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Wow Reid that really some very impressive venting!! You mislead me well with your “city-bred naive idealistic values” comment, I’m sure glad someone’s sticking up for the poor misrepresented cockies…
Oh well I’m off to bed gotta get up at four to milk the cow…….
October 29th, 2008 at 12:14 am
“Hey Reid how about all you country bumpkins look down stream…. all that irrigation feeding your cow’s depletes sediment carried down stream which depletes longshore drift increasing coastal erosion and fucking up the natural turbidity flows in the offshore trenches. This fuck with ocean currents and in turn screws the whole water cycle….. You want some productive answers? How about not trying to grow more than your land can actually carry in times of hardship (Drought)?”
Oh this is just gold!!
what a load of utter bull crap!!!
Gee these greenies sure pick and choose their science, its a bit like when the kiddies cut words out of a magazine and write a story with them!!!
soopa doopa
October 29th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Not really venting sauce of knowledge, just making the point that most lefties are hypocrites. They rail against stereotypes but fall so very easily into the mildest inkling of it, thereby proving they themselves are some of the worst offenders. Of course you yourself are not like that at all, but it would be nice if lefties in general would stop being so self-righteous, judgemental and frankly, naive. I’m not hopeful, but if you happen to be talking to any mates who you notice have any such inclinations, you might want to make the same point to them.
In the interests of truth and justice to which I’m sure both of us pay great heed.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:26 am
#86 banning babies: the Green pond scum also want to control population levels:
http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/population
They say that the birth rate is roughly at the replacement level, which shows their ignorance.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:09 am
what about their tax and monetary policy?
http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/tax_and_monetary
Key principles, 3 e. Concentration of income and wealth should be discouraged and the gap between rich and poor narrowed
I can’t begin to express how insane that is. It’s about as smart as saying we will shorten the legs of anyone over 6 foot to make them the same height as everyone else.
Surely we want everyone to earn more so there can be more tax, rather than make the rich people poorer… who will pay the tax?
They also plan a capital gains tax, yet they state they wish to discourage investment in speculative or non-productive areas. Those are 2 opposing forces. Many forms of investment only stack up because of the free capital gains.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:36 am
As each day passes and we get closer to November 8th, I get more scared by the hour at the total lack of the voting population using their brains……. Very scary….. The greens are like a party of the first living brain donor’s…… Give me strength….
October 29th, 2008 at 3:59 am
The Luddites would also ban individual responsibility, desire to succeed, and personal ambition.
Under the guise of environmental issues the ultimate aim of these neo-communists’s is the destruction of capitalism. A very dangerous party indeed.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:26 am
One more for the list Ban Tasers
October 29th, 2008 at 6:30 am
My comment to Kiwiblog last night, got banned.
October 29th, 2008 at 6:37 am
“Under the guise of environmental issues the ultimate aim of these neo-communists’s is the destruction of capitalism. A very dangerous party indeed.”
And like I was trying to say last night, they are a bunch of hippies, there just not that scary. Besides, capitalism seems to be doing a pretty good job of falling to bits, at present, all on its own. Even chinese capitalism’s not doing so crash hot.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:45 am
And, of course, the thing that started it all – the banning of absolutely ALL gold mining, especially on the Coromandel Peninsular – it means that the marijuana growers can get on with their growing in peace. Incidentally, I understand that Jeanette Fitzsimmons and her husband are Dairy Farmers, operating in the Keuranga Valley – Thames. If that IS the case, I wonder how she can justify the emmissions that her cows give off – or are they perhaps excempt? Just a thought. . .
October 29th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Probably something to do with ‘offsets’ Komata.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am
The banned list got some airtime on NewstalkZB in the early hours of this morning, with the host reading out the list in several chunks.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:29 am
I always thought it was funny the (aptly named) greens want Marajuana and similar drugs freely available, yet wish to ban mince pies and soft drink because they are a danger to you.
Of course the greens want all research that runs counter to their eco-doctorine banned as well.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:40 am
DPF, it must have taken you forever to research this (it took me several hours last night to check it). Pity you got so much wrong. My response:
Ban fizzy drinks from schools – Government runs and funds schools. Kids can drink or eat whatever they like out of school, but should not be supplied with unhealthy food in Government-funded institutions.
Ban fuel inefficient vehicles – This one’s a lie. The Green policy doesn’t say that.
Ban all gaming machines in pubs – Good idea. People will still be able to go to a chartered club or casino if they want to gamble. The proliferation of gambling venues encourages problem gambling.
Ban the GCSB – Not a ban at all. Abolishing the GCSB is actually doing away with an institution that impinges on all New Zealanders’ privacy. I would have thought libertarians would like the idea.
Ban violent TV programmes until after 10 pm – Not a ban either – moving programmes with excessive violence to a post 10pm slot will help prevent kids growing up to think violence is acceptable.
Ban feeding of antibiotics to animals that are not sick – This one is a ban, and a very sensible one. Use of antibiotics where there is no bacterial infection leads to antibiotic resistant mutations occurring – potentially ones that can cause pandemics and kill millions of people and animals.
Ban companies that do not comply with a Code of Corporate Responsibility – Not a ban. The policy says the Greens would develop a Code of Corporate Responsibility for all corporations operating in New Zealand. It is a voluntary measure.
Ban ACC from investing in enterprises that provide products or services that significantly increase rates of injury or illness or otherwise have significant adverse social or environmental effects – Not a ban, it is an ethical investment policy. Why should the funds of a Government agency charged with injury prevention be invested in enterprises that do significant harm?
Ban commercial Genetic Engineering trials – A half-truth. The Greens support them if they are in a contained environment. That is how we learn whether GE is safe or not in each individual instance.
Ban field testing on production of GE food – Yep, that is a ban, at least for the moment. Until there is evidence that there are any economic advantages of GE food, and that there are no environmental disadvantages, the Greens would keep the experiments in the lab.
Ban import of GE food – Yep, this one is a ban too – we have no need for it and the risks are as yet unassessed.
Ban Urban Sprawl – Not a ban, but the Greens do have policies to discourage it.
Ban non citizens/residents from owning land – Yep, this one is a ban. The Greens propose to govern for New Zealand residents, not non-resident foreigners.
Ban further corporate farming – This one is a lie. The Greens want farming, of whatever sort, to move towards sustainability. Whether it is corporate or not is not an issue.
Ban sale of high country farms to NZers who do not live in NZ at least 185 days a year – Yep, really just a repeat of the Greens propose to govern for New Zealand residents, not non-resident foreigners, as above.
Ban the transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours – This is a restriction, not a ban. It is to ensure animals do not suffer unduly.
Ban crates for sows – A half-truth. The policy permits the use of sow crates for farrowing for up to 72 hours in the interests of the welfare and survival of the piglets.
Ban battery cages for hens – True. The Greens are proud of our animal welfare policy, and battery cages are extraordinarily cruel.
Ban factory farming of animals – A half-truth. It is a progressive phase-out the Green are promoting, not a ban – again in the interests of animal welfare.
Ban the use of mechanically recovered meat in the food chain – Great policy. Do we really want people/animals contracting CJD/BSE?
Ban the use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed – Great policy again. Do we really want people/animals contracting CJD/BSE?
Ban animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans – Yes, the Greens don’t want any animals to suffer.
Ban cloning of animals – Yep, what is wrong with natural reproduction. There are as yet no proven advantages of cloning, and it reduces the gene pool, with potentially threatening consequences.
Ban use of animals in GE – This one is true.
Ban GE animal food – This one is also true.
Ban docking of dogs tails – This one is also true – it cruel.
Ban intrusive animal experimentation as a teaching method in all educational institutions – This one is also true. The Greens don’t want animals to be killed and tortured just for the sake of teaching.
Ban smacking – Not true. The Greens successfully banned beating children. Whether a smack is prohibited depends on the severity, frequency and circumstance, and the Police have discretion to determine whether a prosecution is in the public interest.
Ban advertising during children’s programmes – This one is a lie. The policy is to move commercial advertisements away from screening during pre-school and school age children’s television, not to ban it completely.
Ban alcohol advertising on TV and radio – True, why should we be encouraging people to drink excessively, given the societal harm this causes?
Ban coal mining – This one is a lie. The Greens don’t want any new coal mines, but don’t propose to close down existing ones.
Ban the export of indigenous logs and chips – This one is just continuing existing Government policy.
Ban the use of bio-accumulative and persistent poisons – Great idea. Who wants these in the food chain?
Ban the establishment of mustelid farms – Yes, imported predators such as ferrets and weasels are a real threat to many indigenous species, have considerable ability to escape from farming captivity, and should be eradicated.
Ban new exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves – Fair enough, this is a ban. If it is a conservation site or reserve, that status has already been established and should be paramount over short-term economic gain.
Ban mining activities when rare and endemic species are found to present on the mining site – As for the point above. Same point really.
Ban the trading conservation land for other land to facilitate extractive activities on. – Fair enough. This one is a ban.
Ban the further holding of marine mammals in captivity except as part of an approved threatened species recovery strategy – Yep, again in the interests of animal welfare.
Ban the direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals – Why should this be permitted. Pharmaceuticals should be prescribed on medical advice, not becasue someone has seen something about more and better hard-ons in a TV ad.
Ban sale of chips and lollies on school property – Maybe half true. The policy is to “require all food sold on school premises or at school sporting functions to meet the criteria for food and drink that promotes children’s health.”
Ban any additional use of coal for energy – Yep, this one is true. Why should we use the energy source that creates the most greenhouse emissions when there are plenty of more sustainable alternatives available?
Ban fixed electricity charges – The policy is to implement progressive pricing, based on level of usage. Hardly a ban.
Ban further large hydro plants – Not really a ban, but, as with coal-fired electricity generation, these are unnecessary given other renewable energy options and energy conservation measures.
Ban nuclear power – Anyone proposing this for New Zealand has a kangaroo loose in the top paddock. It may be a better option for countries with a heavy dependency on coal-fired generation, but is completely unviable economically in New Zealand.
Ban further thermal generation – It is actually a moratorium. The Greens would support this, and from gas, not coal, only in extreme circumstances. Those circumstances do not exist.
Ban private water management – This one is a lie. The policy is does not prevent councils contracting out various aspects of the service when they believe this offers better value to its residents.
Ban imported vehicles over seven years old – Cannot see this anywhere in Green policy.
Ban the disposal of recyclable materials at landfills – Another lie. The policy is to ensure that local authority waste management plans set out a clear vision for the phasing out of landfills including promoting and implementing the source separation of waste into streams as an essential part of the transition from landfill dependency to resource reduction and renewal.
Ban the export of hazardous waste to non OECD countries – Yep. That’s cool. If it is nasty and we make it, we should deal with it, rather than making it someone else’s problem.
Ban funding of health services by companies that sell unhealthy food (so McDonalds could not fund services for young cancer sufferers) – Ah, so an admission that McDonalds is unhealthy food. That’s progress.
Ban healthcare organizations from selling unhealthy food or drink – As with schools, a great idea. If people want it that bad, they can have someone bring it in for them.
Ban advertising of unhealthy food until after 8.30 pm – Yep, that one’s true. It is unethical to promote unhealthy food to kids so they put pressure on their parents to buy it for them.
Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food – Um, don’t se that one anywhere in the policy.
Ban the use of antibiotics as sprays on crops – Yep, that’s cool. Antibiotics should be used only where there is bacterial disease.
Ban food irradiation within NZ – Great idea – who needs it?
Ban irradiated food imports – Great idea, as above?
Ban growth hormones for animals – Yes, an animal welfare issue, as well as a health issue, because the science is as yet uncertain about the potential flow-on effects to humans.
Ban crown agency investments in any entity that denies climate change!! – Yep, Government needs to be responsible about not supporting those who deny the greatest potential threat to humanity.
Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in tobacco – Yep, it stinks. I would say the same about cannabis and alcohol too.
Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in environmentally damaging oil extraction or gold mining – This isn’t a ban on anyone doing anything. It is a policy about how organs of the State invest.
Ban non UN sanctioned military involvement (so China and Russia gets to veto all NZ engagements) – This isn’t a ban on anyone doing anything either, but a policy about how the State conducts its international relations.
Ban NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defence – Another policy about how the State conducts its international affairs, that doesn’t ban anyone from doing anything.
Ban NZers from serving as mercenaries – This one is a ban, and one that I’m proud of – there is no place for mercenaries in a civilised world.
Ban new casinos – This is supporting an existing moratorium.
Allow existing casinos to be banned – Misrepresents the policy, which is to support the right of communities within the territorial authority area in which the casino venue is located to vote in a binding referendum on the future of the casino.
Ban promotion of Internet gambling – Yep, a good ban in the interests of social responsibility.
Ban advertising of unhealthy food to children – The policy is to restrict the flood of ads for unhealthy foods being targeted to children by confining them to after 8.30pm. A regulation, rather than a ban.
Ban cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes – Precautionary principle applies here.
Ban new buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles – This is not a ban but the application of a standard.
Ban migrants who do not undertake Treaty of Waitangi education programmes – This is not a ban but part of a requirement that new migrants undergo an orientation programme to familiarise them with New Zealand society.
Ban new prisons – This is a moratorium rather than an outright ban, and does permit the replacement of existing substandard correctional facilities.
Ban semi-automatic weapons – It is a ban, but not as widespread as this suggests – the policy is to make private ownership of fully functional semi-automatic weapons illegal.
Ban genetic mixing between species – Misrepresents the policy – the prohibition is restricted to use of transgenic technology for this purpose, not hybridisation.
Ban ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ – This one is a lie. The policy permits this if and environmental impact assessment has been undertaken and approval is granted for such activities based on that assessment.
Ban limited liability companies by making owners responsible for liability of products – This one is just plain silly.
Ban funding of PTEs that compete with public tertiary institutes – This is not a ban but a prioritisation of public funding going to public institutions.
Ban the importation of goods and services that do not meet quality and environmental certification standards in production, lifecycle analysis, and eco-labelling – Yep, fair enough. Why should people be allowed to import unsafe or poor quality products or those with inadequate information provided about them?
Ban goods that do not meet quality and sustainability standards for goods which are produced and/or sold in Aotearoa/New Zealand – As above, this is imposing a standard, rather than a ban.
Ban new urban highways or motorways – It is not a ban but a moratorium on building major new urban highways or motorways to use the money saved from this to fund investment in developing and upgrading more sustainable transport systems.
Ban private toll roads – The policy says the Greens oppose them. It does not say they would ban them.
Ban import of vehicles more than seven years old unless they meet emission standards – Ah, this is the full version of the point above that was wrong. This one is correct.
Ban imported goods that do not meet standards for durability and ease of recycling – The policy is to restrict or ban – not an outright ban.
Ban landfills – This is not a ban but a policy to progressively phase them out as we move to greater re-use and recycling.
Ban new houses without water saving measures – Misrepresents the policy. This is actually about imposing energy efficiency standards – nothing to do with water.
Ban programmes on TVNZ with gratuitous violence – Wrong, they could be shown after 10.30pm.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:12 am
The voters should do New Zealand a favour and BAN THE GREENS on the 8 November by not voting them back into parliament.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Have the supporters of the Greens come up with something like banning sex yet? If not, then It won’t be too before Turei will propose a ban on having sex more than once a month, since that will lead to a population growth. She is an advocate on a one child policy per couple, which is basically a ban on sex.
October 29th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“DPF, it must have taken you forever to research this (it took me several hours last night to check it). ”
There it is, absolute proof that old toad is smoking to much of the “green” stuff, it is clearly slowing his capacity to think right (pun intended).
October 29th, 2008 at 10:14 am
steven seas: capitalism is not “falling to bits” at present. We do not have true capitalism, rather the present problems are created by socialist central banks, and central banking is a policy straight from the Communist Manifesto. We do not have true capitalism because central banks devalue each existing dollar whenever they print a new one.
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
October 29th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Toad what about supplying a list of all the things you don’t want to fuck with. Would save you a lot of time and a lot of bandwidth.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Ban everything except the Greens, the Greens are religious maniacs.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Sauce that’s some funny stuff. I think you missed some tho.
SILICON VALLEY COMPANY
You have Tucows. You milk the internet.
FIJIAN COMPANY
You have two cows. One is worshipped, the other is canned.
ORWELLIAN COMPANY
The cows work for the pigs, and the humans buy the milk cheaper than when they owned the cows themselves.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
The thing that gets me about the Greens is that they honestly feel they have the right to tell us what to do and when to do it.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:47 am
GREENS
you have 2 cows, the government bans cows. You have to encase them in concrete to prevent their carbon from escaping into the atmosphere. The government bans milk and beef. You don’t need any cows.
October 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“Ban fuel inefficient vehicles – This one’s a lie. The Green policy doesn’t say that. ”
That’s not very fucking green then is it?
What a bunch of unrealistic, self-important, dictatorial wankers the greens are. Fuck off and occupy a derelict oil rig for a few months or something equally productive.
I must go check how my Fletcher Building and electric windmill shares are doing..
October 29th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Toad, I’m rather disappointed in your list – a surprising number of those policies sound quite sensible.
Never mind, I prefer DPF’s version, then I can be braindead about my politics like most of the rest on this blag.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Toad, I just wanted to say thankyou for taking the time to reply to the list. I don’t agree with many of the policies, but it is good to hear your perspective also – and saves me the time of looking up all 80 something points in context!
October 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
they banned me…
..so they must have some redeeming features/qualities..
..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Toad – thanks for taking the time to respond. Now we are both experts on Green policy
October 29th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Sorry for the quick objection then leaving, my time is rather limited at the moment. I was about to track back here and answer some questions before posting a rebuttal, and I’ve seen Toad has posted one here first. I think I’ll can my post for now as Toad has been more thorough- sadly my expertise is mostly in identity politics, IT, and constitutional matters.
Getstaffed:
We already have a broad law for animal cruelty, but it doesn’t seem to be enforced for industrial farming. Specifically clarifying that these purposes are animal cruelty seems like a good idea given that we’re not prosecuting them, right?
I hardly see the freedom to mistreat animals as a good one that necessitates calling some clarification to existing legislation a “ban” among a list of other things you apparently object to
Shunda:
I don’t think I’m smarter than you or David or anyone else. People are good at what they’re good at, and have experience with what they have experience with. I’m more experienced with green policy than most of you, (although certainly not as much as Toad) and I think that lets me make a call as to when David is misinterpreting it rather badly. If you want to have a look, it’s all up on the Green website in great detail: http://www.greens.org.nz/policy
As for being ideologically blinded: That’s funny, we always commited ourselves to being pragmatists who could compromise to get things done. How else do you think we’ve been able to work with a centrist party like Labour?
We understand that most people respect and care for the earth, that’s why we think that in the long-term even the parties on the right will come around to our way of thinking on the environment, if not necessarily on society. Calling us “fuckheads” really helps drive your point home, by the way.
We really don’t want to ban things. Most of our policies try to guide things more gently, to make society a place where it’s easier for people like you and me who respect the planet and the environment to do our bit to help it. But some things do go too far, and we’ve put a lot of pressures on the planet already, so sometimes we find things that do merit a ban or a moratorium- and we’re careful of consequences when we take that course of action.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I’m no left wing greenie commo as can be attested by my blog,,
But,,
I am definitely wondering if there is more than an ounce of wisdom in prohibiting fossil fuels.
If the world goes into depression, we may have to face the new facts of life.
Renewable energy is definitly going to have to be an industry (marine turbines esp)
keeping the status quo is surely lookin prohibitive. It sounds alarmist, but the stock market plummets are alarmist.
In fact president clinton stated on Letterman that if renewable industry had of become an industry from the beginning of the decade, The US wouldn’t be going through the present turmoil.
That’s just plain sobering.
Such a plain and easy solution based on a simplisitic industry.
As for going into a second recession next year, we gotta get out of this one and I can’t see it healing before next year.
btw,,
Anyone know what keeps the marine turbines protected in salt water??
October 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
The pity with the Green Party is that it believes that it has the madate to dictate and pursue authoritarian rule. The Greens need reminding that they are our elected representatives and are madated to serve the public, no more. The concept of a “ban” simply illustrates that they believe that they alone have a devine right to control our lives.
Every Green Party voter ought to consider whether your Party’s authoritative philosophy sits comfortably with what ought to be your liberal views. I hope that they do not. And that you vote elsewhere.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Yeah, keeping marine turbines protected is really the big challenge, but I think that renewable energy in general is just such a no-brainer that I’m surprised National hasn’t really jumped on it and tried to outdo Labour. You’d think that energy that doesn’t require (active) fuel would be something the left and right could agree on.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
“Anyone know what keeps the marine turbines protected in salt water??”
wikiri, I understand lefty volunteers are stripped naked then strapped onto the blades to protect them with their own biodegradable bodies. Apparently they have to be replaced quite often, but there’s no shortage of volunteers wishing to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of saving the planet.
Of course I understand you may find this unbelievable and it is of course quite a silly thing to do, but the naivity of your average lefty vis-a-vis the practical vs idealistic approach toward conservation apparently makes most of them quite keen. I understand there’s even a waiting list.
Let me know if you need more info. I have lots of links and other material.
October 29th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
As an edit I didn’t quite get to in time, consider this, my comment above, on this blog, would have been illegal under the EFA had the Greens/Labour got their way on the shape they wanted the Bill to take and I would now be facing a criminal conviction.
What Green voter would serriously support that sort of authoritarian State?
October 29th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Falafulu Fisi says at 9:49 am:
The Greens would only support a ban on heterosexual sex. It would be one of their “bottom” lines. Labour would support this Green initiative because it’s “right up their alley”.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
wikiriwhis business says at 8:12 pm:
Oh no. You’re not advocating the bankrupt ideology of “peak oil”? How much is a barrel of oil these days?
Renewable energy is an expensive luxury we can’t afford in these difficult economic times.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
wikiriwhis business says at 8:12 pm
In fact president clinton stated on Letterman that if renewable industry had of become an industry from the beginning of the decade, The US wouldn’t be going through the present turmoil.
That’s just plain sobering.
Don’t buy into this for one second. Renewable industry has absolutely NOTHING to do with the US economic turmoil, unless Clinton is now defining “renewable industry” as the mortgage and finance industry, banking, and government lending institutions.
Ari – by saying you are a pragmatist and then saying “being able to work with a CENTRIST party like Labour” goes a long long way to defining how left the Green Party really is. Calling Labour centrist is like calling Barack Obama the twin brother of Dick Cheaney.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
-Reid
Unfortunately, the Greens won’t like the answer to the “How do you protect marine turbines?” question, because the most practical solution is thermoplastics and/or rubber. Sadly (for them), both are products of….. the petrochemical industry, and therefore, not sustainable/eco-friendly/renewable.
It was also my understanding that marine turbines were incredibly damaging to the surrounding marine eco-system, so how does that fit?
October 30th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
“Green” politics is just the latest brand of the old Red brigade. It’s a more trendy colour these days, and it gets the impressionable youth engaged, along with a few old hippies. But it’s just a brand, like Reebok or Starbucks. It’s still the same old all-mighty state telling people how to live their lives. Remember, people, this BS all tastes ok when it seems like it’s just other people being regulated – wrapped up in special “save the planet” sauce. But how will that bitter pill go down when your workplace shuts down, you are unable to travel or eat as you choose and (inevitably in all socialist regimes) dissent is cracked down upon? Wake up and smell the decaf soy latte’s, folks, the Greens are just the Reds in drag.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Most of the items/activities on the list seem things worth banning.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Bans are usually last resorts that come about because anti-social behaviour (in varying guises) occurs which harms many more people than it benefits. This anti-social behaviour is driven by self-interest.
The individual or organization addicted to self-interest cannot accept or even comprehend the damage caused by their actions and continues on their merry way reaping the benefits/pleasure of their actions whilst externalising the cost to society. There is no way they will comply with anything unless it coincides with their own narrow scope of self-interest.
Therefore a ban is sometimes required. Government DOES have to lead if sensible remedies are ignored resulting in damage that affects us all.
It’s called the ‘Common Good’.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
id rather ban political parties that are thinking they have a chance in the up & coming elections.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I think they forgot the true number 1:
1. Ban all humans