Problems for Rodney
November 16th, 2008 at 10:25 am by David FarrarRodney may have his hands full with David Garrett. At Backbenches last Wednesday he surprised a few by advocating a Sheriff Joe type prison of war camp at Waiorou for hardened criminals, with food to cost only 75c a day instead of the current $5.
And the HoS reports he caused waves at Eye to Eye, and was allegedly drunk. However (and you have to look hard to find this, the show was recorded in June before he was an ACT candidate):
During the show, Garrett, speaking slowly and occasionally slurring, made rambling comments which were rubbished by the other panellists, particularly former Act MP Deborah Coddington.
My motto is to drink after the TV show, not before! Mind you on election night it was a mxiture of both!
Coddington said she was shocked by Garrett’s attitude: “He was really rude to me. He walked up and said `Deborah Coddington, my brother hates you’.”
She said recording was stopped several times because of Garrett’s behaviour but didn’t think any more about the incident until Act announced Garrett as a list candidate.
Which was some months ago.
Garrett confirmed he made the comment to Coddington.
“That was a stupid thing to say. But I might have said it stone cold sober.”
He denied he was homophobic and said the other panellists had not listened to his arguments.
“What I said was, paedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Deborah Coddington just didn’t get it.
“I am not saying gays are the same as paedophiles. One of my closest friends is flagrantly gay. He was the MC at my wedding.”
Garrett said he “certainly regrets” his long lunch and had rung Hauiti to apologise. “It’s certainly not appropriate behaviour for an MP.”
Not a helpful story, but when I first read it, I thought this had just happened this weekend. It is somewhat of a different story that it was before he was even a candidate.
Oh and for the record homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Paedophilia is a psychological disorder.
Related posts:
- Should the census include sexual orientation?
- An ACT ex-MP in support of inflation
- Coddington on Blogs
- So who is this?
November 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am
“Coddington said she was shocked by Garrett’s attitude: “He was really rude to me. He walked up and said `Deborah Coddington, my brother hates you’.””
Hell, don’t know this guy but he sounds like a piece of work. Just what we need to take it to the speech and thought controlling leftist scum. Go David Garret.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am
“Rodney may have his hands full with David Garrett. At Backbenches last Wednesday he surprised a few by advocating a Sheriff Joe type prison of war camp at Waiorou for hardened criminals, with food to cost only 75c a day instead of the current $5.”
Why suprised? This is old news to ACT members who heard Garrett speak at his confirmation speech for the no.5 spot on the list.And its a good idea and long overdue.
Oh and for the record homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Paedophilia is a psychological disorder.”
Really?
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 10:42 am
And who cares what Coddington thinks? This vacant whisp had her time and can’t get to grips with the fact shes yesterdays news….a mistake ACT i8s well rid of.
With National under Key appearing to be going down the softly softlt wetter than wet road I hope ACT keeps one hand on the ejector handle and bails out in time to stand apart as the ONLY party of reform in 3 years time….things are starting badly I feel.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Who listens to Coddington? And why would she bother raising all this now except to attempt to big note herself.
She was hopeless in Parliament and an even worse feature writer.
Unless of course there was nothing more interesting to post!
No Hooton nor his partners (BB and No Minister) in crime endeavoring to influence the election. ( legitimate I might add but like Clark they couldn’t wait for the day to be over before the went back into hiding.)
No doubt they will be sharing tales with their mate Trotter over some expensive wine somewhere, more than likely paid for out of state funds.
Fortunately at the next election the electors will be wiser to this and these may well have to be counted towards a parties funds. Why not, no different to the unions that you accused (rightly) of supporting Labour in various ways.
Of course this isn’t the same because you belong to the right.
Vote:So, its just how you (or anyone) see it that defines the privilege, isn’t it?
November 16th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Sorry not No minister but The Hive.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Bring back Ron Mark. All is forgiven!
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Problems perhaps, but portfolios as well! From Stuff.co.nz
Key announces National-led govt
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Email a Friend | Printable View | Have Your Say Related Links
Subscribe to Archivestuff
Have your say
Advertisement
AdvertisementLATEST: Prime Minister elect John Key has announced the formation of a National-led centre-right government.
At a joint press conference with ACT leader Rodney Hide today, Mr Key announced he had formally signed up ACT’s support.
The Maori Party also confirmed today it will sign a deal with National and Mr Key is scheduled to announce a similar deal with United Future later today.
ACT’s deal includes ministerial roles outside Cabinet for Mr Hide and deputy Heather Roy and policy concessions.
Policy concessions included an advisory group to look at ways of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025 and task forces to review government spending.
Under the deal Mr Hide will be appointed Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regulatory Reform and associate Minister of Commerce. Mrs Roy will be Minister of Consumer Affairs and associate Minister of Defence and Education.
ACT won five seats on election night and along with United Future, which won one, pledged to support National, meaning National’s haul of 59 seats assured it a majority in the incoming 122-member Parliament.
But Mr Key’s successs in signing up the Maori Party means National could command 70 votes on confidence and supply issues.
Mr Key’s formal inking of the deals paves the way for him to announce his Cabinet tomorrow and for him and his ministers to be sworn in on Wednesday.
That will allow Mr Key to fly out on Thursday to the Apec summit in Peru at the weekend as New Zealand’s new Prime Minister.
United Future leader, and the party’s sole MP, Peter Dunne concluded negotiations with National last week, saying a deal had been agreed and was waiting to be signed.
The Maori Party also said last week it had completed a draft agreement with National, but wanted to consult its supporters at a series of hui before it signed a deal.
Mr Dunne and Maori Party co-leaders Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia are also expected to be given ministerial positions outside of Cabinet.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
it looks like we have a (worthy?) successor to the bob-the-builder-buffooon-role..
“..have another drink..!..dave..!..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
James and DPF please note.
Vote:http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=2723
noted that “the American Psychiatric Association already set the stage … [in] the latest diagnostic manual (DSMIV), a person no longer has a psychological disorder simply because he molests children.” Thus the APA created psychologically normal” paedophiles.
this was written in 1999!
http://drjudithreisman.com/articles.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16148
November 16th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Ha, if I were Rodney, David Garrett would be the least of my worries – he’s got Roger Douglas and John Boscawen in his caucus!
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The article is dirty, pathetic tabloid journalism and will be seen that way by many…a beat up. Even the producer of the show said it was OK for him to go on.
David Garrett is a straight talker and my guess is that people will come to appreciate his no nonsense style.
I thought we voted out the PC world of the lefties and watermelons last week? Claiming hurt feelings at every turn and twisting and turning what people say in order to make it sound offensive when, on analysis, it wasn’t offensive at all.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation of individuals to the same sex as themselves. Paedophila is a sexual orientation of an adult to towards a child. Both are orientations which have practices associated with them. Society currentlty defines one as lawful and one as not. Based on Turpin’s comment and evidence, we should seriously be considering a society in which both are permitted.
[DPF: No, because children can not give consent]
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
The core of that issue Kodaz is one of informed consent…..virtually no-one argues that pre puberesant children are able to give that informed consent…..and the blatant “wrongness’ of kids that age being in a sexual relationship strikes at peoples sense of ….for want of a better expression ,fair play. All the advantages are with the older partner whilst the negative fallout is almost always left with the younger partner.
But we must not forget that for most of human history children aged 12 and over having sex and having kids was the accepted norm in much of the world including the West.Adolesense was a creation of capitalism that created so much wealth and a massive rise in the standard of living of the poor and actually created a middle class that children were able to enjoy being allowed to be children and not be rushed into premature adulthood. Like it did with slavery capitalism rendered child marrage and procreation a redundant practice and a good thing too.
But what about the “children” who want to have sex and are informed and aware of the consequences? Its a tricky one and raises interesting questions…if the anti smackers are right and kids should have their rights respected in regards to not being smacked as part of corrective action by adults,as adults have, then why shouldn’t they also have their rights to sexual expression recognised and protected in the same way and for the same basic reason? After all it is THEIR bodies they are using and just where does freedom end and nanny state begin in regards to this issue?
Now I’m all for children not having sex until they are of an age and maturity that they can handle it but what gives me any right to stop them if they choose to do so….? Removing State welfare incentives to make bad decisions is a start but also education is required.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Okay, leaving aside whether he was or wasn’t drunk and whether he did or didn’t insult Coddington (and, as others have commented, there must be a queue forming to indulge in that particular pastime) his call for NZ to follow corrections policies which are universally discredited and identified with someone who can only be described as a proto fascist (a paramilitary raid on City Hall at 2am, with dogs and automatic weapons, to find some illegal cleaners?!) is appalling.
This is a man who’s been sued for racial profiling, has had his funding cut by the Governor and right now is in the middle of a scandal over the alleged death of an inmate after a beating by his guards.
This is a man who’s on record as saying his dogs get to eat $1.10 worth of food a day, the inmate 90 cents, and “I’m very proud of that too.” (Note that Garrett advocates spending less than that).
That the weather channel is one of only two available to prisoners (the other being the Disney channel) “so these morons will know how hot it’s gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs”.
That contemptuous attitude leads not just to deaths and serious injuries but to compensation to the victims’ families which cost the state millions of dollars ($8.5 million to the family of a man asphyxiated by guards, $1.5 million to an inmate denied treatment fir a perforated ulcer, and a current suit from a inmate who claims guards caused spinal cord damage, to name but a few).
And before the “red in tooth and claw” brigade start claiming that paraplegia or death is no more than what’s deserved by anyone sentenced to prison, only a small proportion of Sherrif Joe’s inamtes are in fact violent offenders. Like any prison, there’s a mix – the guy denied treatment for the perforated ulcer was handed over to the tender care of Sherrif Joe for driving with a suspended licence. Last time I checked, we hadn’t imposed torture and possible death as a penalty for traffic infringements, much as some may like to.
Garrett and the Sensible Sentencing Trust rely for their support on a public who assumes that the entire prison population is made up of people like the half dozen violent recidivists they might see on television and hear about on talkback. They’re not. Many have committed no violence at all, nor are ever likely to (and thus should not be in prison at all, I would argue, but repaying their debt to society) and most are not beyond redemption. But treat them like animals – or, as Sherrif Joe and David Garrett advocate – worse than animals and you risk making them so.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I don’t think you need to worry about all that Rex. But do expect a drastic reduction in expenses for prisons.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Sheffif Joe is a bit of a totalitarian prick and no example to follow full on but some of what he does has merit.Why not have tent city camps in Waiouru and other unpleasent places? If its good enough for our service men and women to train there why not have the crims get a dose too?
Why not chaingangs in bright colours to shame and incentivise good behaviour..? these are fucken crims….not innocent victims….you remember them don’t you? The ones who the real scumbags attacked and violated.
A short sharp shock stay in one of these camps may be just the thing to make a permanent change in these crims lives…but it must be for real crimes,not vices and it must not degenerate into abuse and torture…
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I beg to differ BlairM… I do think we need to worry. These sorts of quick fix “they’ll stop offending if only we make prison tougher” solutions are superficially very attractive to a populace sickened by what seems to be a wave of violent crime, up to and including the torture and murder of women, children and animals. What they don’t appreciate is that the crimes that make the news – and the criminals that make the news – are the exceptions, not the rule.
When you begin to dissect these serious cases it becomes apparent the majority would have occurred even under a “one strike” law – that there is a statistically small group of people who are predisposed to extreme violence and will resort to it while in such a state of mind that rational considerations, such as the time they’re likely to spend in prison and the nature of the prison environment, however harsh, doesn’t enter into it.
What a “three strikes” law does is say that society will let you kill, rape or maim a couple of people before we class you as beyond redemption and lock you up for life. Yet some of those people were beyond redemption well before they committed their first offence. And as a flipside, we’ll lock you up for life even if you’re merely an idiot that tries to hold up three gas stations with a water pistol.
It’s a sop to the masses, it will not deter violent crime and it will see people who don’t deserve it locked up for life while those who’ve been convicted of fewer, but more serious, crimes are given a second chance. It’s a simplistic alternative to really tackling the issues of crime, policing, justice, sentencing, punishment and rehabilitation – issues which are complex, frustrating and expensive to deal with but which it is necessary to do so if we’re to live in a humane and safer society.
But try explaining that to the talkback callers who’ll be having a veritable orgy with the likes of Michael Laws when this Bill hits the Select Committee.
And, like any activity which doesn’t involve the conversion of raw materials, I’d imagine one of the largest expenses in running a prison is wages. So if large savings are to be made, that rather suggests less correctional officers, I would have thought. Hardly a good idea, and hardly likely. So yet another false promise of the SST nirvana.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Rex, just because something is not a silver bullet, does not mean it is without merit and should not be tried.
The whole point of the three strikes policy is to a) act as a deterrent, and b) keep violent people off the streets. It has nothing to do with punishment.
Reducing the cost of prisons is important because I refuse to pay for the comforts of prisoners, not because I want to punish them. The goal is to keep them away from the rest of society first and foremost. This should be done as cheaply as humanly and humanely possible. Anyone who thinks it’s about harsher punishment has got the wrong idea.
When we have a much safer society, that is the day we can start worrying about the prisoners themselves and how to rehabilitate them.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Rex continues to defend the status quo. How many victims of violence do you, with your soft on crime pseudo liberal bullshit, take responsibility for Rex?
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
“It is somewhat of a different story that it was before he was even a candidate.”
Absolute bullsh*t – because it was only a few months ago, and at the time he was legal adviser for the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Redbaiter:
I don’t take responsibility for crime prevention because I have no influence over policy or enforcement. If I did, I would.
Sherrif Joe, on the other hand, has responsibility for both. Let’s not forget that, in addition to strutting round and enjoying the limelight that comes from his redneck pronouncements, he’s also directly responsible for preventing crime. Yet Arizona crime rates have been either steady or have increased during his tenure.
Clearly his inhumane and brutal treatment of people – some of whom are incarcerated for non-violent and even non-property crimes as I mentioned above – either has no effect at all on the rate at which violent crimes are committed or it turns non-violent people violent.
It’s like this, Redbaiter. If you drove without a licence you’d probably expect to be fined or given some other punishment which fitted the crime. If however you were shackled and dragged off to a “tent city”; starved, beaten (and possibly permanently injured); humiliated and forced to do exhausting physical labour; then just possibly you might emerge from that experience with your respect for authority lessened and a desire for vengeance on the society which had burdened you with such an excessive and unwarranted punishment.
BalirM:
It’s clearly not a deterrent, unless you’re taking about deterring people from driving without a licence. The violent ofenders who come to the public’s notice and drive these policies are a mixture of mad and bad such that they do not pause to weigh up the potential effects upon themselves of their offending. They should have been picked up much sooner or not so easily released. The provisions already exist to deal with such people, it’s just that they’re not being used.
Rehabilitating prisoners is the key to a safer society, unless we simply lock every single one of them up forever. And I point out again – the biggest cost in running a prison is staff. And I (and I suspect most prison officers) would argue we need more of them, not less. Paradoxically, a truly successful prison system would start by costing us substantially more, but its success would see it shrinking regularly over time till we had, perhaps, one high security prison to isolate dangerous recidivists at a fraction of the cost we pay to maintain the inadequate (in every sense) ones we have now.
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Yay for Lazytown! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CHAZJr3OE
Vote:November 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I agree with you James. There is nothing to stop this from being considered, only current society norms and ways of thinking. I can see the argument unfolding that If children became ‘informed’, then their consent would hold validity, and paedophilia would no longer become an issue. I guess it sits in the same class as gay marriage was to our great-grandparents (inconcievable in their generation, but very much a reality, in a future one, i.e. in ours.). We’ll have to deal with it down the line (in about 30-60 years time). We’re so enamoured as a culture with greek philosophy (democracy,art etc.), surely sexual practices like Athenian Pederasty are on the table as well for the West, in time.
Now I’m disgusted by the practice of both paedophilia and homosexuality, but as you affirm in your comments, the concept of establishing and giving ‘consent’ between doesn’t separate the two practices / orientations. Creating consent, is as possible in the relations between an adult and child, as it is between two adults (homosexual or heterosexual). You just have to have the right society and social conditions, to make it happen.
So DPF’s interjection concerning the inability of children to offer valid ‘consent’ is a function of current norms, laws and understanding, but maybe considered ‘prudish’ and ‘socially conservative’ in a generation’s time.
Vote:November 17th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Scratch the notion of our society dealing with it 30-60 years…It will be on the agenda of the next Labour/Green government, in its 2nd term, in the shape of ‘gay adoption’. In the interlude, the electorate will be softened up with documentaries and articles, presenting the normalness of this type of ‘family’. Paedophilic activists, will covertly back the cause to the hilt, because it allows the creation of a perfect social pederastic environment in which to produce consenting children. Focus will go on the ‘right to parent’ as opposed to the ‘safety of the child’. In 30-60 years, we’ll dealing with the abuses and fallout instead.
Vote:November 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am
>homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Paedophilia is a psychological disorder
I 100% support equal rights for same-sex people, including marriage. And I have no particular reason to defend David Garrett, though I am in the same party.
Obviously the important, and obvious, difference is that homosexual acts can be engaged in by consenting adults while paedophilia, by definition, cannot.
But I don’t necessarily accept there is a psychological difference. If paedophilia cannot be cured, and I’m not sure that it can be, then it is a sexual preference just like homosexuality, albeit one that can never morally be acted on. Without knowing the context, I’m not prepared to condem Garrett just based on what Coddington said. And if he said anything truly obnoxious, you’d think she would have included that in the part she quoted.
Vote:November 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am
kodaz
There’s one other issue. Responsibility. This was the issue sadly lacking from any debate on the repeal of S.59 btw.
Whilst parents are responisble for minors’ actions (to an extent), they must have certain controls.
Who is it that’s going to be working to earn a living to feed a baby if the mother is only 12 years old hey? Not the mother that’s for sure.
Vote:November 17th, 2008 at 11:39 am
The 3 strikes and out law should be for very serious re offending.
We already have non parole and fixed life terms for the worst.
Most crime is committed by teens who do grow up and work for a living
These are the ones who need to be punished and educated during their time
Let them come out with certificates, diplomas and even degrees and watch this country turn around.
Vote:November 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Garrett is impressive – we need more morons turning up rat-arsed to television interviews.
At least Winston could hold his liqour.
Vote:December 20th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Personally I find Deborah Coddington’s sentiments a bit rich given her racist and flawed in so many ways ‘Asian Angst’. Does she feel it’s okay to be racist but not okay to be homophonic? All senseless discrimation is wrong as are baseless claims that result from them.
Also ACT has always been somewhat schizophrenic. There recent move to emphasise more on the law and order platform have just made them even more so. As one commentator put it, they used to have the economical liberal extreme social conservatives who wanted homosexuals, drug pedalers etc put to death and the libertarians who wanted to abolish any and all laws relating to social behaviour. Now they also have people like David Garrett and some guy who was 9 or 11 on their list who used to be a member of the Green Party (although I doubt he was ever so high on their list, if even on it) and was heavily involved in trade unions but supported their law and order stance (his Singaporean background may have had something to do with that). Not that I’m saying there’s anything explicitly wrong with that but I doubt it makes for a stable party.
Having said that David Garrett is hardly unique in his extremely poor decision making for a politician. Remember Bob the Builder?
Vote: