Bullying Quote
July 30th, 2009 at 1:46 pm by David FarrarOver at The Standard, Paul Buchanan made this comment:
I hate to say it, but I think bullying crosses the aisle and is endemic not only in NZ politics but the society at large, be it in academia, government, unions or corporations. Helen Clark openly called for my dismissal from Auckland University when I raised questions about the Zaoui case. She also vilified Deborah Manning, who is one of the more courageous Kiwis I have met. After it was all over and Zaoui won his appeal, Deborah moved on to an international job and Helen got her wish with regards to me.
I’d forgotten about that. So much to remember – Kit Richards, Erin Leigh, Peter Doone also.
Related posts:
- Zaoui Winners
- Another defamation suit for the PM?
- Ahmed Zaoui humour
- Clark implicated further in Doone affair
July 30th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Heh, this was my favourite comment there: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/fishy/#comment-149674
IrishBill
Vote:July 29, 2009 at 10:08 pm
No I’m question the actions of the Nats because I’ve seen the lengths they’ll go to to shut down debate.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I think Irish Bills ‘Uncle Tom’ comment is my favourite. I could try to find it but I fear it has been deleted.
Labour (and minions) just don’t seem to be getting it, do they?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
read the terrible allegations they make against John Key on that post
“He [Key] attacked a group of young Mt Albert protesters, labelling them “cold and desperate”.
My god, just what kind of a cancerous and corrosive, feral inbred, little creep are they making him out to be?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Clarke got pissed off with Buchanan because he was always being touted by the media as a security expert commentator on NZ security issues, when he was nothing of the sort – he had no particular inside knowledge of NZ intelligence, his comments were all speculation based upon his time in the USA.
He only recently stopped referring to the Director of the SIS as the “Director-General” in his media articles after his repeated error was pointed out to him on this blog. Accuracy is usually de rigeur for academics but I recall Buchanan was quite ungracious when this error was pointed out to him.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Patrick, the cancerous and corrosive, feral inbred, little creep he is?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
MNIJ – sorry it flew over your head
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Patrick – I’m assuming the scarf Jack wears to cover up his chinlessness also covers the rest of his head, hence it flying right over.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Chris2: Lets get this straight. Because you have issue with my commentary on the SIS and the fact that I misidentified the Director as the Director-General, you believe that the PM of the time was justified in openly call for my dismissal? Geez. I hate to tell you, but that form of reasoning says a lot more about you than it does about me.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
That’s not a scarf, it’s his bib. The amount of shit that spews from that nub nubs mouth daily is greater than what Watercare process in a year.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
It would nice if Irish Bill aka Rob Egan of the EPMU fessed up to his affiliation when making those kind of allegations. The Standard lacks relevance now that the Labour MP’s have started blogging themselves at Red Alert.
While our host Mr Farrar is regularly interviewed on radio and tv, the shadows at The (dying) Standard never make any traction with their PR campaign bwecause they have no credibility while hiding behind their pseudonyms.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Paul G. Buchanan – there you go assuming again. My post drew no link between Clarke’s supposed dislike of you and your dismissal, but that’s the conclusion you have drawn.
You were the architect of your own dismissal by Auckland University after writing some politically-incorrect E-mail to a lazy student. I think you were badly treated over the whole affair, and I’m glad you eventually prevailed, but nonetheless you created the problem yourself, not Clarke.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Chris2–I appreciate your support regarding the dismissal, but I never said that Clark had a hand in it. You are right, I am responsible for what happened to me. What I did say is that she eventually she got her wish. I should note, however, that the student came from a well-connected family in the UAE and complained to the UAE embassy in Canberra, among other places. The UAE Ministry of Higher Education and the UAE embassy both stated that they would look into the case. Given that NZ was in the process of finalising a deal that would see an increase in students from the UAE to NZ tertiary institutions, it is not improbable to think that at some point UAE officials worked through official channels to discuss the merits of the case. I leave the rest of the speculation up to you.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Paul Buchanan: would you mind please summarising what you said about Zaoui that raised the hair on H1′s back?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Paul there’s no need to speculate, I’ve had a lot of contact with MFAT for over 10 years. Although hard-working, they are a bunch of spineless jellyfish utterly consumed by self-interest and self-advancement and if the UAE Embassy raised the issue with them they would have acted upon it and put their own spin on the implications the issue might have for New Zealand’s “bilateral relationship”.
If anyone in “officaldom” did your legs in, it would have been them. You should put in an OIA for any material they hold, although they will doubtless object on the basis that its release would harm NZ’s international relations.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
“You were the architect of your own dismissal by Auckland University after writing some politically-incorrect E-mail to a lazy student.”
And he had the right to do so. Mr. Buchanan was correct.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Paul could you do me a favour and reproduce Clark’s open call for your dismissal, because I’m damned if I can find it.
She described as “quite ridiculous” your claim that the New Zealand government was following the lead of the United States and others in holding terrorism suspects without charge indefinitely “until they psychologically break”. But that’s not the same thing.
I’m not saying she didn’t, and I was certainly no fan of her handling of Zaoui, but I can neither recall or locate her call for you to be sacked.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Lol, Toad has shown his true bigotry on the standard. I wonder if green policy is soon to be special treatment for mensa members
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/comfortable-with-bullying/comment-page-1/#comment-149873
Di78
July 30, 2009 at 3:54 pm
She has not “lost the opportunity to get off the DPB”. She simply has to look for a job that does not require an academic qualification.
toad
July 30, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Ah, you mean a shit job. Like working in New World?
Some future for our economy if that is the vision for where intelligent people should end up!
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Russell:
It was in the papers and on TV and radio when she said in her weekly press briefing (in late 2003 or early 2004) that I was unworthy of academic employment at her alma mater (or words to that effect). I also received a stern warning letter from the civil service commissioner of the time about my remarks about a possible conflict of interest between the SIS director and the Zaoui case (due to his having been a former ambassador to France and Algeria in the days Zaoui was in Europe, whose name the SIS director said he never heard of until Zaoui showed up in NZ in Dec 2002 in spite of Zaoui’s high profile in the Algerian exile community in France at the time the Director was ambassador to that country). All of this was heavily publicised so I am surprised that you cannot find it in the Herald and/or SST, among other outlets. My response at the time, which was widely quoted, was that it was unbecoming of the PM to stoop so low as question my employment status, and my union–then called AUS, now called TEU–put out a press release denouncing the remarks because of its chilling impact on academic freedom (such as it is in NZ). I may have some records of this but unfortunately I am living in involuntary economic exile abroad and my professional records and documents are back in NZ until such a time as I can return (which does not look likely anytime soon).
Jack5: I criticised the SIS (mis)handling of the Zaoui case beginning in early 2003 (when he was in solitary confinement) based upon what I had researched into his case and my knowledge of intelligence matters. My criticism continued for the duration of his appeals (in fact, I filed affidavits outlining my position on the matter), and my views were ultimately upheld and reinforced during the appeals process that led to Zaoui’s release and granting of refugee status. Let’s just say that the Labour government, or at least parts of it, were not amused by my commentary.
Chris2: My understanding is that several major media outlets did in fact file OIAs about the case with various government agencies but they were stymied in eliciting a response by delays and bureaucratic obfuscation. The news cycle moved on and the story died.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
I appreciate Paul G. Buchanan’s comments.
Vote:Can anybody tell me where I can read his essay on that Zaoui case. There was always something rather pungent about that matter. And anybody who annoys Helen E. Clark as much as he has done must be worth reading.
July 30th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
A bully is someone who is usually physically more imposing than their subordinate.
By saying Bennett is a bully is the Standard referring to her size?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Tauhei Notts:; The are several Scoop articles and an essay titled “A Matter of Trust..” published by the NZ Law Society in 2004. You can google my full name and Zaoui and find the articles or PDFs. I wrote at least a half dozen articles on the matter, plus some Herald op eds so you should find something. There are also some articles in the Christchurch Press and other regional newspapers during the period in which Zaoui was in the news covering my thorny relations with the government over the matter
Russell: My partner just reminded me that it was Michael Wintringham (sp?), State Services commissioner of the time (not civil service as I said above), who wrote the heavy letter. She also pointed out that I received a phone call at my home around the same time from a person who identified himself as being from the External Assessments Bureau (part of the PMs cabinet) warning me that my comments that some NZ diplomats may double as intelligence collectors could seriously compromised national security. At the time I thought that they were merely being precious, not malicious.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
in fact, Russell, now that my memory has been jarred I recall telling the EAB person that if my actions did indeed compromise national security because they were hitting too close to the bone, I would desist from doing so because a) I had a past working with classified and diplomatically sensitive information due to my working for and with the US government; and b) due to my affection and loyalty to my adopted country. I therefore would have been happy to “correct” my public statements. He did not offer any response other than to repeat the warning that I was on a dangerous path. As for the letter, I never bothered to answer Mr. Wintringham ( sic).
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
@Paul G. Buchanan – if you keep up these disclosures I’m just curious what you may do for work in future?
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Whatever our beliefs, we all serve false prophets.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Patrick Starr:
I comment out of frustration and boredom. I have been effectively blacklisted in NZ academia and elsewhere at this point (jafepete mentioned why this would happen long ago in a thread dedicated to my dismissal, something that I at the time did not believe). But in the last 18 months I have applied for 3 NZ academic jobs (plus a dozen elsewhere) and not even made the short list in spite of my qualifications (which, if I may so, are not that shabby within the discipline). The reason for this is the stain of the dismissal and the bogus charges of “racist,” which if unjustified in the first instance and false in the second have nevertheless stuck hard to my professional reputation. The reinstatement settlement precludes the return to my former job. I have tried getting into some media commentating in NZ (since I have a background that includes jazz radio presenting and producing, plus lots of media commentary), but that too is a no-go. I have also made inquiries about working in the NZ government, but since I have criticized both major parties in equal measure, I am persona non grata. I am now reduced to part-time tutoring a foreign country where my wife works. Consulting opportunities in political risk, net assessment and market intelligence (which is what I did outside of academia) is non-existent to “outsiders” in this country, and I would never think to work for the regime in power on ethical grounds. There is no such work in NZ.
Thus, I do not see how much more harm I can do to my NZ job prospects given that I have none. I am thinking about returning to the US although NZ is the place I would prefer to live and work. This all may sound very personal but I am just fed up with getting slammed and forced abroad because I expressed informed opinions about matters of policy, to include the recruitment of unqualified fees paying foreign students as well as matters of intelligence, security and trade.
On the plus side I have plenty of time to read and write, comment on kiwiblog threads and do my own blogging at kiwipolitico! :-0
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Don’t go Paul. There are plenty in this country who think you’re outstanding including me. I don’t know what your politics is, probably not like mine, but your intellect and experience is invaluable here. Why don’t you consider becoming a MP? You would raise the level of debate for sure even if some don’t like hearing what you say (which simply means you’re effective).
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I agree with Gooner. Perhaps acedemia needs to understand that the Clark regieme is over and Simpson is sequestered with Helen a good number of time zones away.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Slightly off-topic, but Paul is right, bullying is endemic in New Zealand society, but probably no more so than any other country I would hazard.
I missed an entire term of 3rd Form because I couldn’t handle the bullying. I wish I had Paul’s guts then.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Hey Paul, real glad you are still on the scene.
Vote:I am blue collar and left school on my birthay at 15 to work as that what we did back then, so I am definately no scholar.
The commentaries that you provided always left me better informed and over a number of years and with the luxury of hindsight more often than not proved invariably correct.
Good on you and keep up the insightfull opinions.
Always like to hear debate that is balanced and researched.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Roger Douglas claims he is using the same “rights” as Helen Clark, Jim Bolger, and Jenny Shipley. But those three were our Prime Ministers. Helen Clark, Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, and John Key would be expected to travel overseas.
But Douglas? A lowly MP?
On top of his $44,111, he spent $6,400 on Wellington hotels. By contrast, his boss, Rodney Hide, spent only $284.
Mr Douglas is living very well at taxpayers’ expense.
So much for his criticisms of other politicians and and civil servants wasting taxpayers’ money. Douglas is the SECOND worst offender (after Chris Carter).
Information gleaned from various sites…
On air travel:
“Under benefits he receives as a former MP, who served more than 12 years, Mr Peters is entitled to a 90 percent discount on domestic air travel with the bill paid by Parliamentary Service.”
Source: ‘Winston tardy in returning ministerial car’ (NBR, 1/2/09)
http://tinyurl.com/n8jhlt
“Earlier this week, it became known that political leaders who have left parliamentary life, their widows, and former governors-general will, this year, rack up nearly $1 million in perks and upwards of $10 million during their lifetimes. Each former prime minister and governor-general may have unlimited domestic flights and a self-drive or chauffeur-driven car, benefits that, when they die, transfer to their spouse.”
Source: “Editorial: Time to derail perks gravy train” (Dominion Post, 14/8/08)
http://tinyurl.com/ma3w5d
“An end to overseas trips for ex-MPs
We should also cut out the unjustifiable perks. The most outrageous perk is the subsidised travel that ex-MPs enjoy. Ex-MPs who have served five parliamentary terms are entitled to fly to London and back business class with their wife or husband for next to nothing – not once, but every year of their retirement.
They and their wife or husband are also entitled to 12 return flights each and every year to anywhere in New Zealand. They only have to pay ten percent of the cost. The poor taxpayer who may never have been on a plane picks up the rest.
Over half of the ex-MPs entitled to travel perks take an overseas trip a year. The cost to the poor taxpayer is just on a million dollars – and growing.
The travel perk for ex-MPs has never been justified to taxpayers. Its never been explained to them how they benefit from having a retired MP on a good pension fly to London for a holiday. Theres a reason for that. It cant be justified.
The travel perk is simply scandalous. It should be stopped and it should be stopped immediately. ”
Source: ACT Party Website (Is Roger aware of this?)
http://tinyurl.com/lcaosm
On superannuation:
“Their perfidy peaked in 1987 when, in the dead of night, and in just seven minutes, MPs voted themselves a 33 per cent rise in their superannuation contributions. They have also stymied every effort by responsible officials, from the tax commissioner to the auditor-general, to alter the situation. It is a disgrace.”
Source: “Editorial: Time to derail perks gravy train” (Dominion Post, 14/8/08)
http://tinyurl.com/ma3w5d
And finally:
“But why their widows should get free or subsidised travel when the public aspect of their lives is over beats us. These people are on a gravy train; it’s time voters ordered everyone off, then welded the train to the tracks.”
Source: “Editorial: Time to derail perks gravy train” (Dominion Post, 14/8/08)
http://tinyurl.com/ma3w5d
It’s a national disgrace.
But more so because, in the last few days, two solo-mums who tried to better themselves by training to be a nurse and a teacher, were hauled over the coals publicly and vilified as if they had been Clayton Weatherston or paedophiles. Yet, all they wanted was a chance for an education; to get jobs; and get off the DPB.
In the meantime, our elected representatives are enjoying holidays and hotels, all at our expense.
Vote:July 30th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Francis_X, you’re a pathetic dipshit who just learnt how to use copy and paste.
I’m happy that MP’s (of whatever persuasion — save except for WP), can enjoy some luxury after having to deal with the likes of pond scum like you.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 12:27 am
Interesting, indeed, that as soon as the thread starts moving towards possible Labour government involvement in the Buchanan dismissal, Francis_X jumps in to derail the thread with crass Labour propaganda. Something does stink in all of this.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 12:55 am
Here you go:
Academic’s spy remarks ‘a smear’; [2 Edition]
ESPINER, Colin. The Press. Christchurch, New Zealand: Feb 10, 2004. pg. A.5
Copyright Independent Newspapers, Ltd. Feb 10, 2004
Prime Minister Helen Clark has launched an attack on an Auckland university academic who questioned whether the Government used diplomats as spies.
Defence and counter-terrorism lecturer Paul Buchanan, a former United States intelligence agent, told The Press that he believed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs used its diplomats as spies.
“We don’t tell foreign governments how much our diplomats spy,” Buchanan said on Saturday. “For a small country like New Zealand it’s absolute economies of scale. We have all sorts of diplomats who actually are intelligence agents who are trained to pick up information.”
On Sunday Buchanan told the Sunday Star-Times he believed Security Intelligence Service spymaster Richard Woods was employed as an intelligence agent while ambassador to France during his days as a diplomat.
Woods, who signed the security risk certificate in place against Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui, relied on information gleaned from the French and the Algerians during his time as ambassador, Buchanan says.
Clark yesterday echoed the concerns of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which has accused Buchanan of placing the lives of its diplomats in danger.
Clark said Buchanan’s remarks were “a lie, a smear, untrue, and unworthy of someone employed at the University of Auckland”. Asked whether she was questioning Buchanan’s right to work at the university, Clark said Buchanan’s comment “falls far short of any academic standard that I understand”.
The Prime Minister said she felt obliged to defend the character of Woods, who she said was unable to defend himself.
“Mr Woods is not a spy. Mr Woods has never been a spy. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has reacted very strongly to Mr Buchanan’s allegations that its diplomats spy. Its diplomats do not spy. To suggest that they do spy could actually place people serving in the field now in some danger,” Clark said.
But Green MP Keith Locke said the SIS should come under the same scrutiny for the Zaoui case that its American and British counterparts were facing over the Iraq war.
Locke called for an inquiry into the SIS and Woods’ past role as an ambassador.
“In Britain and America the fallout from the Iraq war has been showing us how intelligence services have been serving their governments’ agendas. This could be happening here with the Zaoui case — we simply don’t know.”
Locke said the appointment of a senior diplomat to head the SIS resulted in suspicions that the Government’s diplomatic interests were of the prime concern to the intelligence agency.
Buchanan could not be contacted for comment yesterday.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 4:26 am
# Rich Prick (120) Vote: Add rating 4 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 30th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
I agree with Gooner. Perhaps acedemia needs to understand that the Clark regieme is over and Simpson is sequestered with Helen a good number of time zones away.
****************************************
Heh, you need to study your Yes Minister/ Yes Prime Minister better. I think it was Sir Humphrey who said that governments come and go, but the civil service is eternal, or was it that ‘today’s government is tomorrows opposition’.
Vote:But you can trust me on this, academia in NZ is a nest of nasty vindictive politics like you wouldn’t believe.
July 31st, 2009 at 6:07 am
Fact: Clark was a lying, manipulative, control freak; and she ran the SIS. What more do you need to know?
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 6:43 am
Isn’t it funny that we have these Labour apologists coming here telling us the the PM can put their nose into everybodys business, manipulate their current aqnd future employers and be a law upon themselves. What a great precedent!
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 7:07 am
Francis X, you’re wrong on many counts. Plus, Sir Roger achieved more than Bolger, Shipley and especially Clark put together. But why should we waste time with your blatant threadjacking?
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 8:40 am
Thanks dc, your search skills are clearly superior to mine:
Paul, what Clark said was unacceptable. But it does seem to me that your own public claims lacked measure, and were so generalised as to have an impact on the employment of quite a number of people, and possibly even put them at risk. I’m struggling to see a real equivalence between your case and those of the two women who’ve been in the news this week.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 9:10 am
Without question, when it suits their agenda, politicians on both sides of the fence often play the man and not the ball. The Buchanan case leaves us with a number of questions. Namely:
In New Zealand there are a very few people with the equivalent knowledge in areas such as Geopolitics and terrorism as what Buchanan has. He sent an angry email, immediately retracted it, was wrongly fired and then supposedly ‘reinstated’, but cant get a job (despite being extremely qualified)? Come on people, something doesnt make sense
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Russell Brown: “I’m struggling to see a real equivalence between your case and those of the two women who’ve been in the news this week.”
B.s. You are trying to shut down criticism of your Labour mates’ Government bullying directly on topic of this post.
I’ve had similar direct experience of the way critics of the NZ Government were muzzled here during the Clark adminstration. The police/LTSA published a supposed hidden speed camera trial study that was statistical crap and actually showed the opposite of what was claimed to be the result in supporting extension of this enforcement technique. TV current affairs took up my criticism and tried to get comment from statistical professionals in NZ. Statisticians at Auckland Uni confirmed my analysis – in fact were even more critical – and then the Uni administration blocked them from public comment. All the big consultancies who rely on Govt contacts refused to comment. In the end the TV producers had to go overseas to Australia to find a professional prepared to stand up and tell the simple truth.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Russell:
Two points. 1) I never compared my case to that of the two women. If you read what I said over at the Standard I simply noted that “bullying” was not exclusive to the Right. Please do not put words into my mouth.
2) As for the article cited by DC (thanks by the way). What was disappointing about it was that the reporter not only got some facts wrong (like calling me an intelligence agent, which I have never been or claimed to be) He omitted a number of qualifying phrases I used such as “it could be the case that,” “I would not be surprised if,” “it is possible that” when discussing the potential modes of NZ intelligence collection in France and elsewhere. My tone was speculative, not definitive, but the way he wrote the article made me sound more accusatory than I was. In fact, I spoke about the difference between official cover, non-official cover, contract and liaison assets in the human intelligence field, with emphasis on what type NZ might use in a place like France under Ambassador Woods. And if anything I said came even remotely close to the truth, you can be sure that the French intelligence services would have been well aware of that. The lesson I learned from the way the article was written is to be very wary of conducting phone interviews with print reporters. As it is there is plenty of follow up coverage where I explicate my views at length and with the nuances mentioned above.
I put no one at risk, and the proof is in the fact that no NZ diplomat or official has been harmed, threatened or deported because of my comments. Thus I reject the accusations then, and yours now, that my remarks would have an adverse impact on anyone in an official capacity. To the contrary, the person who was threatened in this incident wound up being me.
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
In my previous post near the end, “contacts” should have been “contracts” though it doesn’t make much difference.
Vote: