“John the Jew”
I note over at John Ansell’s blog that a Kevin Campbell commented:
Brilliant design John & Ken, now you just have to convince John the Jew. You get my vote.
He defended his comment:
Basil, relax, its a fact he’s a Jew. If it was Helen Clark I would have said Helen the dirty filthy communist.
So presumably Kevin sees both things as very bad.
I find the reference very distasteful and derogatory. It is like if he had Pakistani ancestry, calling him John the Paki.
Now normally I would not highlight comments like the above, unless the person is of some significance.
But a Kevin Campbell is currently standing for the Vice-Presidency of ACT.
Now ACT can not control which of its members stand for office and the comments of one member is no reflection on them. But this may help their members with their voting decisions, assuming it is the same Kevin Campbell.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Nasty. And mindless. And with no sense of either history or decency.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Didn’t there used to be a Kevin Campbell in the Alliance? Surely not the same one who is now standing for VP of ACT? Whichever KC he is, the poster is an ignorant twat.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I presume you are referring to the Jew comment (I don’t like that either)? The “dirty filthy communist” one too? That sort of comment is very common here.
If it is someone standing for office in a political party this sort of petty nastiness doesn’t look good, and it may not look good if for the party if someone like that was successful.
(Keeping in mind it would be quite easy to slur someone else by posting under their name, or it could be coincidence which would be a bit hard on the Act KC)
January 27th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
For the last few years I have noticed a real level of hate and resurgence in anti Semite behaviour, there are few who would even dream of using the term “nigger” but so many have no issue with having a crack at Israel and Jewish people.
If this is the same Kevin Campbell then the bastard deserves to be exposed as the complete fuckwit he undoubtedly is.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
But a Kevin Campbell is currently standing for the Vice-Presidency of ACT.
Now ACT can not control which of its members stand for office and the comments of one member is no reflection on them. But this may help their members with their voting decisions, assuming it is the same Kevin Campbell.
Tar by association, eh? Wouldn’t it be better if yop’d left this comment until you knew for sure?
Of course, anyone with basic knowledge knows that while Key has Jewish ancestry, he is not a Jew. Jewishness passes via the mother, Key’s mother was not a Jew, Key attends christian church, although he refuses to confirm or deny belief in god, thus marking himself as a hypocrite.
John Key is as Jewish as Ken Mair is maori.
And bb, I have no problems with taking “a crack” at israel, Israelis and zionistas. The problems of the ME will never be settled until Israel is moved to where it rightly belongs, Germany and Poland.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Kevin Campbell is currently standing for the Vice-Presidency of ACT.
He should not be allowed to taint the dignity of the office occupied by moral and intellectual luminaries like Trevor Loudon.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
What’s wrong with calling John the Paki John the Paki? wasn’t one of our greatest animated characters called Jeff da Maori Ow?
Are you saying no aboriginal parent should name their son Jackie? Is Rangi too passe now for a maori child?
January 27th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
This was the first time since I started blogging that I had to think about whether to censor a comment. I probably should have as it appalled me. In the end I opted to say:
“I’m sorry you chose that expression as I’m trying to keep racial and imperial issues out of this discussion, Kevin.”
It’s sad and ironic, because the point of trying to change the flag was to find a unifying symbol free of politics, religion, race and colonialism.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Danyl Mclauchlan (706) Says:
January 27th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Kevin Campbell is currently standing for the Vice-Presidency of ACT.
Danyl, the correct line is But a Kevin Campbell is currently standing for the Vice-Presidency of ACT.
See the difference accuracy makes?
January 27th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
… but what I want to know is can I say,
?
[DPF: If it is relevant. Most of the time it is not.]
January 27th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
As long as I can say “Kris K the Ignoramous.”
Please pop over to GD and tell me a little more about how leopards went from being vegetarians to carnivores> I’d love to know the science behind that evolutionary change.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Yes, a disgusting thing to say. Some of the comments above are not too flash either. Nor was Ansell’s feeble response on his blog.
I wonder if ACT is beginning to suffer what Social Credit did decades ago from the League of Rights (http://poneke.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/for-god-queen-and-country-sun-sets-on-the-new-zealand-league-of-rights). Now that NZ First has left the building, those far-right anti-semites have nowhere else to go.
[DPF: I know many many ACT members and am sure they are as offended by this as most people. All parties have the odd person who offends - not just the small ones. And I don't think John A is in any way responsible for the comment - the person who wrote it is, and frankly I am glad it was left up so I could expose it]
January 27th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Kris K (1332) Says:
January 27th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
… but what I want to know is can I say,
“Ashraf Choudhary the Muslim”
Why not? He is, after all, a Muslim; that is his religion. Calling John Key a Jew is inaccurate. He may have Jewish ancestry but I’m pretty sure he neither self-identifies religiously or culturally as Jewish.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Disgraceful.
Mind you, anyone could easily set up a blog name “Kevin Campbell” in and attempt to discredit him. John Ansell will likely be able to work out from the posting address if it is the same Kevin Campbell though.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
MyNameIsJack- Key’s Jewish heritage is because his mother is Jewish (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10412332). Besides going to a Christian Church hardly makes him a Christian, he says he is “relaxed” about the whole thing.
Hence you could probably say that Key is Jewish, he admits he technically is, but I think the comment from Campbell was repulsive and ignorant.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
From reading the comment I have the feeling it unfortunately has some common usage. Anyone heard it before?
January 27th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
For goodness sakes anyone could have posted that comment – there is no verification whatsoever that I can see that the person who wrote that is who you think it might be.
Prove that it is who you think it is and then I’ll be interested but without that proof this is just innuendo and perhaps even slander.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Disgusting. Bruce Haycock will be getting my vote.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
What about “spud” Bolger?
January 27th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
What an abhorrent thing to say. But is it any worse than all the people who have inferred from time to time on this website that Helen Clark was either male, or a lesbian? Where was the kiwiblog outrage when that happened?
But one example: “A closet Lesbian, that could never come out because Daddy, and Mummy would be mortified.” http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/clarks_foreign_interference.html
[DPF: You are missing the point. I would not have blogged on the comment if Campbell is some anon blog commentator. But he is standing to be Vice-Pres of a political party. That makes it relevant. Just as if a National Party member standing for Vice-President of the Nats called HC a lesbian - that would be a story]
January 27th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
MyNameIsJack 2:53 pm,
Feel free – I’ve been called worse.
It amuses me that you continue to ask me, someone you regard as an ignoramous, questions about ‘the meaning of life’ and generally that I justify my views to you.
I really do ‘feel your love’.
But deep down I think your issue is more directed toward the One I worship – you should ask Him directly; if you’re genuine He will answer.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Dirty stinking communist is OK by me. You can’t pick your parents but you can pick ideologies.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
You can’t always pick your ideologies here Brian, and in particular you can’t choose what you get plastered with.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Well bowl me over with a white-feather flag!
I’ve been light-heartedly calling our Prime Minister “Bro.” Key for his mateship with the bro’s of the Maori Party.
However, on doing a bit of light digging I find that some Maori, notably those who inspired and led the bloody Hau Hau rebellion, thought Maori were a lost tribe of Israel.
For much more recent suggestions of Maori belief in links with the Jewish people emerged. See this link:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3561097,00.html
Calling John Key “Bro” might be a little bit dicy from now on.
Seriously, how sad that it can be racist to call someone a Jew, when this ethnic group has given so many luminaries to the West from David and Jesus Christ through to Einstein. Nazis would no doubt be pleased, if only Hell had installed broadband for them.
January 27th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Jack5: It’s just another branch of the idiotic British-Israelism tree, the one that propounded the belief that the British were the lost tribe of Israel and the queen a descendant of the royal house of David. Utter bollocks of course, according to the geneticists. William Massey was keen on the idea, which might be where Maori got it from. Funny how so many people want to align themselves with the tribes of Israel and yet use the word Jew as a term of opprobrium.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
What a nasty piece of work that Kevin Campbell is. Disgusting.
Just as vicious is green party activist Greenfly, who refers to Mr Key as “Jewish John”.
I thought we had got rid of anti-semitism in the 1950s. Scratch their bellies and there is racism at both extremes of the political spectrum.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I was concerned that Kevin Campbell may have been attacked unfairly. That is it could have been someone with the same name or someone trying to discredit him.
I was probably going to vote for Bruce Haycock but had not made up my mind 100%. However, I thought it would be unfair if Bruce gained votes because someone may have posted under Kevin’s name. So I phoned Kevin and asked him about the post. He answered no comment. He then asked me a rhetorical question, “Is John Key Jewish?”
I think it fair to assume from my conversation with Kevin that he did make the offending post.
In view of that there is no way I would consider voting for Kevin. It is not just the comment but the timing. If someone had dragged up the comment he made from a couple of years ago I could have maybe accepted it was a off the cuff remark as Kevin claims this one was.
The fact is he is seriously contesting the vice presidency of the ACT party. He should be campaigning for the job not making derogatory and racially offensive remarks about any MP let alone the Prime Minister. It would be very poor judgment if the comment was made about a Labour MP but ACT has a Confidence and Supply agreement with National.
[DPF: Thanks for confirming the identity. I was quite prepared to do a post stating it was a different Kevin Campbell if it was, but for a number of reasons I thought it was the same one.]
January 27th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
1. I agree that the “John the Jew” thing is stupid and reflects very poorly on the person who wrote it.
2. DPF says: “Now normally I would not highlight comments like the above, unless the person is of some significance.” Au contraire: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/01/call_to_spy_on_key.html
[DPF: As I said, "normally". I regard a call to have a blog actually fund and hire spies to go to Hawaii to find dirt on the PM as so exceptional it was worth highlighting. Some one being racist is not exceptional. Calling for paid spies is]
January 27th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Jezz – Farrar – take a chill pill (actually take 2)
Theres a new movie just been released in the US somewhere that is about the middle east and the terror situation.
It makes EVERYONE look a fool apparently and insults everyones sensibilities.
When its released here take along some of your muslim and arab etc, friends to see it and all be insulted!!!
I take it from you comment that you think theres something terrible in being called a jew – akin to being called a catholic or similar. If jews are not proud of being so – then thats their problem, but if your mother was jewish, then so are you.
[DPF: There is nothing terrible in being called a Jew if the intent is friendly. The context of Campbell’s use was not.
It is akin to someone constantly referring to Obama as the Negro President”
January 27th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
This is a bit off topic Dr Salmond, but the Standard prides itself on its high standards of moderation. Posters at the Standard frequently refer to Mr Farrar’s site as the “sewer” on the basis of the quality of the comments. Yet it consistently allows people like Mr Nome to make disgusting calls such as that on Mr Key. I think highlighting Mr Nome’s comment in that instance was appropriate. Mr Nome is an aspiring academic. While you are considerably more qualified than Mr Nome, if you made such calls on a public blog as Mr Nome has, it would also be significant.
Fortunately, Dr Salmond, you are much more reasonable in your debate. I have consistently been impressed with how you stick to the issues without engaging in personal attacks.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Is the problem that someone used it as a descriptor (John the Jew), that John isn’t a Jew so it is incorrect, or that Jew is somehow a term of abuse, so that it was abusive to call him John the Jew?
I think it is regretful and small minded that someone would label someone as ‘John the Jew’, because it isn’t really relevant to anything. But reading badness into it depends on your own personal view of Jews – if you think ‘John the Jew’ is an insult, does that mean that you think being Jewish is bad?
To put it another way, to describe Shane Jones as Shane the Maori – would that equally be offensive?
I’ll agree with you that it isn’t a good look for someone standing for a senior position in a political party to be labelling anyone based on their physical attributes. But it is far from uncommon.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Do everyone a favour Kevin, apoligise for your comments and withdraw from the race.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
It comes across as derogatory. And his response reinforces that impression – so it wasn’t just a single off-the-cuff indiscretion, he had a chance to qualify or retract it and he decided instead to do the opposite.
It may not be a major in the grand scheme of things, but especially in politics, and especially when putting things on permanent record on things like blogs, there will be quite a plenty that get caught out. The result may be disproportionate, but that’s how life is sometimes.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Jack5 3:43 pm,
I just had a mental image of Hitler in hell waiting to connect to the internet on a 56k modem.
I guess only those in heaven will get broadband. Heh.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Stephen Stratford: “Nor was Ansell’s feeble response on his blog.”
Sorry you found it feeble Stephen. I actually made three responses in an attempt to steer the discussion back to flags:
“I’m sorry you chose that expression as I’m trying to keep racial and imperial issues out of this discussion, Kevin.”
“Let’s drop these anti-Semitic references, it’s not a good look.”
“A fair riposte to an unfortunate comment, Radman. Now I’d be grateful if we could draw a line under this subject and get back to flags.”
I’m not used to admonishing my commenters as they’re not normally as strident as the Kiwiblog mob. Maybe I should have been less polite than the above, but others in the thread were performing that function and I thought it best to let free speech take its course.
As David says, if I had censored the remark you wouldn’t have learned of it. I suspect the ACT Board election will be more clear-cut as a result.
It’s not a nice way to attract traffic to one’s blog, I can tell you.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Tim Ellis: ‘Just as vicious is green party activist Greenfly, who refers to Mr Key as “Jewish John”.’
In greenfly’s defence, the context and the quotes show that s/he was just highlighting the same comment and regarded it as distasteful.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Apologies to anyone that took offence. Clearly a poor choice of words and no offence intended.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
He’s an Ayrab president.
January 27th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
My guess is that JK would laugh it off. Thats one of the big reasons he is so popular and will remain so.
Unlike many of his predessors hes not an anal retentive. He doesnt do pompous for the sake of it. He acts with diginty and decorum when required.
In essense he is a good Kiwi bloke and has all the attributes that mark out a good Kiwi bloke.
Many can identify with him.He is mainstream not outterstream.
Even his biggest critics cant find fault in the way he acts and how he related to the citizens. Lets face it The last PM we had when his touch was Norm.
Lets hope JK isnt taken early like Norm was.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
I am speechless as to racism and lack of judgement show by Kevin Campbell. His comment above is inadequate.
I have never detected the slightest hint of general racism or anti Semitism in particular within the ACT Party.
Mr Campbell is clearly a danger to shipping.
I did receive a broadcast email from him that reads in part:
“And although I’m as capable as the next bloke of making verbose statements, I don’t want to heap even more material onto you.
I’ve just got this to say:
It’s easy to make statements about this and that or to quote Sir Roger Douglas’s name but the bottom line is that I am the only person in this contest that has Sir Roger Douglas’s support by way of nomination.”
I cannot believe that Sir Roger Douglas has nominated him – maybe Roger has never met him.
Hopefully ACT members will simply vote this odd little man down.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
An unusual comment to make for someone standing for office. There are plenty of names to call John “Smile and Wave” Key, that one just lacks imagination which is far worse than being offensive in my view.
It would be interesting to know if Campbell is a Sir Roger Douglas endorsed candidate though. Given MP’s shouldn’t necessarily be endorsing publicly nominees for Board positions and all.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
DPF: “I know many many ACT members and am sure they are as offended by this as most people.”
Absolutely, and me too. I didn’t mean to tar ACT in general with the anti-semitic brush, but I do think they have to be careful about whom they let in the door, given the history of Social Credit with the LOR.
John Ansell: “I’m not used to admonishing my commenters as they’re not normally as strident as the Kiwiblog mob. Maybe I should have been less polite than the above, but others in the thread were performing that function and I thought it best to let free speech take its course.”
I sympathise, I really do, but a statement like that is so appalling that it requires a king-hit from the outset. There is no point trying to be nice to a racist.
January 27th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
It has to be said that there is a long history of anti-semitism in NZ. My wife recalls her father saying that he voted for a mayoral candidate because he was OK, despite being a Jew
January 27th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
I have to say, I’ve supported ACT for a long time, but recently I’m going off them a bit. The law and order push has gone a bit too far, a couple of candidates I think are light weight, the climate change position was overly populist and very poorly argued, and certainly the intellectual horsepower seems to be evaporating. Roger D is starting to come across as out of touch, and overall the party just isn’t cohesive any more. Things like this also impact my views.
Rodney is the main person that keeps my support. He’s hard working, he’s smart. The attempt to roll him I think was very ill judged. I do wish though that he’d thought a bit harder about the junket trips. We’ll see how I’m feeling when the election rolls around….if they don’t get their shit together and start offering a cohesive platform again, I’ll have problems supporting again.
January 27th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Paul L is invariably a thoughtful and well – reasoned blog commentator, hopefully we can meet his expectations again well before the next election
Bruce Haycock
January 27th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
I’ve known Kevin for a couple of years now and I’ve never found him to be racist. You could describe him as a bit intemperate at times and he is certainly a bit politically unseasoned. He uses language for effect on occasion, and sometimes that effect is the wrong one.
That said, I am fairly sure that if John Key can handle being basically described as stupid and asleep at the wheel by the LEADER of the ACT party, he won’t be too fussed by this comment coming from someone running for a party position. Kevin has apologized, twice, and I believe that he has learned a valuable lesson on many fronts.
I think Chris Diack knows very well that Kevin Campbell was nominated by Sir Roger, and I am sure that was not a step taken without due consideration. (Sorry Cactus Kate – it seems your opinion holds little weight in that quarter – surprisingly)
I accept the many comments regarding Kevin’s blog post are genuine, however he has apologized, perhaps not to the ‘Gold Standard of Groveling apologies’ as has been made in other quarters, on other occasions, but perhaps Kevin’s apology might have the advantage of being genuinely made.
It seems to me that this continued focus on beating him up by factions in the ACT party has more to do with blackguarding him in the election campaign than anything else.
For my part, I have voted for Kevin, for the reason that unlike many others in the party, he is prepared to address real issues that the party is facing.
if you chaps want to mount an anti-election campaign against Kevin Campbell in the blogs, I’m happy to join battle – but I seriously suggest you think twice.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Someone commented that Anti-semitism is back on the rise & unfortunately I think it’s true & given you have a Bay of Islands resort with the same name as Hitlers holiday resort ( Eagles Nest ) without any apparent comment, it’s a bit scarey.
Though the reaction to this outburst is heartening but I’d be worried about the level of candidates in the ACT party if RD supported this person for VP.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
“continued focus on beating him up by factions in the ACT party” –
As far as I know Peter, David P. Farrar is not a member of the ACT Party least of all a faction in it.
As for the comments on this thread – I can’t identify any other than Bruce Haycock (his opponent) and myself who are even voting in the ACT elections (half the problem I guess as we need more members) and I haven’t deemed his comments racist, merely lacking imagination for someone trying to win a position on a Board.
If anyone has made the campaign factional, you just have with this over-reactive defence and then attack on those who won’t be voting for him as has Sir Roger (now an MP) for publicly endorsing a candidate to the Board.
Before today when I received my voting paper and David’s post I will be honest and say I didn’t even know who the hell this bloke Kevin Campbell actually is.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
As an outsider it’s been interesting seeing this play out here.
John Key may be not too fussed by this. But surely there is a lot more to it than that, particularly how professionally Act members (and Act) present themselves. I was at least as offended by the HC comment, there is plenty of that sort of thing on blogs but it comes across to me as ignorant and nasty, not how I’d like to be see our political parties acting. Would Kevin talk like that in person to JK and HC?
It does seem like an induced half assed PR based apology, not apologising directly for the actions (not just one slip but followed up by something at least as bad), but the boilerplate I-got found-out “apologies to anyone that took offence”. So it doesn’t come across to me as a genuine apology.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
I dunno about this. Mr. Campbell says he never intended any offence. He appears to have honestly thought Mr. Key was Jewish. I don’t believe the word Jew on its own carries any inbuilt slur.
It strikes me as being more silly than offensive. Apparently its inaccurate too. But surely it can only be offensive if you consider that calling someone a Jew is offensive.
If there are readers here who think there is offence, then they have to explain why calling someone a Jew, all on its own, without any accompanying insults, is offensive.
He’s apologised, but I think only because of the reaction. I think the reaction was a bit over the top. The guy never meant any real offense. As he says.
Just silly. Not really offensive.
…and of course we have th eusual leftists losers here trying to make political capital from it. Their judgment ain’t worth much.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
The bloke has said sorry Petey so shut up and move on gripper.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Anyone endorsed by the Boris Yeltsin of New Zealand politics deserves a right good smacking. What a tosser putting an endorsement by Yeltsin on his brochure.
Clearly this twat needs to rejoin Labour from whence he came
January 27th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Crikey David, how about cleaning up the casual racism in your own comments section before you start wringing your hands over everyone elses?
[DPF: You miss the point - probably on purpose. I did not complain about John A's moderation policy. In fact I defended it. I highlighted the comment because it was from someone seeking senior political office. That is different to anonymous blog commenters.]
January 27th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
And my sources tell me that this is just another play at failing at a leadership coup by Yeltsin against Hide. Campbell and another tosser by the name of Tashkoff are always moaning worse than a whore who has been short changed.
Well getting the support of Yeltsin, who couldn’t count to three at the latest attempted coup is like having Pol Pot endorse your nomination for the Nobel peace prize.
They are traitors and should be carded.
In National if some tosser went around claiming the support of an MP they wouldn’t get within a bulls roar of a nomination. Party members do not like being instructed how to vote by the parliamentary wing and it almost always ends in ignominious failure for the poseur
Here is a video of Roger Douglas hard at work on his next book – Finishing my Business http://tinyurl.com/6mno7m
PS I am not an ACT party member
January 27th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
BTW, I don’t see how people can call this “racist” Are the Jews a race? I don’t think so, or John Key would be Jewish by dint of his mother being Jewish. Jews are followers of a religion, not a race. One can discriminate against Jews, but it is not accurate to label those who do as racists. (Same I think as Islam is not a race.)
January 27th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
..and another thing. There’s are commenters here who are pointing the finger, when these same commenters are known to have said the most hateful things about Christians. What’s the diff?
January 27th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Peter, I think you on missing a couple of points that I made in my post.
I have not voted yet and I think I will hold my vote till closer Feb 23 in case any candidates for Deputy Regional Board Member makes stupid mistake although I hope that does not happen.
I will repeat my position as I stated in my previous post. I have known Bruce a long time and probably would have voted for him as I believe he is a very hard worker amongst other things. However, on comparing his answers with Kevin’s on a ACT on Campus Survey made me think I would give more consideration before voting. I am more conservative on social issues particularly on the smacking legislation. Kevin was the only one who gave that a very high priority so I was considering voting for him.
You acknowledge that Kevin is a bit intemperate at times and he is certainly a bit politically unseasoned. That is my problem. I am not Jewish so I am not personally offended. The issue is his very poor political judgment. You can see from the very quick response on the original blog he posted on and the follow up on Kiwiblog that most people of the left and right were appalled by his comment. I would expect that someone who aspires to be Vice President of ACT and possibly fill in for the president to have better political judgment.
The second issue I have was that when I phoned him to make sure it was not someone with the same name who posted the comment he responded that he had no comment in regard my question as to whether he had made the comment. This again raises two issues. Firstly, why the no comment to me? Did he want to think if the comment could be defiantly traced to him before he responded? The fact that he would not give me a straight answer also lacks political judgment. If he had of given me a straight answer and acknowledged he made a mistake and intended to retract and apologise I might have responded differently.
With respect Peter, it would appear that you have backed Kevin from the start. I had not made up my mind. However, I now believe that someone who has shown just poor political judgment in his campaign and in your words is certainly a bit politically unseasoned would not make a good Vice President for ACT.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Are the Jews a race? That is a ‘tricky’ one.
Technically yes, as they are descendants of Jacob, or his son Judah.
But if a Jew becomes a ‘Messianic’ (aka born-again Christian), they are no longer accepted as automatic immigrants into Israel. They are no longer recognised as Jewish by the courts. It is fine if they are Jewish atheists or buddists though!
January 27th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Thanks Ross. Actually, I’ve had to rethink this. I initially believed the guy was just being silly, but then he followed it up by saying that he would have said something that he considered the equal of his Key comment about Helen Klark. And that comment was “dirty filthy communist”. So the implication of the follow up comment is that the “Jew” comment was meant to be as offensive as the Klark comment.
I still think this is a bit over the top, the guy is clearly a dickwad who wouldn’t be due any attention at all except for the subject dumbarse exchange.
In the end, Mr. Farrar is right. If ACT think dickheads like this are potential leadership material they can’t have much to choose from.
January 27th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
The John Key statement has obviously offended some people. Maybe that wasn’t the intention, but it was a totally unnecessary comment to make, and the intent obviously wasn’t respectful.
The Helen Clark seemed to be plain nasty. It reinforced the perception (of some) that it was a followup putdown.
So I agree with RB’s conclusion.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
For anyone who is unsure as to who Kevin Campbell is, he was the person who threw the lamington that was placed on John Boscawen’s head back in the offender’s face during the Mt Albert by election. A video the event is available here.
At the end of the day what ACT members need to ask themselves is whether they want another David Garrett or Garry Mallett involved in the running of the party or not.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Fantastic thread, particularly our resident communist’s ducking and diving.
Don’t worry Red, it’ll pass.
Can’t see the problem really, never heard John suggest he was ashamed of his religion or disliked being reminded of it and certainly the description of John’s UN based mate was accurate.
Big Bruv, where the fuck is the antisemitism in the statement?
January 27th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
“For anyone who is unsure as to who Kevin Campbell is, he was the person who threw the lamington that was placed on John Boscawen’s head back in the offender’s face during the Mt Albert by election.”
Thanks for the link Jaime. I would give Kevin full marks for that.
It would appear that you are not an ACT member? If so, we do not need your advice on who to vote for.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Man. If you don’t know why this is profoundly offensive, and many of you don’t seem to, you really, really need to spend some time alone in thought.
January 27th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
If I was Jewish I would find “John the Jew” extremely offensive. Who wants to be compared to John Key!
January 27th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
I agree with Chuck. If Mr. Campbell threw the lamington back in the face of the ignorant knuckle dragging savage who assaulted Mr. Boscawen then he’s got at least something going for him. If he had followed it up with a couple of quick hard lefts and rights to the jaw and nose, he might have been even more estimable.
” So I agree with RB’s conclusion. ”
I must have made some ghastly error somewhere. Maybe I need to give it yet another think.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
I find it hilarious.
How old is Kevin Campbell? I have this theory about how there’s a whole generation of racist fuckers just keeping quiet for fear of being heard, but when they think they’re alone, they be racist as fuck. It’s just a theory I have, and I only just came up with it just then, but how old is Kevin Campbell? Because I have this theory.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Kevin Campbell: “Apologies to anyone that took offence. Clearly a poor choice of words and no offence intended.”
I took exactly the kind of offence that I believe you intended. Why don’t you act honourably and apologise properly to the person whom you sought to disparage – John Key.
Helen Clark and anyone in her team who found themselves in trouble almost copyrighted the weasel words “I apologise to anyone who took offence.” The statement’s insincere, it’s insulting, and it’s not an apology.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
It would appear that you are not an ACT member? If so, we do not need your advice on who to vote for.
And likewise I don’t need you to tell me whether or not I have the right to freedom of speech.
I do happen to be a member of ACT (although it’s unfriendly and exclusivist people like you who would put me off wanting to pay to renew my membership each year) and am amicable with Kevin as an acquaintance. I admire that he is not afraid to be honest – even if it means offending people (unlike our Prime Minister). However, at the end of the day, that’s what it takes to win support, due to the fact that unlike us Kiwiblog nerds who follow politics religiously, the general public’s only exposure to the ACT party will be through the news media – which only broadcasts items such as “John the Jew”, “homosexuals make me puke” or “suck my dick” – as opposed to speeches about the vision of the ACT party given at its 30 member annual conferences.
As a result, I do not believe people such as Campbell, Garrett or Mallett are good for ACT’s image. That’s my opinion. I did not tell anyone how to vote – in fact the purpose of posting the link to the video clip was to remind people of Kevin’s awesomeness.
January 27th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Ryan Sproull posted at 10.48pm:
How many ways can someone be racist when alone, Ryan? Painting racist graffiti? Racist blogging? Writing Mein Kampf in solitary? Talking to themselves when it’s clearly impossible for anyone-else to hear? Perhaps just having racist thoughts?
Devious and dangerous, these old fuckers, eh? I’m not sure where you get the idea racists are old. Do you really think skinheads and brown gangs and white gangs aren’t racist?
Also, my young hard determinist, as racism is all predetermined for you, do you conclude that racism is just an effect of growing old?
Could it be another theory, Ryan, that most hard determinists are young philosophy students? Mostly, they keep quiet on the topic for fear of being asked about moral choice etc, but when they are alone, they can be as dogmatic as fuck.
January 28th, 2010 at 2:00 am
Plain and simple, Campbell said a fucking stupid thing on a public forum. He should have known better. There are better people inside ACT who could do the job well but as we all know, they are too busy to set aside that sort of committment.
Squabbling between ACT members in here is just as damaging. One bad egg does not mean the whole party is rotten. And I’d rather have one of our dodgy members than some of the people that are in the National/Labour Parties
January 28th, 2010 at 7:12 am
DPF at 8.30pm.
No it isn’t. It’s exactly the same. From anybody’s mouth, it’s poison.
January 28th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Oh, I don’t really have that theory. Not about just old men, anyway. All kinds of people are racist when they think they’re in company that will condone it, which is what I meant by “alone”. I’ve seen it a few times, at least.
Well, you say “racism is all predetermined”, and I say “if someone is racist, there are reasons for that being the case”. It could be true that there is more racism in older generations than younger ones, though I wouldn’t look to simple ageing for a possible cause.
I’m not a philosophy student. And have you ever known me to be quiet on the topic of the nonsense of “free will”? Hell, people can’t get me to shut up about it. Fortunately I’m not so much “dogmatic” as “having a very strong argument that no one seems to be able to address”.
It’s an interesting point you raise. I wonder how many people can’t bring themselves to realise how impossible “free will” is because they can’t bear to lose their ideas about morality. Not that the impossibility of “free will” has as much of an effect on ideas of morality as most people think.
January 28th, 2010 at 8:54 am
I think the context of a comment is important.
If the discussion had been about atheism or beliefs etc, then maybe Kevin Campbell’s description might have had some relevance… but in this case it seems to have been simply an attempt to insult John Key. Its irrelevant whether Key is Jewish or not in the context of the original thread and this comment was obviously meant as a racist insult.
I am not the purist of PC handwringers by any means – but I think this shows Kevin Campbell to be a fuckwit who doesn’t know his arse from his mouth.
I also think John Ansell’s responses were really good…. firm without stooping to Campbell’s level.
January 28th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Redbaiter 10:41 pm,
It’s ok, Red, you’ll get over it.
Sometimes Pete and I even agree on some issues. It is a scary prospect, though, when I consider what we disagree on.
But what’s that saying – ‘Iron sharpeneth iron’.
Heck, Transmogrifier even agreed with me on Islamic hypocracy – he qualified it with that he agrees with me on little of anything else, though. Oh well, such is life.
We’re certainly all individuals here in DPF land – and for that reason it’s never boring.
January 28th, 2010 at 9:10 am
That’s the last thing ACT needs. I sure hope he doesn’t get elected.
cheers
David Prosser
January 28th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Ryan Sproull [January 28th, 2010 at 8:39 am],
Come on, Ryan.
Morality is meaningless without (human) freewill.
Each and every one of us ‘choose’ the actions we make; good, bad, or otherwise.
I know you disagree, but I have to state what I believe myself and most people hold to.
And, of course, God’s word also states that each of us are responsible for our actions, and, indeed, our sin.
Our freewill determines our eternal destiny.
January 28th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Why is that?
I don’t disagree. Of course people choose the actions they make.
Do you think God has free will?
January 28th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Kris, apart from one fundamental difference, and a matter of degree on some others, we agree on a lot more than you may realise. It’s usually just the differences that get highlighted here.
Same with Redbaiter. I can agree with quite a bit of what he says when he is in his inquiring thoughtful mode, I just don’t say so very often so as not to horrify him too much. His more normal attack/abuse mode is more disagreeable, but even then often on the delivery as opposed to the message.
What Kevin posted was mild compared to a lot of what is posted on blogs, but not a good look for an aspiring political party official, so he’s been burned. He could do with getting some apology lessons from Rodney. It’s possible to repair a lot of the damage with a reasonable, sincere response, but he would have to mean it for that to work.
In politics it’s often how something is dealt with that is more important than the deed itself.
January 28th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Ryan Sproull 9:14 am,
I don’t want to open up this hoary old chestnut here – maybe on GD when it comes on line.
But I think both you and I have made our respective points on this before. And I’m happy to admit that your views on determinism are something that I find hard to relate to and/or accept.
But in answer to your final point – “Do you think God has free will?” – Yes, I do; He chose to become a man that He might die for the sins of the world – both yours and mine.
January 28th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Pete George 9:16 am,
Yes, I was being a little naughty. But sometimes you do make we wonder, Pete
Maybe you should ‘horrify’ him more often; although I think you already do, just in a different context.
Heck, I agree.
January 28th, 2010 at 9:49 am
“I do happen to be a member of ACT (although it’s unfriendly and exclusivist people like you who would put me off wanting to pay to renew my membership each year) and am amicable with Kevin as an acquaintance.”
Raine, you fooled me in regard being a member of ACT. Usually, members of political parties do not publicly criticise their party’s MPs and elected officials make remarks about what they consider to be a poor turnout at conferences. It has something to do with loyalty.
In the case of Kevin he is a candidate. That is why ACT members like myself and others are critical. We do not want to see him elected. If he was elected already I would not be criticising him on this blog. As he has not yet been elected I balance the harm this public debate has against possible harm if he is elected.
January 28th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Isnt this just PC bullshit too? Or is it only ok when its Michael Laws and Paul Henry who are apparently “just saying what everyone is thinking”
January 28th, 2010 at 10:12 am
mikeysmokes
I agree – just the other day I called someone a n*gger and they told me to shut the fuck up.
It’s political correctness gone mad!
January 28th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Ephemera
I was just asking the question mate, seems some are more equal than others. And last time I was in the hood drinking gin and juice half of the brothers were calling each other nigga, maybe the person who told you to shut the fuck up just didnt like you
January 28th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Usually, members of political parties do not publicly criticise their party’s MPs and elected officials make remarks about what they consider to be a poor turnout at conferences. It has something to do with loyalty.
If you value loyalty over accountability and criticism of the direction of the party then you might as well go join the Labour party. The difference between you and me is that I’m not the kind of idiot who’s going to kiss the ass of my own party and continue to think so highly of ourselves when we’re at 2% support.
January 28th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Jaime, a better example would have been NZ First. There are ACT policies I disagree with. I make my views known to appropriate people. If I am not happy with a MP or party official I tell the individual concerned. This does not happen often but I have done so privately.
The ACT is certainly not a party of sycophants. Many members have strong opinions. They are not afraid to state them at meetings.
I fail to understand how a member of any political party can think that publicly criticising their party’s performance at the polls is in anyway helpful.
January 28th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
It could be called “being open about the obvious”.
I guess it’s hard to know if a party would attract more votes if they appeared settled and united (from the outside), compared to demonstrating the obvious, that they consist of varying personalities and opinions and preferences and have a robust way of dealing with that. Some things a best kept concealed (if possible), but I know I’d rather see some realism and transparency. I would hope to see some disagreement and dissent, as long as it was dealt with constructively.
I’m not so concerned about party philosophy and ideals because political pragmatism changes them in real life. I’m much more interested in quality of personnel, a bunch of capable people are likely to usually reach the right decisions. To judge them you have to see how they operate.
Signed, justonevote
January 28th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
This may be a dumb question but… what on earth is wrong with being a Jew? I would think John Key would have a measure of pride being associated with one of the most enduring and resilient cultures in the world.
January 28th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Reg, words take on feelings as well as meanings, depending on their history.
The word Jew has been associated with millennia of persecution and hatred, so the sensitivity is raw.
It’s perhaps even more offensive to have the name of one’s faith used as an insult without embellishment, as Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants would attest.
21st century Muslims are no doubt becoming more and more familiar with this concept too.
In the world’s newest religion, Climate Scientology, the equivalent insult would be the word sceptic.
January 28th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Fair comment John
I suppose “Barak the Black” would fit into the same catergory. He is no doubt proud of his Afro-American heritage yet to draw attention to it in such away is calculated to tap into latent, unadmitted -but never the less existent- prejuidices.
The left; while claiming the mantle of tolerance, play this game all the time. Wasn’t it Mallard who called Bill English “Brethren Bill” for daring to meet some EB constituents?