Greens worried about blogs

September 12th, 2011 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

How fascinating. At the Greens website:

Sign up for email notifications about when political blogs mention our MPs names and Green issues! These timely notifications will enable you to respond quickly enough to be among the first commenters, ensuring high visibility for our views and perspectives.

Personally I find this close to astro-turfing, that fake activism which appears to be grass-roots but is centrally arranged.

I welcome commenters of all persuasions and we have many Green voters comment here, such as Toad. but I’d rather not have people who don’t normally contribute rush over just to post comments about how great the are or the like. I prefer people to response because they have read something they want to comment on – not because Green HQ has notified them do go and post supportive comments.

UPDATE: A reader has sent me this (since deleted) showing Labour trying to do much the same in 2009 with the Trade Me forums.

Tags: ,

48 Responses to “Greens worried about blogs”

  1. KiwiGreg (3,212 comments) says:

    The Greens are great. They are awesome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. KiwiGreg (3,212 comments) says:

    Green policies will lead this country forward so we call enjoy lifestyle previously only available to 9th century peasants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (13,516 comments) says:

    Green policies will lead this country forward so we call enjoy lifestyle previously only available to 9th century peasants.

    You’re far too generous. The Luddites’ policies will send New Zealand back to the Stone Age!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. hmmokrightitis (1,569 comments) says:

    I liked the bit where the Greens were cheerleaders for the events of 9/11. That’s the sort of leadership we need today!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    Test:

    I dont think your right. We have been exposing the fact that income inequality appears to be a key driver behind a huge number of social problems and that therefore reducing that gap or “economic egalitarianism” if you’d rather, is a critical economic goal. But that is not itself sufficient and the truth is class politics never has been sufficient. Decolonisation in a colonised country is also a priority, as is gender equity, et al. I have never understood why people will only advocate for one single solution for what are complex problems that one solution will never fix.
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/08/14/inequality-in-aotearoa-life-expectancy-again/#comment-144750

    *** Metiria Turei: Denial of customary rights unacceptable, say Greens ***
    Media release, 18 August 2003
    The Green Party is calling on the Government to recognise Maori rights in regard to the foreshore and seabed.
    Green Maori Affairs spokesperson, Metiria Turei said today that the reduction of the term ‘customary title’ into ‘customary interests’ in the Government’s consultation paper and Government prescription of what constitutes customary activity is an abrogation of the Treaty.
    “Where is the good faith relationship?” Metiria asked. “This proposal reduces Maori input into decision making by stripping them of their kaitiakitanga role as stewards of our environment.
    Metiria welcomed the Government’s decision not to legislate for crown ownership, but she is concerned that the proposal comes perilously close to a confiscation of customary rights.
    “The Greens support responsible access to the foreshore, which is compatible with Customary Ownership governed by tikanga Maori and the concept of public domain.
    “The clearest example is Lake Taupo, where ownership of the lake bed rests with Maori but everyone enjoys recreational access.
    “Customary ownership does not provide for the sale of land in the way that freehold title and western forms of property ownership do.”

    http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/denial-customary-rights-unacceptable-say-greens

    Catherine Delahunty
    “I am very excited that we are moving into a more sophisticated era under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we are moving beyond the limited concept of conservative Pākehā that one man, one vote is the only manifestation of democracy possible in Aotearoa.’
    http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/more-sophisticated-era-under-te-tiriti-o-waitangi

    Catherine Delahunty:
    “I explained that as a Pakeha I had a very limited relationship with the foreshore and seabed but “loved the beach” generally. This did not compare well to the 1000 years of whakapapa and site specific responsibilities that Betty and her hapu maintain to this day. Yet she had been refused a chance to speak. I also waved a copy of Te Tiriti around in a flamboyant manner.
    Betty talked very clearly about her people and their relationship to their foreshore and how Te Tiriti reaffirms their customary rights, therefore the Bill cannot pass. She is 71 years old and has given her whole life to kaitiakitanga. It was a privilege to be beside her. It was also great to have Tariana and Metiria at the table emanating their respect and love for her korero. From the window we could see across to Hauraki and Te Moehau the mountain shining on the horizon as she rises up from Tikapa Moana.
    Then Gordon Jackman, wearing his “qualified archaeologist” hat took the Committee on a journey from a beach of sand and shells through to the 1868 Deed of Cession on the East Coast, wherein the foreshore and seabed were never ceded. He explained how from the archaeological layers they uncovered at the Port of Gisborne, you can see people arriving, establishing manawhenua and adapting to population expansion from within their cultural framework, and then the violent imposition of Pakeha power in that place. Gordon challenged the committee to re assess their limited understanding of the term “ownership” and to recognise that the Bill was a continuation of Crown violence based on a crude and absurd underestanding of the word”ownership” He described the process as part of “democratheid” a word he has coined which describes the majority imposition of racist policy in a democrarcy. He also described the consequences as not civil war in the conventional sense but a long term proliferation of misery, poverty, misunderstanding and injustice.

    “The other MPs except for Tariana and Metiria, trotted out all the favourite myths about “they killed the moa” etc”
    http://www.greens.org.nz/misc-documents/diary-debacle-archive-6th-september-15th-september

    The State of the “Pakeha Nation”
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0702/S00068.htm

    CLENDON CHALLENGES MINISTERIAL NO ON OFFSHORE DRILLING
    Green MP David Clendon isn’t taking no for an answer over whether Maori have a right to a share in oil and gas under New Zealand’s continental shelf.
    Mr Clendon got the one-word answer last week when he asked Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee if the Government intended to consider Te Aupouri’s claims to resources off 90-Mile beach which are being opened up for prospecting.
    He doesn’t accept the Government’s assertion that the International law of the Sea and the Continental Shelf Act rule out treaty claims.
    “This is a very live issue and if there is wealth to be extracted it would seem clear both under treaty and under international law that Maori should get a reasonable claim, a reasonable royalty from that wealth,” Mr Clendon says.
    http://www.waatea.blogspot.com

    Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Green Party
    Our Charter also explicitly accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of this country, recognising Maori as Tangata Whenua. Part of the public discussion that has followed from the recent arrests in Ruatoki and elsewhere citing anti-terrorism laws has been an assertion of Tuhoe’s “sovereignty”. The sense of consternation from some quarters that has greeted this assertion must remind us that this preamble to our Charter is not just a form of empty words but rather a commitment to principle that demands our action.

    We are moving into a new phase of the collective national discussion about the Treaty, and as Greens we have a responsibility both to be an active and ethical voice in that discussion but also to work to equip others to participate in that discussion from an informed and principled basis, rather than sheer short term self interest.

    Discussion to date has focused on the return of usually a small fraction of those resources unfairly taken from Maori as reparation, on reducing inequalities and on the rights of Maori as an ethnic and cultural minority with a threatened language and culture. While some of these issues have been addressed in part through the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, these issues are, in fact, largely unrelated to the Treaty. If there were no Treaty, as there is not in a number of other societies around the world, these would all still be issues that would need to be addressed in a fair and just society.

    The phase of the discussion that we now need to move into is one that that focuses on Maori status as the indigenous people of this country and on the actual content of the Treaty: a statement of the terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori. The Maori right to self-determination pre-dated the Treaty and was not altered by it. What is at issue in understanding the Treaty are the rights of non-Maori.
    etc
    Kevin Hague

    One of jh’s themes has been dis-satisfaction with the Green Party for not being specific about the outcomes of our policy in relation to the Treaty. “What, specifically, will this country be like if we go down this course?”. It’s a question I have heard many times over the years, and it usually speaks from a position of fear and insecurity for Pakeha: what if I’ll be worse off? or even what if there’s no place for me?

    I want to acknowledge that actually we are asking people to do something (and we are doing it too) quite different from what we usually ask with our policy. Normally we have a very clear idea of the outcome we are seeking, and establish a policy to reflect how we will get there.

    But the Treaty is different. The words all have the potential to sound pretty hammy, but fundamentally the outcome being sought is a process: the process of absolute good faith negotiation, in which we Pakeha engage from a position of honour – acting ethically and morally.

    That process involves courage because we don’t know the outcome (and because we know we have it pretty sweet just how things are, let’s be honest). It is pretty scary, but it’s also pretty damn exciting!

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/05/03/my-speech-at-blackball-2010/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,310 comments) says:

    At least it’s fairly obvious when fly by righters and fly by lefters pop in for a campaign comment.

    It will be interesting to see if the Greens can reposition from their nice but often nongheaded niche.
    Where does the Green Party fit?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Nick C (340 comments) says:

    The Green Party is a well focused political movement, committed to environmental sustainability and equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    PC
    Frog, I agree the slur on your drug law reform plocy is as inaccurate as it is stupid, but you said. “Which terrorist groups are the Greens in favour of? Go on. Name just one.” Very well, let me open the batting. How about this, Frog:
    Remember soon after September 11 Keith Locke spoke at a meeting in Rotorua on a platform with Annette Sykes. This was a meeting to protest the liberation of Afghanistan.
    As Keith sat there smiling and nodding his head in agreement, Sykes told the audience: “I will never forget that morning turning on my TV and seeing those planes fly into those two towers, I jumped for joy, I was so excited to see that at long last capitalism was
    under attack. I was laughing, I was so happy, but then I saw those people
    jumping out of the windows and it suddenly hit me, oh those poor waiters, the poor cleaners, those poor lift operators, who the greedy capitalists had employed to do all the dirty jobs were probably the people jumping out of the windows.”
    Keith neither challenged nor questioned Sykes’ rant, he sat there and smiled and nodded and then led the applause when she finished.
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/05/31/united-in-terrorism/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mr Nobody NZ (397 comments) says:

    Does anybody else think this is going to end up being mainly used by Non Green Supporters as a method of promoting the Greens failings vs any of their benefits?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lance (2,557 comments) says:

    Oh
    So ASS is a Greens minion mindlessly doing it’s masters bidding.
    The doctrine was a give away, you know Stalin being a good guy etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    Metiria Turei sucks.
    Russel Norman sucks.
    David Clendon sucks.
    Gareth Hughes sucks.
    Catherine Delahunty sucks.
    Keith Locke sucks.
    Kevin Hague sucks.
    Sue Kedgley sucks, and is an idiot.
    Kennedy Graham sucks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    Keith Locke :
    “I would feel more comfortable in the company of those arrested in the raids than I would among some of my fellow MP’s in Parliament”.* http://www.youtube.com/v/lyCA_h3pkgk
    http://www.webcitation.org/5TKxD2fdq

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Griff (6,990 comments) says:

    @Mr Nobody NZ
    I already joined
    sword with two edges

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Lance (2,557 comments) says:

    @tristanb
    You do realize once the Greens rise up in overwhelming numbers you will be one of first stood up against the wall and shot. With non heavy metal, eco-friendly bullets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    Nick C (318) Says:
    September 12th, 2011 at 7:52 am

    The Green Party is a well focused political movement, committed to environmental sustainability and equality.
    …..
    Anti-immigration feeling has no place in the Green party Immigration and Population policies released today, Green MP Keith Locke says.

    “The Green Party policy is not based on prejudice, but an objective analysis of what level of migration is compatible with a sustainable New Zealand.

    [despite the measurement of sustainability being "excruciatingly difficult"].

    http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-counter-peters-welcoming-immigration-policy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    The Greens do have a lot of very good candidates but they have to get past the rag tag renta mob left-wing prentenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Peter (1,664 comments) says:

    Gareth Hughes: trains, trains, trains, trains, trains,trains, trains, trains, trains, trains, trains, trains, trains.

    Yay trains!

    Just yay!

    Woop woop!

    FaceTwitterSocialBlogNewMedia it! Like! Like! Like!

    Woo-hoo!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    Nick C (318) Says:
    September 12th, 2011 at 7:52 am

    The Green Party is a well focused political movement, committed to environmental sustainability and equality.

    then how come several MPs refer to Pakeha as “tauiwi” (= stranger in this land)?

    Also Meteria objects to any suggestion that payment of the DPB should be based on contraception.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    Shawn Tan was a red Green but left after their weak response to killings of Asians in south Auckland. He joined Act instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    hj – I can’t work out if you’re astroturfing for or against the Greens. Annoying either way. Go some place else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    Meteria Turie:

    “There can be no other interpretation except that if a woman gets pregnant while on a benefit, she must accept state enforced contraception if she wishes to continue to receive her $194 per week social support. Despite dog whistling to misogynists everywhere, most New Zealanders would consider it abhorrent that the state would force women into contraception. This is an extreme form of state violence against women. The state has no right to control a woman’s fertility, under any circumstances.”
    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/03/08/the-welfare-working-group-and-the-injection/

    Green Party of Canada:
    “Family Planning Key to Maternal and Child Health

    “Women need to be able to delay pregnancy, space out their births, and limit their family size. We have these options in developed nations and we now need to work together globally to extend the same options to developing nations, where they are urgently needed,” said Wilcock.

    “With the growing environmental crisis, the impacts of which will be particularly severe in poorer nations, family planning is even more important in terms of stabilizing global population,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May.”
    http://greenparty.ca/media-release/2010-03-19/family-planning-key-maternal-and-child-health

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ross Nixon (612 comments) says:

    I think posts like the following will be hard to ‘find’.

    M.e.t.i.r.i.a. T.u.r.e.i, R u s s e l N o r m a n, D-a-v-i-d C-l-e-n-d-o-n, G_a_r_e_t_h H_u_g_h_e_s, C,a,t,h,e,r,i,n,e D,e,l,a,h,u,n,t,y, K’e’i’t’h L’o’c’k’e’, K.e.v.i.n H.a.g.u.e, S u e K e d g l e y, K-e-n-n-e-d-y G-r-a-h-a-m are Greeen Party members who are hard to find.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    ben (2,071) Says:
    September 12th, 2011 at 8:29 am

    hj – I can’t work out if you’re astroturfing for or against the Greens. Annoying either way. Go some place else.
    ……
    that’s because you are a growth is good; there are no limits; all watched over by machines of loving grace type.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    It’s an effective tool for astroturfing. The pro-Israel lobby have been using it for years, though it shut down in June.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    DPF, it is not astroturfing at all. It is simply a convenient mechanism to alert Green supporters who choose to opt into it when a blog post appears somewhere that may be of relevance to the Greens and the supporters may want to comment on.

    It doesn’t propose a suggested response – that’s up to the supporters. I’ve been signed into it for a couple of years now because I simply don’t have the time to closely monitor blogs for posts relevant to the Greens (and if I attempted to do so would probably get the sack), but like to be able to comment in a timely manner when posts appear. My comments are all mine and, as you are aware DPF, do not always follow the official Green position.

    And for those here attempting to play distraction games in the comments thread, the alert monitors only substantive posts, not comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    How much are you paying people to troll these days toad?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Sean (299 comments) says:

    Why do you post this and only two posts earlier note how the green scum organized a protest after 9/11. Why give them any scope for their sick messages at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Free speech Sean, it helps to let every one see what sick nasty scum they really are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. db (22 comments) says:

    I don’t like the Greens and I don’t trust their policies but I will vote for them for lack of anything better. Isn’t that a sad commentary on the state of New Zealand politics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I sometimes wonder if the Greens get a bit of a hard rap for their reasonably consistent ideology. They are quite a contrast to most other parties, which are generally distinguished by a lack of coherent principles, are beholden to vested interests, and seem willing to trade away almost anything for political advantage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Martin Gibson (229 comments) says:

    The problem with the Greens trying to hog the moral high ground on the environment, social issues and Maori rights is that people who might normally be interested are turned off, so their efforts are often counter-productive.
    There’s only so much “I’m good, you’re bad, be more like me” a body can take, and environmentalism doesn’t have to be a three-legged race with Maxism tied to feminism in a green sack.
    If you really want to fix the environment, it is best to engage the business sector and the rest of New Zealand rather than bleating “Four legs good two legs baaaad” at them in a usefully idiotic way.
    Please don’t make this blog unreadable, there’s only so much K-Dunt you can take first thing in the morning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Elaycee (4,332 comments) says:

    “I don’t like the Greens and I don’t trust their policies but I will vote for them… ”

    Rather sums up the typical Gween voter…. a confused mung bean with the obligatory vacuum between the earl lobes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Griff (6,990 comments) says:

    You cannot have debate with out conflicting opinions

    Some way use this to troll or push naive ideologies, Others will come to add informed debate. Shooting down trolls or exposing idiots seems to be fun for some on this blog. For others it becomes an intellectual journey. All these things make up parts of why the rise of “The Connected Age” is such a Paradigm shift for humanity.

    Its only if it becomes anarchistic. Shutting down all debate that it would worry me. Escalating cross blog warfare would be counter productive for all involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,310 comments) says:

    There’s only so much “I’m good, you’re bad, be more like me” a body can take

    Do you think 5-10% is about as much as the electorate can take? Most of the rest probably prefer secular politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “and environmentalism doesn’t have to be a three-legged race with Maxism tied to feminism in a green sack.”

    Your right, the environmental aspects of the GP are effectively made null and void by their insane commtiment to Marxism, feminism, radical sexual freedom, and their extreme stance on race relations.

    The truth is that the Green Party is not that concerned with the environment at all. If they were they would advocate for a Traditionalist agrarian/distributist society and far more strict controls on immigration and refugees. Their very commtiment to social liberalism is anti-environment as social liberalism creates a consumerist attitude to marriage and family, which in turn creates more poverty and more resource demands on the welfare state. Their attachment to Marxism and socialism also negates a true concern for the environment. A true “green” approach would advocate for more localism and less centralised statism, but instead they want more centralised government control and more UN global government. Their immigration and refugee policy is about as anti-environemt as its possible to get. Same for their defense policy. A concern for NZ’s resource rich environment should have them arguing for a mauch larger national defense to protect our nation against the major predatory threat in the region, China. But no, they want LESS defense spending.

    Virtually nothing in the Green Parties policy program is truly green.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. KiwiGreg (3,212 comments) says:

    Liked your post Martin. I think it’s more that Marxism has hitched its wagon to “green issues” or more accurately Marxism is the wolf wearing the green sheepskin. Ironic really given how unmitigatingly bad Marxism and it’s idiot brother Socialism are for the environment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. KiwiGreg (3,212 comments) says:

    @ Lee “arguing for a mauch larger national defense to protect our nation against the major predatory threat in the region, China.” So how much more national defense spending would make us safe from China?

    IF we thought China was a threat the only rational response would be to spend enough to stop free loading on our neighbours and get the US to take us (back) under their wing. I’d rather take my chances then look to Obama for help (if Obama is the answer the question must be pretty dumb).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “So how much more national defense spending would make us safe from China?”

    Not as much as you might think, but imo defense spending should be raised to 4-5% of GDP, and compulsory national service re-instated. The strategy would not be to create a defense force capable of defeating China, but creating one that would make any invasion and/or bullying of NZ (and it will come sooner or later) extremely costly.

    However I also believe that we should resurrect ANZUS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Martin Gibson (229 comments) says:

    Oh and another thing:

    hj quoted Watea news:
    “Green MP David Clendon isn’t taking no for an answer over whether Maori have a right to a share in oil and gas under New Zealand’s continental shelf.
    “This is a very live issue and if there is wealth to be extracted it would seem clear both under treaty and under international law that Maori should get a reasonable claim, a reasonable royalty from that wealth,” Mr Clendon says.”

    If Maori did get a share of the oil gas and coal wealth (beyond its contribution to government spending), Mr Clendon would likely be disillusioned at how quickly the emotive arguments about drilling into Papatuanuku dried up.

    There was no mention of the evils of colonisation at the TeKaha ceremony to give Willie Apiata a VC for his bravery in Afghanistan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    “And I for one welcome our New Insect Overlords….”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. gopolks (102 comments) says:

    What i would expect from them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    mikenmild (2,401) Says:
    I sometimes wonder if the Greens get a bit of a hard rap for their reasonably consistent ideology. They are quite a contrast to most other parties, which are generally distinguished by a lack of coherent principles, are beholden to vested interests, and seem willing to trade away almost anything for political advantage.
    …………………………………………..
    they don’t have a coherent policy. The truth is (for instance) that the Pacific Islands demonstrate over population… and the Greens say……. “more immigrants more money for beneficiaries” and they espouse the idea that indigenous people have superior behaviour regarding conservation.

    and this:
    Kevin Hague

    One of jh’s themes has been dis-satisfaction with the Green Party for not being specific about the outcomes of our policy in relation to the Treaty. “What, specifically, will this country be like if we go down this course?”. It’s a question I have heard many times over the years, and it usually speaks from a position of fear and insecurity for Pakeha: what if I’ll be worse off? or even what if there’s no place for me?

    I want to acknowledge that actually we are asking people to do something (and we are doing it too) quite different from what we usually ask with our policy. Normally we have a very clear idea of the outcome we are seeking, and establish a policy to reflect how we will get there.

    But the Treaty is different. The words all have the potential to sound pretty hammy, but fundamentally the outcome being sought is a process: the process of absolute good faith negotiation, in which we Pakeha engage from a position of honour – acting ethically and morally.

    That process involves courage because we don’t know the outcome (and because we know we have it pretty sweet just how things are, let’s be honest). It is pretty scary, but it’s also pretty damn exciting!

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/05/03/my-speech-at-blackball-2010/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. big bruv (13,554 comments) says:

    Remember the rule when dealing with the Greens.

    Do not trust anything they say or anything they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Griff (6,990 comments) says:

    Maori are wanting a share in every thing
    Then what their own government?
    Their own tax?
    Their own social welfare?
    Their own justice?
    Who is Maori ?
    Who will represent Maori
    Will there be compulsion to be Maori ?
    Do other races deserve the same?

    I would like to see some answers to the above questions
    Instead all we get is “static”

    I’m guessing that once we get so far Maori will splinter into tribal conflict. “Maori”is purely a colonial label.

    The tribal elites
    Those honestly living the culture
    Feral s
    Those in NZ society earning a wage
    all have different needs, wants, opinions.
    There is no concerted direction just random conflicting concepts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. RRM (9,639 comments) says:

    LOL – why would you waste your breath trying to talk to those lunatics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Griff (6,990 comments) says:

    Cause for once I would like to hear answers rather than bullshit

    Also someone may add detracted or debate my list its called the exchange of ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. hj (6,720 comments) says:

    The Appalling Keith Locke was just on the news re Sept 11. The event he enjoyed. He is (of course) opposed to security measures in the wake of 9/11 (unfair-too hard for terrorists). Now he will likely be sitting at home with his dog (A Single Spark) on his lap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. awb (301 comments) says:

    I am a real person, with real opinions.
    I vote Green.
    I have a job. I work hard.
    I pay tax.
    I am nice to my family.
    I get good marks at university.
    I drive safely.
    I do not binge drink.
    I am not alone among fellow Greens.
    I hope one day the readers of this blog can move beyond their stereotype of the Greens.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.