Whyte and incest

February 27th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

New Leader is standing by his comments that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should not be illegal and says it would be “intellectually corrupt” of him not to be honest when asked such questions.

In an article published on The Ruminatorwebsite, former philosophy lecturer Dr Whyte was asked whether the state should intervene if adult siblings wanted to marry each other.

“Well personally, I don’t think they [the State] should”, he replied, adding it was “a matter of almost no significance because it just doesn’t happen”.

Dr Whyte told the Herald his response was based on his belief that: “I don’t think the state should intervene in consensual adult sex or marriage, but there are two very important elements here – consensual and adult”.

“I wonder who does believe the state should intervene in consensual adult acts?”

He said he was “very opposed” to .

“I find it very distasteful I don’t know why anybody would do it but it’s a question of principle about whether or not people ought to interfere with actions that do no harm to third parties just because they personally wouldn’t do it.” …

His view was not Act policy and “nobody who votes for Act has anything to fear”.

I find it refreshing that a political leader will stand by his personal views, while making it clear they are not party policy. Whyte is a classical liberal. There are many areas of society where he thinks the Government should not play a role. He should not back away from his views. The media will go for the sensationalist headline, but he should maintain a position of saying “Yes this is my personal belief, but ACT is focusing on a b and c”.

Some ACT supporters will be uncomfortable with his views, but the public like someone who is genuine and doesn’t hide behind weasel words.

I can be persuaded either way on whether there is a need for incest between consenting adults to be a criminal offence.  There are good arguments for and against. But the reality is, as Dr Whyte said, that it is an almost non-existent issue in NZ and not an issue anyone will be casting their vote on.

Tags: , ,

157 Responses to “Whyte and incest”

  1. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    He’s made it very clear he’s only referring to consenting adults. I can’t see any difference between this and the rights for same sex relationships between consenting adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Andrei (2,641 comments) says:

    Well it is important, it shows that Dr Whyte is an out of touch, head in the clouds airy fairy academic totally out of touch with reality – the reality that incest is a universal taboo and this taboo has its origins in biology.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 31 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nigel Kearney (1,012 comments) says:

    That was yesterday. Today it is yeah-nah.

    A pity because it would have been a good opportunity to explain how a belief in liberty means you don’t always use the criminal law to compel others to behave as they should.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    Hmm. I think I agree with him 100%, I’m presuming (I don’t know) that it’s not illegal for adult siblings (for example) to have sex? If that’s the case, I don’t see why it’d be illegal for them to marry. Like Jamie, no idea who would want to do it, but if they did, don’t see why it would be the government’s business to forbid it.

    It’ll be interesting to see whether he can maintain the straight talking and principled positions in the face of the media. I think that the media will perhaps tolerate it more from him than they would, for example, from Colin Craig. So when Colin said “I don’t know if there are chemtrails”, they made it a big issue. And I thought that Colin was dumb to say that, he should have said “I have seen no evidence that they exist, but if someone had real evidence I’d consider it” or something else like that that means the same without the implication that it’s a 50/50 chance. But in a sense it’s the same thing – what he said wasn’t stupid, the media chose to paint it that way. How long (if ever) before they do the same to Jamie?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Than (473 comments) says:

    While I agree with Whyte’s position on the issue, it’s still terrible politics to say it. I cringed when I read that article – this was a gaffe right up there with some of Colin Craig’s worst shockers. Here’s hoping Whyte is a quick study and this doesn’t get repeated.

    The correct answer to any question is not his personal view, it is the Act position on the subject. In this case the answer is “Act has no intention of changing incest law.” Discussing anything other than Act’s position is just a distraction.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    I find it refreshing that a political leader will stand by his personal views, while making it clear they are not party policy. … He should not back away from his views.

    Ooops … too late.

    New Act leader Jamie Whyte has back-tracked on comments that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should not be illegal.

    Speaking on RadioLive this morning, Mr Whyte admitted he had regretted the comments published in an article on The Ruminator Website.

    “I regret the comments, mainly because I feel I let the party down,” he said.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Odakyu-sen (646 comments) says:

    A smart man knows not to poke the wasps’ nest.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Duxton (651 comments) says:

    I recall that Phil Goff, as Minister of Justice, shelved a departmental paper that advocated decriminalising incestual relationships between consenting adults in the lead-up to the 2005 election. Apparently he had instigated the paper, but shelved it for fear of a voter backlash.

    So Labour will need to be careful about throwing mud at Whyte over this…….

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ruminator (18 comments) says:

    Goddamn it. Why does nobody link back to the post?

    It’s here: http://ruminator.co.nz/mr-ryght/

    And the incest thing was just one part of a lot of interesting stuff he said. The rest is well worth a read.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Longknives (4,740 comments) says:

    Honestly- I even don’t know what’s right and what’s wrong anymore…
    I’m still shellshocked that the twisted,sick ‘Rainbow Community’ has taken over our society to such an extent that this abomination can happen-
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11208173

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Nukuleka (325 comments) says:

    What it does show is that Mr Whyte is a big mouth who doesn’t know when to keep his trap shut.

    People are not stupid. On the one hand commentators are saying that Matt McCarten won’t be able to stop himself from attempting to foist his personal left wing opinions onto Cunliffe’s Labour party and here DPF is saying that the personal opinions of the President of the ACT Party don’t matter because ‘they are not party policy’. How is the Jamie Whyte situation in any way different from the Matt McCarten one? Both are strong-willed, opinionated men in important party positions.

    You may be correct in claiming that people like folk who are genuine and who don’t hide behind weasel words but incest is an area which is very black and white in the minds of most people. It is morally wrong, it always has been seen as wrong and it always will. If you think otherwise then I fear you are greatly out of step with Joe Public. If you doubt me go onto the street and do a vox pop asking ‘Do you think it is ok for a man to have sex with his sister/ mother/ daughter? After all, he is not restricting himself to siblings when he states: ‘I don’t think the state should intervene in consensual adult sex or marriage…’

    Whyte is demonstrating enormous naivety with his pronouncements. First it was drug use and now its inter family sex. Where will he, and by implication the ACT Party, be heading next? Liberalism is all very well but stretched to the ultimate it results in anarchy and social breakdown. I wonder how impressed Richard Prebble is by Mr Whyte’s latest bumbling efforts.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. stephieboy (3,019 comments) says:

    Its all about perceptions . You can go as much as you like Jamie Whyte about ,” I only mean’t between consenting adults ” but it will still go down like a lead balloon in the largely conservative Epsom.
    As Andrei posted , ‘the reality that incest is a universal taboo and this taboo has its origins in biology.” A view shared by most ordinary thinking voter including those in Epsom..

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. thePeoplesFlag (245 comments) says:

    No wonder Bill English is going list only this election; with views like Whyte’s ACT will clean up in the hillbilly heartlands of Southland.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Oh no.

    PLEASE don’t go for ‘controversial’ Mr Whyte.

    Develop 5-6 solid core Act policies, advocate hard out for them, and stay away from stuff like this!

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Vinick (216 comments) says:

    Hey Brandine!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Incest might be internationally taboo today, but historically it wasn’t, and even in biblical times it was a common practice.

    Genetically many are sexually attracted to people who look similar, perhaps a genetic trait to ensure survival of the clan/species? Either way, sexual attraction between close family members has and does occur with frequency, HOWEVER, it may not be all good for two primary reasons.

    First of course is the multiplication of the chance of passing on negative genetic traits. Of course the same occurs for positive genetic traits. Secondly there are the psychological issues. Because the person is known to us, they are familiar. For people who are shy, have emotional problems, it is easier to form attachments with people that are familiar, than with strangers. Such relationships become problematic when there is an unequal power balance. Whilst both may be consenting adults, one may not necessarily know what they are getting into.

    As a good example against incestuous relationships, take a peek at the history of the Royal Family – hemophilia played havoc with their breeding stock – thanks to intermarriage.

    I guess providing those involved are counselled as to the risks, and the issues, and are still determined to continue, that is their personal choice. Not for me though, I love my siblings – just not that way~

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. UrbanNeocolonialist (288 comments) says:

    I think he’s right as a moral/ethical issue. And it is probably a lot more common than people think, particularly when siblings grow up apart (eg there were a fair number of them in reddit’s huge confessional: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/t0ynr/throwaway_time_whats_your_secret_that_could/?limit=500
    For obvious reasons people do not talk about it in public.

    But such relationships should not be allowed to produce children except through donor sperm as it tends to produce significantly less intelligent and more sickly offspring, eg these German siblings had multiple badly disabled kids:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128800/European-Court-rules-incest-conviction-did-breach-German-couples-human-rights.html
    Damned if I know how you could police that though (same issue as for beneficiary babies).

    It is also a statistically significant problem even with 1st cousin marriage, has been found in ethnically pakistani English. If I recall correctly 1st cousin parents = on average about 3 IQ points lower children. 1st cousins is legal in most countries.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Sector 7g (240 comments) says:

    Why the fuck is it that right wing small party leaders are so easily manipulated by the left wing media?
    Time and time again these fucking idiots give the journalist the “extreme” sound bite they are after so they can make a sensationalist story out of it.
    When are these morons going to realise that the media are the enemy of their ideas and are out to detract the New Zealand public from their “core issues”?
    Happens every single time.
    Wake up!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Peter (1,712 comments) says:

    The only job of ACT in this election is to save the party.

    Go for solid, reliable, dependable, and sensible. Do not frighten the horses with no-win topics like incest. If there’s a controversial topic of any description, use the Judith Collins line “there are more important matters to worry about”, then shift the question onto the question you do want to to answer, regardless of the question the media troll asks.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    Andrei (2,285 comments) says:
    February 27th, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    Well it is important, it shows that Dr Whyte is an out of touch, head in the clouds airy fairy academic totally out of touch with reality – the reality that incest is a universal taboo and this taboo has its origins in biology.

    Andrei –

    Last night at dinner time, I looked out of my kitchen window, and what did I see?

    I saw my Light Sussex rooster mounting his mother.

    He mounts his sister quite a bit too.

    (As well as our Black Orpington girls who are unrelated to him.)

    My chickens don’t know much about human morality, so I suppose they are just doing what comes naturally?

    Your move Andrei… Tell me more about these biological origins of the taboo around incest…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. backster (2,171 comments) says:

    Maybe a compromise could be for only incestuous sodomy to be allowed consensually.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Perhaps he’ll appeal to the monarchists. The Queen and Prince Philip are third cousins after all.

    Or maybe the Christian conservatives. After all, who did Adam and Eve’s children breed with?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Andrei (2,641 comments) says:

    My chickens don’t know much about human morality, so I suppose they are just doing what comes naturally.

    No chicken ever wrote something as profound the 1812 overture.

    But a heck of a lot of them do end up dismembered in pressure cookers emerging as as KFC original to be packaged with fries and mashed potatoes in gravy.

    I prefer being human thanks

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rick Rowling (813 comments) says:

    It seems to be a standard media tactic on new conservative leaders – ask questions about completely irrelevant things and then present it as if it was party policy.

    The correct answer for Colin Craig re moon landings and Jamie Whyte on incest is:

    “That question is completely irrelevant to New Zealand politics, and I’m surprised that you as a reputable reporter think that it’s appropriate to ask. Now about my party’s economic / social / international policy…”

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ RRM (8,774 comments) says:
    February 27th, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    It is true that incest occurs in the animal kingdom with great regularity and therefore one can conclude that incest is ‘natural’. However, in the animal kingdom, without human interference, only the strongest survive to breed. Therefore, it is only the strongest genes that are reproduced. Incest does not weaken the ‘gene pool’.

    But in current human society, medical treatment and scientific advancement means that the weak do live long enough to survive, and therefore, long enough to breed and in doing so, risk passing on the ‘weak genes’ by doubling the chance of them occurring in incest.

    Of course there are ways and means around it. Genetical testing of the embryo to ensure no deficiency could occur – I guess it is a social argument – how far do we go to allow human rights?

    I still don’t think its a good idea – but I’m old enough to be ‘old fashioned’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wrightingright (143 comments) says:

    He can’t go flip flopping on this, not like ACT/Brash did last election with cannabis! That was a disaster, not because of what Brash said but because of how the party responded.

    Maybe maybe maybe Whyte shouldn’t have made a comment on this (personally, I don’t think it was such a hugely bad thing. Compared to the drug P I reckon this is relatively uncontroversial, and it makes clear that ACT is once again “The Liberal Party”. As its slogan once was!), but what is most important now he sticks to his guns.

    And that anybody who disagrees with him is as ridiculous as those who think women over the age of 35 shouldn’t be allowed to have sex! (as the odds of this baby having a problem is higher than one from between relations)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Albert_Ross (291 comments) says:

    Andrei, your point that humans are different from chickens is of course perfectly sound, but utterly undermines your original point that the taboo against incest is rooted in biology. If that were the case one would expect to find animals other than humans avoiding it, and there’s absolutely nothing that suggests they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    No chicken ever wrote something as profound the 1812 overture.

    I prefer being human thanks

    :lol: LOL, you mentioned nature, now you try to backpedal.

    :lol: :lol: And double LOL re 1812 Overture, even the COMPOSER of that work didn’t think it was very profound.

    Tchaikovsky complained to his patron Nadezhda von Meck that he was “…not a conductor of festival pieces,” and that the Overture would be “…very loud and noisy, but [without] artistic merit, because I wrote it without warmth and without love,”

    Pick another title from the “popular classics for people who don’t know much about music but want to host a dinner party” catalogue and have another go.

    And do not forget Tchaikovsky was gay… and he killed himself because of social pressures inflicted by conservatives like you.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Albert_Ross (291 comments) says:

    Not necessarily RRM, the example given does not have to be “profound” in order to make Andrei’s point. In fact it’s an even stronger point, the /less/ profound you make the example.

    Thus, no chicken ever wrote anything as profound as “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. KimHannah (2 comments) says:

    He’s a liberal. The comment was consistent with that. I imagine, in all honesty, it’s going to do more good than harm for people to see that he’s a principled guy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Albert_Ross (134 comments) says:
    February 27th, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    Andrei and I don’t often agree but I’m with them on this one.

    Sure, if we are prepared to allow some sort of selection process where only the strongest and fittest survive to take part in incestuous relationships, then sure – physically/biologically there is no problem – we can be just like the animal kingdom.

    Now, how do we go about deciding who survives? I seem to remember another fellow with similar ideas on increasing the strength of the gene pool that caused a whole heap of shyte back in the late 1930’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    It never ceases to amaze me how dumb some people with a PhD can be. It is not as if he was caught off guard. He saw what happened with Colin Craig. Has the ACT Board only got lunatic libertarians. He had already hints about what he might say about his published views. He should have been warned. If it was not for Prebble he probably would not have back tracked.

    @Duxton
    February 27th, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    Have you got a source about Geoff on the issue you mentioned. I know he floated the idea of dropping the age of consent to 12 but never heard about incest.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Bloody hell, what happened to all the supporters of marriage equality then ? Getting concerned that it wasn’t meant to be taken literally ?

    Personally, it doesn’t bother me as a comment. What does concern me is exactly what others have mentioned, that Jamie walked straight into a pre-planned ambush question and answered without thinking. For crying out loud, get this straight, politicians maybe scum, but journalists are if anything worse, and they will make every effort to set up politicians they don’t like (that is not far left loonies) for ridicule. This is a tactic that the left specialize in and has been used very successfully in the past. How long will it take Jamie to realize: that any MSM journalist is an ideological enemy and must be treated as such AT ALL TIMES. You will be asked stupid irrelevant questions designed to make you look foolish, you WILL be quoted out of context, you WILL probably be misquoted, and deliberately at that, you WILL have lies made up and spread about you, and you (and yours) WILL be attacked personally as unpleasantly as possible. So harden up and learn to deal with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Reposted from GD now it has its own thread:

    I winced hugely last night and this morning when Jamie Whyte’s comments on incest were reported…This is exactly what happens when you combine a guy with no experience of the brutal business of politics and a naivete about the media together with the “Get ACT whenever and however you can” MSM this country now has…I suspect the “journo” picked up on some navel gazing column Jamie wrote years ago and hit him with a pithy quote…and Jamie didn’t have the experience to field it…Rodney would never have walked into that trap, but unfortunately, unless Whyte gets a coterie of highly experienced minders around him pronto, he will continue to do this…

    I am sitting with an intelligent friend who takes little interest in politics…What she heard this morning was “ACT says its OK to for siblings to have sex along as they’re consenting adults”…that is NOT of course what Jamie actually said, but it’s what the electorate heard. Verdict: Must improve very rapidly

    Update: I now understand that the kid Jamie spoke to on this – over a bloody lunch FFS, no doubt with some lubricant – was not even a journo but some young blogger no-one had heard of…until now. He shouldn’t have been lunching with such a person at all, but if he was, he MUST have a press sec with a few years on the clock and a digital recorder with him …

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Zebulon (114 comments) says:

    I understand why he has that belief given his political views, however, I think it was stupid as the majority find such matters distasteful and would view any proposed law change with repugnance. I know he is only talking about consenting adults but bringing incest up and being in favour of it will also make some people worry about how far his views extend – i.e. does it really stop with adults? What was the point of bringing this up when there was no political need to do so? I agree with the person above who compared Whyte’s political skills to Craig.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Andybell (1 comment) says:

    Whyte’s comments reflect a true libertarian view of minimal state intervention. There is nothing particularly radical about the sentiment and many libertarians would have similar views. It simply boils down to this- why should a moral perspective be forced on a free person where they are doing no harm to others? (cue fallacious comments about the moral corruption of children etc etc….).

    Chuck its dismissive and anti-intellectual to characterise libertarians as lunatics.

    Good on Whyte.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Actually Judith I think you remember very selectively about who was in favour of Eugenics. The movement was first promoted by the Fabians including the likes of George Bernard Shaw way back before WW1. It remained as official policy in Sweden (compulsory sterilization of the “feeble-minded”) until the 1970’s. The fellow was more concerned about the “purity” of the race than classical eugenic breeding; although it is likely true that the two were conflated in his reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Duxton (651 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird

    Try this: http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/47HansD_20050414_00000206/crimes-amendment-bill-no-2-%E2%80%94-second-reading-instruction

    On reading through it, I now realise that I wasn’t correct in saying that Goff shelved the paper. He did release it, but didn’t include its recommendations in the Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    It’s not to my taste but fair dos to the guy for consistency. This is a foreseeable development of the sexual revolution and will in no way be its apotheosis. Once you concede to the principle that it is no business of the community what consenting parties do to each other, you will eventually be compelled by logic towards total sexual licence.

    I’d suggest it’s not accurate to call that ‘classical liberalism’ (I don’t think you’d see Smith, Locke or Hayek going for it) but at least it’s coherent.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    I thought the chances of genetic abnormalities were much higher for incest couples. But, a 40 year old woman has higher chances of issues.

    anyhow, i’m not sure leaders should discuss controversial private views in the media as it distracts from the real party agendas.

    Anyone heard the joke of Giuseppe the goat f****er? Here it is the same basic idea that one controversial view dominates any good that one might do….

    http://www.humorbin.com/showitem.asp?item=20

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Ruminator (18 comments) says:

    Garrett you’re a million times wrong. Here’s how it went down.

    Through an intermediary, we arranged to interview Jamie. The person who interviewed him has been on the radio a number of years, has conducted quite a few interview (none in the political sphere though).

    When I asked the writer to do the interview, we talked about what sort of questions we would ask, and this was one that came up – we wanted to test whether Jamie’s liberalism was consistent, and it was. I thought his answer was courageous.

    It didn’t happen over lunch. It happened over a phone-call WHILE Jamie was having lunch. So your sources weren’t too flash.

    We’re not out to get ACT at all costs, don’t be so fucking paranoid. We gave him a fair hearing, we faithfully reprinted how the conversation went and if you go and read it, he actually comes across as thoughtful and well reasoned.

    We also had some controversy with David Cunliffe writing a guest post on our blog too. So I guess we’re gunning for Labour too? Nah, that doesn’t fit your narrative.

    Anyway, good chat team. Keep it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Urban_Redneck (86 comments) says:

    *Since Redbaiter is no longer here, I’d like to post in his honour*

    This is what happens when you get tangled up with all of that “liberal” bullshit. Small government and low taxes is the message ACT should be pushing, but like National, they’re too clogged up with pseudo liberal dipshits who rant and rave about homosexual marriage and party pills and the rest of that inconsequential bullshit but just don’t know what is important to the man in the street.

    ACT- First vote winner- Take all taxes off petrol other than GST.

    Second vote winner- reduce GST to 5% and repudiate all taxes and policy associated with the climate change myth.

    Third vote winner- Make car ownership less onerous.

    Fourth vote winner- Education vouchers- not the best solution, but the death grip the left have on the education system must be broken (if democracy and liberty are to survive).

    Fifth vote winner- Abolish Waitangi Tribunal, remove all racist language from legislation, affirm that government and law is colour blind.

    Sixth vote winner- Declare pride in traditional European culture and values, those qualities that have in the past built countries that all other cultures have flocked to.

    Seventh vote winner- Entire and complete repudiation of the concept of political correctness

    Eighth vote winner- Reduce number of politicians to forty and return to FPP voting.

    Final but most important vote winner- stop listening to whining out of touch PC pseudo liberals.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. questions (207 comments) says:

    Does this signal an end to you conflating left wing party leaders personal beliefs and or statements with party policy, DPF?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. edhunter (546 comments) says:
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @Duxton. Thanks for that. It is quite unbelievable I will make sure the relevant parts from your link get to the right people.

    Let us hope the voters reject both the loony left and loony right libertarians. It is no wonder John Boscawen put himself forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    *Since Redbaiter is no longer here, I’d like to post in his honour*

    Gosh, fourteen ways.
    /

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Ed Snack (1,377 comments) says:
    February 27th, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Not selective memory, I just actually don’t know that much about it, so it was interesting to read what you said. Ol’ Sir George even had something to say – I suppose that’s not too surprising, he had much to say on many things?

    I have to admit, I sometimes do wonder what scientific advancement, medical in particular, has actually contributed to the overall well being of the human species or not. There is frequently in the media very good examples that could be used in an argument in favour selective processes.

    But as I don’t really know a lot about it, I’m not really up to an argument on the historical supporters, however I do think this guy needs to learn to mind his words and beliefs if he wants a leather seat in the big house – I don’t think we are anywhere near ready to accept ‘hillbilly’ politics in most places in NZ, just yet. I say most places because there is always ‘Eketahuna’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    “Ruminator” : (Use your real name son, gives you much more gravitas)

    If it “went down” as you say then I accept I was misinformed. But sorry, I don’t accept for a moment that you “wanted to test whether Jamie’s liberalism was consistent”…what you wanted was what you got: an ACT leader sounding even more wacky than Colin Craig’s stupid refusal to deny there was any doubt man had landed on the moon nine times, or that some mysterious unidentified “they” were drugging us using chemtrails…

    I have no idea what your blog is and have never read it (one only has so much time for non income generating activities during the day) so also have no doubt that you had Cunliffe as a guest poster…so what? The only place that could possibly cause “controversy” is among – say – the followers at the Standard, who would shoot at the dawn any of their controlling Politburo who allowed me or someone like me to have a guest post there…

    Over here on the right you see, we positively welcome alternative views…in fact I very much doubt DPF would refuse a guest post of yours telling “the real story” – or anything else – so long as it was of some interest, coherently written, and not defamatory.

    Oh one last thing…I don’t have “narratives” or “discourses; I just have opinions, views, and arguments, for whatever they are worth…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Ryan Sproull (7,119 comments) says:

    “Ruminator” : (Use your real name son, gives you much more gravitas)

    Yeah. Suck it, dickholes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ruminator (18 comments) says:

    DG: Don’t call me son. I’m not here to be patronised.

    You don’t accept for a moment our motivations don’t you? Is that because you’re paranoid? Why don’t you accept it?

    And as for “the only place” that it could cause controversy, it actually ended up on the front page of the Herald. So thanks for playing.

    Go have a look at my site “pops”. You want to talk to me about alternative views?
    We’ve had guest posts from:
    David Cunliffe
    Metiria Turei
    Tau Henare
    Judith Collins
    Jacinda Ardern
    Chris Finlayson
    We’ve done interviews with Jamie Whyte, Colin Craig and we’re about to do one with Judith Collins.

    So there’s your alternative views.

    Seacrest out.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nukuleka (325 comments) says:

    RRM

    ‘And do not forget Tchaikovsky was gay… and he killed himself because of social pressures inflicted by conservatives like you.

    A lie repeated eventually becomes believed by the credulous. The notion that Tchaikovsky committed suicide because he was gay is an opinion and not a fact!! I do get tired of the gullible who are constantly reinventing history.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Er, I happen to disagree with Jamie on this one. This is why…

    http://www.gaynz.com/blogs/redqueen/?p=1420

    Under New Zealand law, incest is punishable by a ten year prison sentence under Section 130 of the Crimes Act 1961.

    CAI is based on the proposition that there is a significant difference between the act of child sexual abuse and allegedly consensual activities between adult siblings. According to research from psychological sources, CAI is usually the result of ‘genetic sexual attraction,’ an unintended byproduct of open adoption information procedures. In the United States, Psychotherapist Barbara Gonyo developed theories about GSA in the early nineties.

    Whereas within families, childrearing and sibling relationships are sufficient to dispense with residual sexual attraction between parents and children, or siblings and siblings due to the Westermarck Effect of family socialisation and reverse sexual imprinting, the estrangement effects of adoption or fostering prevents this socialisation barrier from occurring, leaving some siblings, and formerly estranged parents and children susceptible to GSA. Fortunately, prior psychotherapeutic intervention precludes the possible development of GSA, although such support organisations are more common overseas.

    Based on the above, I do not believe that CAI should be decriminalised, as has already regrettably occurred in the Peoples Republic of China, Japan, Israel, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, France , Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, Ukraine and Argentina.

    Notably, however, there is a contrasting German case invoving the Stubings, a sibling couple who approached the Federal Constitutional Court to rule on the issue. Patrick Stuebing and Susan Karolewski have been living together for the last decade or so. Karolewski is intellectually disabled and Stuebing has served a prison sentence of two years duration for committing incest with his adult sister, an offence under Paragraphs 153 and 173 0f the German Criminal Code. Only Sofia, their youngest child, is still living with the couple, and healthy- Eric and Sarah, the older siblings have intellectual and physical disabilities, while Nancy, their younger sister, had a heart condition which has similarly been remedied. Eric, Sarah and Nancy are all in foster care.

    The Court upheld Sections 153 and 173 of the German Criminal Code, and regardless of consent or adult status, incest still remains comprehensively prohibited within that jurisdiction. The Stubings then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that Paragraphs 153 and 173 violated the Article 8 of European Charter of Human Rights, which upholds individual rights to privacy and family life. Fortunately, on 12 April 2012, the European Court of Human Rights found against the couple. It noted that the fact that Susan Karolewski was herself learning-disabled and had a dependent personality disorder fell within the purpose of Sections 153 and 173, which were the protection of weaker parties in this context. Moreover, Eric and Sarah have severe intellectual and physical disabilities, which point to the legitimacy of the genetic case against sibling sex and parenting.

    Based on the German experience cited above, I think that there is no case for decriminalisation of adult incest. I believe the Ministries of Health and Justice should convene a joint working party and hold public meetings, as well as fund GSA prevention, intervention and recovery groups. This should serve as a prelude to the establishment of an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 which either creates a seperate offence or amends Section 130 of the Crimes Act to create a different regime for adult GSA sufferers, and mandates psychotherapeutic treatment of those who experience GSA and who have engaged in CAI as a result. And a note on terminology here- incest is not a ‘sexual practise’ or ‘orientation,’ unlike lesbianism or male homosexuality. Whereas neither are regarded as psychopathologies any longer, GSA is. Therefore, it is a medicolegal problem, albeit a newly discovered one, and may be amenable to remedies from that quarter.

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex marriage equality and its use suggests that those who posit still believe in the discredited archaic prescientific and premodern premise that all lesbians and gay men are chaotic akolastos or “sodomites.” Fortunately, mainstream science and medicine has moved substantially onward since then.

    Recommended:

    Barbara Gonyo: The Forbidden Love: Genetic Sexual Attraction: Mount Prospect: B.Gonyo: 1991.

    Michael Bohlander: Principles of German Criminal Law: Oxford: Hart: 2009.

    Stuebing versus Germany (European Court of Human Rights, 2012): http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-110314

    [I especially recommend the Stuebing case to other opponents of CAI- CG]

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. J Bloggs (241 comments) says:

    The problem with incest is that there is almost always an element of unequal power relationship involved in the situation. The power differential is most apparent in parent-child dynamics, but is also in sibling dynamics (particularly when there is a significant age difference). This power differential, which occurs over many years, means you cannot clearly say that any incestual involvement is truly consensual.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    And before anyone brings up the subject of polygamy in this context, this is why I also believe that it must remain illegal. British Columbia’s “Bountiful” case was an attempt by the Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints (*not the mainstream Mormon Church- this lot broke away from it in 1890, precisely because it reformed its ways over polygamy in order for Utah Territory to join the United States*). Anyway, these sects are limited to Canada (British Columbia), the United States and Mexico. According to family violence prevention groups, they’re hotbeds of spousal violence and pedophile ‘child marriage’ to female children. It was heard in November 2011 and is probably the most cogent recent statement of why polygamy should remain illegal…

    When it came to November 2011′s anti-polygamy Canadian “Bountiful” case, Chief Justice Robert Bauman summarized his findings on the harms of polygamous straight relationships as follows:

    [6] Based on the most comprehensive judicial record on the subject ever produced, I have concluded that the Attorneys General and their allied Interested Persons have demonstrated a very strong basis for a reasoned apprehension of harm to many in our society inherent in the practice of polygamy as I have defined it in these reasons.
    . . . . . .
    [8] Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse. Competition for material and emotional access to a shared husband can lead to fractious co-wife relationships. These factors contribute to the higher rates of depressive disorders and other mental health issues that women in polygamous relationships face. They have more children, are more likely to die in childbirth and live shorter lives than their monogamous counterparts. They tend to have less autonomy, and report higher rates of marital dissatisfaction and lower levels of self-esteem. They also fare worse economically, as resources may be inequitably divided or simply insufficient.

    [9] Children in polygamous families face higher infant mortality, even controlling for economic status and other relevant variables. They tend to suffer more emotional, behavioural and physical problems, as well as lower educational achievement than children in monogamous families. These outcomes are likely the result of higher levels of conflict, emotional stress and tension in polygamous families. In particular, rivalry and jealousy among co-wives can cause significant emotional problems for their children. The inability of fathers to give sufficient affection and disciplinary attention to all of their children can further reduce children’s emotional security. Children are also at enhanced risk of psychological and physical abuse and neglect.

    [10] Early marriage for girls is common, frequently to significantly older men. The resultant early sexual activity, pregnancies and childbirth have negative health implications for girls, and also significantly limit their socio-economic development. Shortened inter-birth intervals pose a heightened risk of various problems for both mother and child.

    [11] The sex ratio imbalance inherent in polygamy means that young men are forced out of polygamous communities to sustain the ability of senior men to accumulate more wives. These young men and boys often receive limited education as a result and must navigate their way outside their communities with few life skills and social support.

    [12] Another significant harm to children is their exposure to, and potential internalization of, harmful gender stereotypes.

    [13] Polygamy has negative impacts on society flowing from the high fertility rates, large family size and poverty associated with the practice. It generates a class of largely poor, unmarried men who are statistically predisposed to violence and other anti-social behaviour. Polygamy also institutionalizes gender inequality. Patriarchal hierarchy and authoritarian control are common features of polygamous communities. Individuals in polygynous societies tend to have fewer civil liberties than their counterparts in societies which prohibit the practice.

    [14] Polygamy’s harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists.
    . . . . . .
    [230] The harms against women include: exploitation; commodification; social isolation; the inevitable favouritism of some women and deprecation of others within the household; discrimination; and, impoverishment.

    [231] The harms against children include: the negative impacts on their development caused by discord, violence and exploitation in the marital home; competition between mothers and siblings for the limited attention of the father; diminishment of the democratic citizenship capabilities of children as a result of being raised by mothers deprived of their basic rights; impoverishment; and, violation of their fundamental dignity.

    [232] The harms against men include: the unequal distribution of spouses and related ostracism of younger men forced to compete for a scarcer supply of women; the creation of a false appetite for patriarchy; inflammation of male lust; and deprivation of the essential bond of mutuality that is unique to the marital institution.

    [233] Finally, the harms to society that flow from polygamy include: threats to the social order and a greater need for social supports as women lacking education and opportunity to enhance themselves, as well as their children, find themselves impoverished upon divorce or the death of their husbands; harms to good citizenship; threats to political stability; and the undermining of human dignity and equality.
    . . . . . .
    [1316] The evidence demonstrates that polygamy is associated with very substantial harms. The prevention of these harms is salutary. Some of the beneficial effects of the ongoing prohibition of polygamy include:
    a) Increased per-child parental investment, with the expected increase in the mental and physical wellbeing of children overall;
    b) Reduced social strife, conflict and crime expected from more uneven distribution of the opportunity to marry;
    c) Reduced average age gaps between husbands and wives, increasing equality in marriages;
    d) Reduction in sexual predation on young girls;
    e) Reducing incentives for male control over women and their reproductive capacity; and
    f) Consistency with Canada’s international treaty and legal obligations.

    Recommended:

    Bountiful Case (British Columbia, 2011): http://canlii.ca/t/fnzqf

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    DG lay off ruminator. Go read his site, there’s no vendetta there. The MSM have pulled a Colin Craig on a throwaway comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. RRM (9,917 comments) says:

    The notion that Tchaikovsky committed suicide because he was gay is an opinion and not a fact!! I do get tired of the gullible who are constantly reinventing history.

    Oh, you *do get tired* of that, do you??

    It’s as good an opinion as any of the alternatives that have ever come forward… or can you show that it is not?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    If he’d brought it up then it’d be stupid. But once brought up I think he needed to give a logical and correct answer. Maybe with experience he’d have been able to fudge it by saying “that’s not in Act’s platform”, but I really don’t think his answer was a problem. How it later gets twisted in the MSM may be a problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Incidentally, Ruminator, if you want permission to publish my earlier blog article as a rebuttal or contrast to Whyte’s view, go right ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Ruminator (18 comments) says:

    Hey ChardonnayGuy, thanks for the offer – if you want to go post it in the comments that’d be great. However we don’t have a habit of publishing stuff that’s already been published elsewhere.

    Really appreciate the offer though.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Thanks, I’ll do that. I’m afraid that while I agree with Jamie when it comes to drug policy reform, I must beg to differ on the particular issues of CAI and polygamy (as opposed to polyamory- and the two are not identical, whatever lazy RSCs might say.)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Over here on the right you see, we positively welcome alternative views…

    I don’t know whether that’s funny or sad – probably a bit of both.

    As far as I’m aware this isn’t “the right”. it’s open to anyone who cares to take part.

    It can get knarly sometimes, especially when alternative views are put forward. Some on “the right” seem to have trouble tolerating views that are different to their own and people they decide they don’t want commenting and can get quite pissy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. wrightingright (143 comments) says:

    @Urban_Redneck what happened to Redbaiter? :-/ I enjoyed reading his rants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    Oh dear – it seems that ACT have just shown their commitment to supporting incest between consenting adults by effectively f……g themselves on this issue? (As it were …… :)

    I’m sure Colin Craig will be delighted!

    Arguably, makes his questioning of the man on the moon landing suddenly appear a lot more politically palatable to the undecided voter?

    Then again, maybe not.

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Ruminator: I am impressed…clearly I misjudged you (You’ll find that here: some of us are quite happy to admit when we are wrong). When I get time, I will indeed read your blog.

    labrator: See above. It doesnt surprise me at all that the MSM would have picked up what this guy posted and twisted it…that is par for the course. I was actually astounded that Vance’s latest piece on ACT didnt manage to work in the “dead baby and the disgraced MP, David Garrett”. That is the first time she has written ANYTHING on ACT since my fall from grace without such a reference.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. mara (784 comments) says:

    I believe that J Whyte will come to believe, sooner rather than later, that politics is thuggish, brutal and totally beneath him. He has been extensively educated to his current mind-set. Now he is being required to ditch the philosophy and engage in the political. Oil and water. A shame but there it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Hey CG,

    Just to summarise your very long first post. It seems you are making threearguments.

    1. There are good theories as to why an adult may become attracted to his or her brother or sister;
    2. There is evidence it can be prevented where it is an unintentional result of open adoption;
    3. ?
    4. Therefore, it shouldn’t be decriminalised.

    1. There are cases where incestuous couples who clearly have consent issues were denied relief by the court
    2. Therefore, there are no grounds for decriminalising incest for any couple.

    1. There is a qualitative difference between incest as a practice and homosexuality as an orientation.
    2. Therefore, they shouldn’t be seen as analogues on matters of personal liberty.

    Of the three, I would say that the last is the strongest. Not that it’s necessarily correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    “Since Redbaiter is no longer here”

    what happened? Did he pass from this world?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    wreck1080: Apparently the old ‘baiter finally gave up on us commie progs at KB and took up tweeting! I think that is rather marvellous since I, from what I know of him some many years his junior, wouldn’t know how to tweet if my life depended on it.

    I haven’t the foggiest how to find out, but I imagine you will know how to find how many “followers” he has…I suspect it might be disappointingly few from his POV…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Nice justifying DPF. The rest of the country are just pissing themselves as happened today in my neck of the woods. Even the PM says “how silly was that” publically. Love to see Jamie and Colin in a one on one debate. Nice to see one of your regular readers put him down as an academic quack
    Not that I agree but finally some consistency from your own quacks.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    “it’s a *question of principle* about whether or not people ought to interfere with actions that do no harm to third parties just because they personally wouldn’t do it.”

    It *may* well be, but I still think it was a bloody stupid thing to say.

    The average person in the street will not have picked up on the “question of principle” thing at all. Almost without exception, they will now think that Whyte supports incest.

    Whyte needs to learn from this. He is trying to gain support so he should put a mental filter in place before engaging his mouth.

    He can’t just go shooting his mouth off stupidly like this. If he does, he can expect ACT’s support-level to remain at zero percent.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    was actually astounded that Vance’s latest piece on ACT didnt manage to work in the “dead baby and the disgraced MP, David Garrett”. That is the first time she has written ANYTHING on ACT since my fall from grace without such a reference.

    Okay, you mentioned it without anyone else bringing it up. So, an alternative theory could be that you ‘see dead babies’ everywhere rather than Vance being fixated on you. Hang out with Dunne much?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    CG, your last argument recalls a very interesting discussion I once had with a social liberal about the subject of gay marriage. This was way back in the stone ages of 2005 when so many Labour and National MPs were – by their own definition today – irrationally bigoted on the subject (quite where Maurice Williamson gained the standing in the gay community to berate anyone on gay rights, I’ll never know).

    Anyway, because most social liberals just absorb the prevailing assumptions of the day they’re often easy to frustrate with the simple tools of argumentation. The logical limitations of sexual licence is a prime example and they’ll often get tongue-tied trying to distinguish why (hypothetically) consensual incest shouldn’t be legalised given their committment to non-judgmentalism when it comes to private sexual practices.

    This one guy, however, looked me straight in the eye and told me that he didn’t think taboos or prejudices were wrong provided they had the tacit support of society. In his view, homosexuality had been normalised and so the taboo shouldn’t be sustained. People generally still had a strong revulsion against incest and so the taboo should stand.

    This is pretty frank view, but it’s plausible. It is also honest and refreshingly free of the sanctimony that usually surrounds these things.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    itstricky: Use your own given name sonny and I might take you remotely seriously…Actually, Nah, it probably wouldn’t make any difference with a guy like you…you have nothing very interesting to say..

    thior42: Exactly right…see my first post re my intelligent friend who is not particularly interested in politics…all she “heard” was the new ACT leader says siblings ought to be able to have sex and get married if they both consent…Jamie the philosopher needs to take very much second place to Jamie the politician…it’s not an easy transition…even for rough-arse lawyer (as I was) to politician is quite a jump…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    People generally still had a strong revulsion against incest and so the taboo should stand.

    Can you back up that claim?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Not really, since it’s not actually a claim I made.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @PG, I suggest you ask a few of your friends. I cannot think of any that might not agree with the quote you referred to.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @David Garrett – “Jamie the philosopher needs to take very much second place to Jamie the politician.”

    Exactly. He needs to learn that stuff like this will stick.

    The Conservatives are led by Mr “Deny-the-moon-landing” and ACT is now led by Mr “Incest-is-fine”.
    That’s what the public thinks and that is *all that matters*.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    PG: Every now and again you make a plain silly comment…and that is one of them. Generally, taboos that are held by all or nearly all societies have a good basis in logic and common sense…murder is not OK in any contemporary society; beating people up for no reason (although sometimes the “reason” will seem odd to us) is not OK; abortion – even in liberal countries – is not something you just go and book in for, like getting your ear wax sucked out; sexual relations with children is generally not OK (although the definition of “child” varies a fair bit…)

    If you can direct me to ANY contemporary society – as opposed to a fringe cult like the original Mormons – which thinks incest is OK, I would be very interested to know of it….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    I asked a question DG, quoting someone else’s comment. It’s easy to male assumptions, but I suspect that one could be difficult to verify. Not advised for sure, but depending on the relationship I’m questioning how universal “revulsion” would be.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @David Garrett – “If you can direct me to ANY contemporary society – as opposed to a fringe cult like the original Mormons – which thinks incest is OK, I would be very interested to know of it….”

    I can think of one….. *Islam*.

    http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Cousin_Marriage_in_Islam

    Quote – “Prophet Muhammad himself married cousins, as he did with Zaynab bint Jahsh, who was not only the daughter of Umaimah bint Abd al-Muttalib, one of his father’s sisters,[1] but was also divorced from a marriage with Muhammad’s adopted son, Zayd ibn Haritha. It was this last issue that caused the most controversy, with traditional Arab norms at the time being opposed, though not the Qur’an (Sura Al-Ahzab 33:37). “

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I don’t know what the big deal is. In NZ, you can marry your first cousin. You can even have sex with them. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    David Garrett: Never trust an academic, but in this case he has been pre-empted by Phil Goff, who has been wishing to water down laws of incest for many years, along with lowering age of consent. It is a pity Tv1 did not get their left-wing messenger Bradford to do some research on this matter, instead of being preoccupied with besmirching Act. Also, why was Cunliffe making comment, when he was instrumental in same sex marriage, legalising prostitution, supporting Goff in his quest to lower age of consent, and loosening laws on incest; he being hardly in a position to make the comments he did . . . is this guidance of foul McCarten taking hold, supported by a irresponsible TVNZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Actually, you were misquoting my comment. Though I suspect you’ll twist yourself into semantic knots to avoid that admission – seeing as, unlike Mr Garrett, I’ve never actually seen you admit a mistake.

    I was clearly relating an anecdote where somebody asserted something to me. It’s preposterious to ask me to supply the data to back that up. I can back it up by virtue of just relating the story.

    Though it must be said, to demand evidence of societies general revulsion to the idea of incest betrays something about the plausibillity of the demander, I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Talking of taboo is nonsense. There might be a “taboo” against marrying your first cousin but it’s legal. Having sex with your first cousin is legal. It’s now legal for same sex marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    Seems more than a few US states reckon cousin- lovin is okay.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-laws-regarding-marriages-between-first-cousi.aspx

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Actually, you were misquoting my comment.

    People generally still had a strong revulsion against incest and so the taboo should stand.
    People generally still had a strong revulsion against incest and so the taboo should stand.

    Looks pretty much the same to me.

    I just asked if you could back it up – it wasn’t obviously a continuation of the previous sentence. All you had to do was explain it was related and you couldn’t back up someone else’s claim.

    Instead you chose to have a hissy fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    ross69: With your background, one would not doubt anything, in this disgusting area of life! The whole topic is evil and foul, just typical of the left, especially Labour, where male MPs have sexually attacked young men at, and after, social functions, having senior MPs protecting offenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Then you have sperm donors like Bill Johnson who seem to think they can “father” numerous kids who could grow up not knowing each other. In other words, there could well be accidental incest…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10772398

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Ha! I knew it!

    “This one guy, however, looked me straight in the eye and told me that he didn’t think taboos or prejudices were wrong provided they had the tacit support of society. In his view, homosexuality had been normalised and so the taboo shouldn’t be sustained. People generally still had a strong revulsion against incest and so the taboo should stand.”

    It’s all in a paragraph and I’ve used the past tense “had”. I would think almost any literate person would recognise that it’s a continuation of a story.

    Good old Peter George – twisting and turning to rationalise. 21,357 comments and still not a single error!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Not sure what point you’re trying to make Cato. You quoted it. Do you not agree with what you quoted? Or do you not think it should be queries>

    I think some levels of incest are an obvious and absolute no-no. But to what extent does that extend? First cousins? Second cousins? Step cousins? Are all levels “revolting” or does the degree of distaste diminish the less genes in common?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “Instead you chose to have a hissy fit.”

    says the dude who is mid hissy fit

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    I recall vividly as a kid, my older sister was demonstrating to me how to do a hand stand. At her first attempt, her T-shirt fell downwards, inadvertedly exposing her breasts to me. It was the first erection I ever got and I wondered what the hell was happening to me. All I know, was that it felt good! I asked her repeatedly to demonstrate the technique, but I think she clicked on and refused. Funny enough, I don’t think any amount of Govenment legislation would have prevented my biological response to that event, and neither do I think any such legislation will prevent it the future (Sorry Sis, you didn’t need to know this, but it wasn’t my fault!!)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden – umm thanks for the share?

    say 7 hail marys?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    What is Whyte’s stance on consenting ewes has anybody asked? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    You quoted me out of context, which is misquoting.

    Anyway, it’s all besides the point because it’s obvious that New Zealanders generally (i.e. excepting some cultural minorities) find the idea of intercourse between close family members repellent. If you want proof then just go ask any normanl person – including Jamie Whyte, it seems.

    Paul Marsden – I hope that’s a psuedonym.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Sidey (250 comments) says:

    and neither do I think any such legislation will prevent it the future

    May I suggest you then refrain from asking your sister to perform handstands at your next family gathering?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Paul demonstrates that it is not always naturally repulsive.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    PG – ever smack off thinking about a family member? be honest now

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Thanks Pete – good to know where you’re coming from on the question of incest.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    Meanwhile back at the Vatican:…..

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

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    There can be sound reasons at a genetic level, why incestuous relationships might not be beneficial in reproducing the species. However, Iceland, where much of its population has been bred from incestuous relationships, is an interesting study.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    Fucksake. Minus and the Catholic’s have joined forces against me!

    I’m fucked!!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    A family member! The average young bloke whose hormones are just starting to kick in could flog himself sightless over a picture in the National Geographic, bra adverts or a glimpse of his sister’s tits & fall madly in love with his thirty something year old physics teacher.

    Unless they’re born Catholic in which case they rely on nocturnal emissions. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. wrightingright (143 comments) says:

    https://twitter.com/Redbaiternz

    Ahhh ha! There he is!

    And he has just gained one more follower from myself :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Thanks JB. Of course, the validity of the office of the Pope is in no way tied to the impeccible behaviour of the office holders. Let’s also not forget that clerical celibacy is a current discipline of the Church, not an eternal doctrine.

    Still, less than 20 out of 265 popes is a pretty good record.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    My 30 something History teachers sloe eyed missus with the cleavage to die for still features in my sexual fantasies 50 years later nasska!

    Should I seek help?

    Can you reccomend a good Psych in Ekatahuna? Everyone in Wainui is crazier than me! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. wrightingright (143 comments) says:

    oh dear… hello Paul Marsden? ;-)

    https://www.facebook.com/paul.marsden.399?fref=ts

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    nasska (9,018 comments) says:

    February 27th, 2014 at 7:13 pm
    A family member! The average young bloke whose hormones are just starting to kick in could flog himself sightless over a picture in the National Geographic, bra adverts or a glimpse of his sister’s tits & fall madly in love with his thirty something year old physics t

    I plead guilty to all of the above and so do all of my mates…with whom I discreetly shared my father’s National Geographic magazine collection. (After school, that is…:-).

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    Pope Alexander VI’s sexual proclivities made up for the other 245 Cato! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    Reminds me of my boarding school years JB. Essentially we were confined to the college grounds for six/seven weeks at a time other than sports fixtures & dentist’s visits.

    The kitchen hand/serving wench at the dining hall was a girl in her twenties with a passable body but was a bit simple & looked it. For the first couple of weeks back after the holidays she didn’t rate but by week six if she’d called out “fuck me”, two hundred & fifty teenagers would have died in the rush, hard on in hand.

    As to a good head doctor in Eke…..see the barman at the Commercial. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    What College were you old chap? I of course was Scot’s. It’s awfully important that us inbreeds get to recognise a fellows handshake in case he may be touching our dicks and we haven’t noticed due to our awfully polite upbringing! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. BlairM (2,339 comments) says:

    My God, it’s such an obvious gotcha question! It’s a trap for novices those ones. The correct answer to questions like “what newspapers do you read”, or “do you support legalisinig incest” is to tell the reporter it’s a stupid question, and indicate, without using so many words, that said report should go fuck himself. (or in this case, a close relative…)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    I recall finding the instructions for a tampon packet…which included an illustration with the caption “spread the vaginal lips with your left hand”…An “occasion of sin” if ever there was one…But Father Sherry absolved me – after asking me to repeat the details of the sin four times so he had it clear in his mind…five Hail Mary’s later, and I was as good as new!

    Nasska: That reminds me of a certain “Helen” in Aberdeen…we met at a trawlermens bar down by the docks…I had been on Montrose Alpha – a production platform in the North Sea – for two weeks…I was 19….the anchor tattooed on helen’s arm only became alarming in the morning..

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    Not Scot’s JB….it was a Christian college north of Bombay so we probably didn’t cross dicks.

    In any case my formal education was terminated by expulsion in my sixth form year. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    nasska’s old school:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_College,_Mumbai

    No wonder he is such a well rounded fellow o my goodness gracious me oh yes indeed! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    David G

    Been there….done that. Waking up to the cold hard light of a new day & wondering how I could ever have drunk enough to ignore the ugliness.:)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    Hard to believe that the toughest roughnecks here took so long to learn what a beer gauge was! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    The only thing left is sheep

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    Ben Dover

    Around here we refer to them as live in lawn mowers. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Sorry did I leave out Alpacas

    or Alpacas and sheep and long as it’s “consensual”

    He’s not from Tasmania is he? when he pulls his fingers out

    Someone count them for him

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    Never compare them to your average Masport nasska!

    Hell Masport’s can’t keep a man warm all night, vibrate quietly as you cuddle them, smell nice and lanoliny/comfy/greeny!

    Unless, of course, you fuel them right up, reduce the idle speed to minimum and lubricate them with recycled stuff from the fish and chip shop! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. MT_Tinman (3,184 comments) says:

    nasska (9,023 comments) says:
    February 27th, 2014 at 7:47 pm
    David G

    Been there….done that. Waking up to the cold hard light of a new day & wondering how I could ever have drunk enough to ignore the ugliness.:)

    I remember waking up beside one that had me dry-wreching every time I looked at it.

    I staggered out and collapsed onto the couch to be woken later by the thing asking for coffee – memory ceases at that point.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. MT_Tinman (3,184 comments) says:

    Ben Dover (182 comments) says:
    February 27th, 2014 at 8:03 pm
    The only thing left is sheep

    The young ones were too damned fast, the slow ones too ugly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    Night all. Time for Terry and Arfur! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    You could be in luck Ben…..next week I’ll be crutching 350 two tooths before they go to the ram.

    You can have your pick…..by the kilo or the hour but make an early booking. The pretty ones go quickly. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    If Colin Craig had said this, it would be “nut job,” “crazy” etc. But because it’s ACT, its “refreshing,” and “standing by his principles.” The two different biases are laughable.

    So, what we’re saying is, its ok for someone to go around and spray paint over ACT hoardings, “Supports Incest.” K. done.

    We’ll give it a whirl and see how it runs. I’ll bring my Mum.

    P.S., best quote of the day, ACT campaign manager Richard Prebble. “Jamie Whyte is not really a politician.” I’ll say./

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    On the left:

    Labour candidate who was a man, now a woman, to marry ex-wife in lesbian relationship.

    On the right:

    Incest is awesome, but only for consenting ACT leaders and candidates.

    Glad we’ve got that cleared up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. btb (7 comments) says:

    No one sane participates in incest, there are many reasons why not, I won’t list them, to my mind they are obvious. It is a rare phenomenon and this idiot will not win over Epsom even mentioning the idea, why would you? That lot are very puritanical and will be quite disgusted, more so at his affront than his stupidity. Total dickhead not a vote winner.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    Which shows you just how fucking irrelevant you and yours are Stringer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ btb (2 comments) says:
    February 27th, 2014 at 8:51 pm

    I’m not quite sure about ‘Epsom’ disagreeing. I’ve always had the opinion that ‘Epsom’ would love to find a way to keep the rest of the world from their ‘space’. Perhaps Mr Whyte is offering a solution … which will raise a secondary question, is everyone in Epsom sane?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Inevitable but nasty: http://imperatorfish.com/2014/02/27/politics-explained-its-all-about-the-kids/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. tvb (4,418 comments) says:

    This is damn fool politics. Jamie Whyte may be a brilliant man but he is an absolute idiot when it comes to politics. Oh dear dear dear. I hope Richard Prebble steadies him and he has the good sense to listen.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Inevitable but nasty: http://imperatorfish.com/2014/02/27/politics-explained-its-all-about-the-kids/“Greens: leave the world a better place for our kids.”

    Greens: Don’t let any kid succeed, they’re all equal. – There, fixed it for Danyl.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Samuel Smith (276 comments) says:

    Tories not minding incest – seems to make sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Warren Murray (311 comments) says:

    Sometimes the wisest thing to say is nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    itstricky: Use your own given name sonny and I might take you remotely seriously

    Garrett, son. You seem to have a fixation on exposing names. Sometimes I wonder whether that’s so you can dig up dirt and have a go like a good old politican – I mean you have tried to guess who I am several times before just so you could get some cheap plugs in. Sad news my friend, I’m just an average Joe.

    Other times I think it’s because you like to remind everyone about your indescretions and then whine about how hard done by you are. News, buddy, news -: once a crim, always a crim – accept you did wrong – be the bigger man and move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    I am not the least interested in “digging dirt” on you son…I suspect your life has been so boring there wouldn’t be anything to dig…my “fixation on names” is quite simple: as DPF said yesterday, if you are going to have a go at someone you should be willing to put your name to your comments…is that simple…otherwise you’re just another boring anonymous internet troll…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. eszett (2,408 comments) says:

    Cato (1,069 comments) says:
    February 27th, 2014 at 6:55 pm
    You quoted me out of context, which is misquoting.

    Anyway, it’s all besides the point because it’s obvious that New Zealanders generally (i.e. excepting some cultural minorities) find the idea of intercourse between close family members repellent.

    Remind me again, how did supposedly Adam and Eve’s children and later Noah’s children repopulate the earth?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    John Key and John Banks could now Marry

    if they wanted to

    it would be ok

    I wonder what was on the tea tapes
    or was that someone else

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    The entire population of the world is around 6.2 billion and one billion people live in countries where 20 to over 50 per cent of marriages are between cousins, 2.9 billion live in countries where it is between 1 per cent and 10 per cent

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/481090/Marrying-cousin-not-a-health-risk-geneticist

    Funny how so many people I thought supported the rights of consenting adults to have freedom of choice to love and marry other consenting adults apparently are narrow minded bigots after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    I knew it would not be long before they would start a serious discussion or
    campaign to marry sheep or alpacas

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    This is serious business that is beneficial to all the sheep of NZ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Someone buy him a blow up sheep

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    as DPF said yesterday, if you are going to have a go at someone you should be willing to put your name to your comments…
    What DPF said on his Online abuse post:

    it might be that people pause for a few seconds and don’t say anything online about someone that they would not be prepared to say under their own name, to their face.

    That doesn’t require someone to put their name to their comments, just that they behave as if the posted under their name or as if it was said face to face.

    My spin on this – use a pseudonym if you wish, but don’t abuse that privilege by using it as cover or an excuse for abusing others.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Pete George (21,362 comments) says:
    February 28th, 2014 at 5:59 am

    Whilst I agree with what you say Pete, the fact is in today’s day and age, and as this blog frequently demonstrates, not everyone has the same principles. Given the frequent demonstrations on here of people who prefer to sling personal abuse rather than discuss the issues, why should one be trusting enough to use their identity, allowing the possibility of such unbalanced behaviour infiltrating their personal lives?

    I think Charlotte Dawson’s issue on bullying should make us all aware of the vulnerability of some people – and highlight the need to be very careful with your identity in cyberspace.

    The other issue is of course that some people wish to be able to comment without their comments being reflected back on family etc, should their family name be well known and connect them to public figures. Or like me, because previous employment bought me into contact with some pretty unsavory characters, none of whom I would wish to meet again, on or off line.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. CharlieBrown (1,011 comments) says:

    “Well personally, I don’t think they [the State] should. However, it’s a matter of almost no significance because it just doesn’t happen.” If nothing else, I’m impressed by the consistency in his belief in Classical Liberalism. I can’t think of any other NZ politicians I could get that answer from. Jamie quickly reminds me that these are his views, not ACT views and not policies he’ll be representing in his job as leader. And this is, what I see as the problem with Jamie Whyte.”

    Wow – whoever in the media that decided to jump on this needs a f’ing good head smashing. And Collins and key need to shut the f up and stop implying that it is ACT policy. Whyte was the first person to say that and the first person to say it isn’t an issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. tvb (4,418 comments) says:

    Whyte was trying to make a point on liberalism but he chose an example which suggests even that worthy philosophy has its ;limits. So shot himself in the proverbial foot. I am unsure whether he gets that. That makes him a damn fool politician.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Samuel Smith: You ignorant left-wing loser, Goff has been pushing for incest to be watered down for years, along with lowering the age of consent. Labour has legalised botty banditry, prostitution, weirdo marriage, and weirdo adoption . . . get your facts right you one-eyed loser, you and ross 69 are the pits.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    That doesn’t require someone to put their name to their comments, just that they behave as if the posted under their name or as if it was said face to face.

    Which is pretty much what I have done in a non threatening way. No swearing no name calling no trolling. I am pointing out how hypocritical it is for a convicted to release his own law then to come on here and whine about how he was hard done by. It’s always the other guy’s fault. It’s also vastly disingenuous to say that you will only take people seriously if they use real names when pretty much every one of his posts where he knows the identity of the poster begins with some sort of personal attack.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    Ba Ba Bahhhhhhhh

    give him a blow up sheep

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    On that note, apparently zoophilia is perfectly legal in bits of Australia :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. goldnkiwi (1,304 comments) says:

    Some commentary the other day about marrying ones robot. All of a sudden marriage to anything is de jour. lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    And why not? We’ve well and truly crossed the Rubicon IMO.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. markm (114 comments) says:

    Whyte is a fool for responding as he did but then again Labour party advisor Bryan Gould according to todays Telegraph is probably more of a fool

    Meanwhile it emerged that the former Labour MP Bryan Gould was invited to become an honorary vice-president of PIE and said that he had a “good deal of sympathy” for the group’s objectives, despite turning down their offer.
    BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme discovered that Mr Gould, a shadow minister during Neil Kinnock’s leadership, was contacted by PIE in the 1970s. He was approached following a speech he made to the Campaign for Homosexual Equality.
    In a 1977 letter published by PIE’s in-house magazine, he said: “Yours is an unpopular cause and whilst I have a good deal of sympathy for your objectives, I do not think it would be fair to my wife and family for me to take a public stand on it… I’m sorry to have to send you such a disappointing reply.”
    Mr Gould told the BBC that he did not remember the correspondence but had never had the slightest sympathy for paedophiles or any involvement with PIE.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Thanks for pointing this out Mark. The following explain clearly what PIE is about and the UK Labour Party’s links including our own Bryan Gould. I am generally against dragging things up from someone’s past. I can excuse someone for being a communist in their 20s but not for supporting paedophilia in any way.

    This is the reply Bryan Gould sent when asked to be an honorary vice-president of the Paedophile Information Exchange in 1977:

    “Thank you for your letter and for your invitation to become an honorary vice-president. I am afraid that I have so much on my plate at the moment that it would be unwise of me to take on any further responsibilities for the time being. I should be less than honest with you however if I were to give you the impression that lack of time is my only difficulty. As you say yours is an unpopular cause and whilst I have a good deal of sympathy for your objectives, I do not think it would be fair to my wife and family for me to take a public stand on it. They suffered somewhat as a result of me speech to CHE and while I am robust enough to take the comments, correspondence etc., my wife in particular reacts badly to it. I am sorry to have to send you such a disappointing reply.”

    Mr Gould told us today told us that he didn’t remember the correspondence and asked us to make clear that he has never had the slightest sympathy for paedophilies or any involvement with the Paedophile Information Exchange. He told us that “whereas today I would have rejected any contact with them at all. In the climate of the opinion of those days, with so little known about paedophilia, I gave them a polite reply.”

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s0nk07

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01t01rb

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    For once, I must agree with Chuck on something (gasp!). I have never supported pedophilia, incest or child porn in any manner, shape or form. All of the above are nothing more than child rape and I am deeply disappointed in the UK National Council for Civil Liberties in allowing this ephemeral pedophile group (1977-84) to affiliate with it. One wonders if Chuck is similarly ashamed of the antifeminist zealots who launched the witch hunt against pediatricians who were assiduous in detecting child sexual abuse in the British city of Cleveland in the eighties? Or Graham Capill? Or Jimmy Saville? Or Catholic clergy pedophiles?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Ben Dover (526 comments) says:

    There must be so many important issues to deal with in NZ for this to be

    A TOPIC

    Get him an inflatable SHEEP DOLL and be done with it

    and while you are at it just for him replace the stars on the NZ flag with Sheep

    You people follow people like this LIKE SHEEP

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