Laila in Wonderland

June 6th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Trans-tasman hit the nail with their piece on Laila in Wonderland:

But we kind of crashed through the looking glass last week with the anointment of as leader of Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party. It is possible, back when she was an ardent campaigner for feminism and against capitalism, racism and corporatism, Harre foresaw the day she would sign up to front a party funded by a convicted German fraudster who made much of his money from pornography and who also has a fetish for racist, not to say out- right Nazi, humour. Harre wasn’t even elected: she was anointed by the aforementioned convicted German fraudster who has trafficked in pornography and who thinks n-word jokes are hilarious. 

There are many terms for this sort of thing, none of them complimentary. We will avoid the ‘h’ word – not just because MPs are not allowed to use the term hypocrisy in the House, but mostly because hypocrisy is part of the human condition. All of us fall short of our ideals. But this is not mere hypocrisy, not a minor falling short. This is moral bankruptcy of a particularly shameless kind.

Sold out for 150,000 pieces of silver.

Tags: ,

38 Responses to “Laila in Wonderland”

  1. Pete George (23,351 comments) says:

    Sold out for 150,000 pieces of silver.

    I don’t think so. It’s the allure of $3,000,000 or more that Harre and others thinks will finance making their political dreams a reality.

    They look like unprincipled mercenaries who risk buying into a nightmare.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. rightoverlabour (76 comments) says:

    There is another H word used to describe taking money for services… (and it’s not “Harre”)

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. PaulP (144 comments) says:

    I think you’ll find the word you are referring to rightoverlabour doesn’t in fact start with an “H”. The persons surname that sounds the same does however.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ROJ (104 comments) says:

    Oh yes there is PaulP, have a check through older editions of the good book. Clue: – starts with the same three letters …

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Tarquin North (214 comments) says:

    Like everyone else who goes near the fat german she will end up crashing and burning. I suspect in very sack cloth and ashes socialist way in her case – if there is such a thing. She should have checked with Banks before taking the job. It doesn’t pay to get on the wrong side of the fuhrer.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. eszett (2,374 comments) says:

    The Trans-Tasman doesn’t like left wing parties. Shock, Horror.

    Again, if Dotcom would be propping up a party to run against Helen Clark I am certain they would take a slight more relaxed view of his professed fetishes and how he came about his money.

    Of course then he wouldn’t have made his money “in pornography” but in the “music and film business”, and he would have a fetish for nazi-humour, but would be an eccentric.

    So now the left should not be playing by the rules of the right? Because large suns in politics leads to corruption? Surprise!

    There only reason why Dotcom can do what he is doing is because National refused to do what is right.
    No word on that from trans-tasman?

    Yes, indeed, there is an H word for what the Trans-Tasman is doing.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    The poor Harre is just another left-winger without principles, who sold his soul to a German crook for a handful of dollars.

    The same can be said about Minto, Corkery, and the rest of political and legal prostitutes that inhabit the Mana-Internet Party.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. greenjacket (437 comments) says:

    eszett: “The Trans-Tasman doesn’t like left wing parties. Shock, Horror.”
    Ummm – you really don’t know about Trans-Tasman do you.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. stephieboy (2,541 comments) says:

    Actually the antics and moral bankruptcy of Harre makes one nostalgic for the days of Bill Anderson and Ken Douglas.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. burt (8,037 comments) says:

    Why is anybody surprised these crusty old lefties have sold out for cash – these folk have been around long enough to see their ideology fail multiple times yet they still claim it works and push it as viable and sustainable. These old lefties are crooked and dishonest in their very existence – selling out for cash is just an extension of fooling themselves they have a sustainable and valid cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ross001 (142 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 39 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ross001 (142 comments) says:

    Like everyone else who goes near the fat german

    My goodness, you couldn’t even settle for xenophobia. Nothing like having a reasoned argument…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. georgebolwing (686 comments) says:

    For someone leading a well-funded political party, staffed by a veritiable army of professional operatives, Laila Harre has been very quiet lately.

    I suspect that reality is starting to bite, and there are many meetings being had in which the “founding visionary” is pointing out that he isn’t funding a pro-state, neomarxist party committed to the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, he is funding a vanity party committed to (a) keeping him in New Zealand and (b) some vauge stuff about the internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. burt (8,037 comments) says:

    ross001

    They did it too mummy, it’s not fair to just tell me off when others also stole biscuits.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. burt (8,037 comments) says:

    ross001

    I wish you were setting the policy for speeding tickets. If I were caught speeding I could just say ‘other people speed too’ and the officer would say – OK, right – you better move on then.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. hmmokrightitis (1,572 comments) says:

    Funnily enough eszett, I may not be alone in being from the right and wanting to have nothing to do with a convicted criminal and his ‘political aspirations’, which are as transparent as a man wrapped in clingfilm. Ms Harre may have thrown aside her principles and morals, good for her, as is the case with that sad old marxist, Minto. Sue Bradford is STILL the only one to have any courage in her convictions in all of this.

    As for Harre, Im waiting for her to say how cool these interweb thingys are, and say every one should have an interweb.

    The stupidity from her the other day regarding PostiePlus was breathtaking. A company falling apart primarily because it couldn’t change its business model to ‘fit’ the web, despite the brilliant web model it has built over the years. The very same web model that is the primary focus of the large and very well known international brand that is buying PP for just that reason – its web model. Soon to be expanded and used internationally. Will Ms Harre applaud that when it happens, after all, more jobs for KuyWuy’s via that interweb thingy, right Ms Harre?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ross001 (142 comments) says:

    Given DPF keeps banging on about donations to political parties, is it safe to assume he supports public funding of parties?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ChardonnayGuy (1,190 comments) says:

    Again, I have grave doubts about whether the Internet Party will be able to undertake the detailed policy development process and imposing the infrastructural discipline required for the emergence of a coherent political party by the time that we go to the polls. Laila Harre may be a seasoned political performer, but political party organisations are built on infrastructure, policy development and amenable evidence-based research to ground such policies. We have one side of that equation, but not the other. Based on the experience of the German Pirate Party and its downfall precisely for the latter reasons, I am sceptical about the ultimate progress of the Internet Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. rightoverlabour (76 comments) says:

    Hmm, More than I imagined begin with H including that which starts with W. HOwever as I don’t want a liable case as I can’t HUStle up the money to defend myself and don’t have the HARt to tarnish the young ladie’s reputation further…. WHO REads this carefully will understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. prezzy (1 comment) says:

    Laila and her highly principled comrades were obviously never exposed to the cesspool that was the Mega website of old – one look at that and any decent person would run a mile from its founder, not get into bed with him. Unfortunately due to their own purity of thought (and hubris) they have now found themselves in the last place that they would ever knowingly choose to be. I feel sorry for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. BeaB (2,084 comments) says:

    Laila lost all credibility for me when she said she didn’t know her internet provider because her husband pays those bills and she can speak to the youth voter because she is a parent.
    For a lifelong feminist the first comment is gobsmacking. And also exposes her lack of knowledge of the internet.
    The second comment is the sort of lame thing only oldies say.
    This is no more than a shameless and cycnical grab for power. She will pay with the loss of her reputation, sadly as she has stood for principles in the past.
    However, I don’t call any of these things a ‘rort’, a word too frequently used by the medai and the Left. If it’s in the rules you can do it. If you don’t like it, change the rules as Cunliffe says he is unilaterally going to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “a ‘rort’, a word too frequently used by the medai”

    Wow. ‘Medai’. Love it.

    Expresses perfectly the combined media, cohorts and spokes people.

    If this word trended and gained traction it would be suppressed.

    I am awed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. burt (8,037 comments) says:

    ross001

    Given DPF keeps banging on about donations to political parties, is it safe to assume he supports public funding of parties?

    Go on, find a quote from DPF where he states that donations over $5,000 are corrupt – Do your best, spend the next 27 years searching.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. goldnkiwi (1,179 comments) says:

    Laila the wunderkinder?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. David Garrett (6,786 comments) says:

    right over: You don’t need to be so circumspect…Because of a case called Lange v. Atkinson, you can say pretty much whatever you like about a current or former Polititian in this country “Political whore” would not be actionable…”whore” without any qualifier might be a touch more problematic…but then thanks to a wise Labour government, whoring for a living is now just another occupation…though of course in Newspeak whores are now “sex workers”…sounds so much nicer…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ross411 (296 comments) says:

    Kim Dotcom is someone whose behaviour I have found objectionable, and do not trust. I have no faith he, or his wife who is likely still beholden to him, told the truth about Banks. This does not mean I believe Banks is necessarily innocent. The internet party does look like a way for KDC to avoid extradition, and I think that it and the politicians associated with it should be held for any accountable for any actions.

    However, the world is full of people waiting to get offended, and of those who look for a chance to get offended on other people’s behalves.

    He can own two copies of Mein Kampf for all I care. And every page can be signed by a different Nazi. Similarly, he can be racist every day. What matters is intent. I had a mexican friend who loved it when I said racist things. And he’d tell me new ones to say, like “Are you a mexican or a mexican’t?” But I’d never go out and say those things to a stranger. It’s one thing to own these things, and say these things, and another to go out and act in the way these things are associated with.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Dead Earnest (149 comments) says:

    Eva Harre. Has a sort of ring to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. mike tan (433 comments) says:

    Not making a conclusive judgement on his alleged motives but genuinely curious on how exactly he would get the extradition quashed?

    I can only think of two ways, one would be the IP having a Minister of Justice (don’t they have complete discretion with regards to international extradition requests?) from within its ranks (and having a ministerial post seems unthinkable for a party polling at below 1%). The second would be passing legislation of some sort, which is also unthinkable given that they would never have a majority and such an act would have to be supported by various parties (and would be about as blatant an abuse of executive/legislative power as can be imagined).

    Unless someone can come along and present a plausible scenario, i am going to lean towards his funding of the IP being more about a personal vendetta against Key (and the right wing establishment) than anything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. lilman (932 comments) says:

    Thanks KDC,you got Corkery off the air.

    Now Piss-off.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. burt (8,037 comments) says:

    mike tan

    I think that’s a valid analysis, but I think you overreached a bit in saying his agenda may be against the right wing establishment. There is ample behaviours displayed by Dotcom that make it hard to cast him as anti right wing establishment. It’s more about Dotcom v Key than any ideology in my opinion. I suspect any PM irrespective of the colour they nail to the mast would be a target as would their ideology de-jour had this not been a National party PM.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. burt (8,037 comments) says:

    lilman

    The sting in the tail of getting Corkery off the air is we could end up with 3 years of her droning leftist clap trap in parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. burt (8,037 comments) says:

    If Dotcom were to behave according to how the likes of Hone, Corkery, Haare and Minto have preached over the years he’d be living in a plain house in suburbia driving a Toyota. His fleet of Mercedes, helicopters, security costs, and lavish lifestyle costs would have been paid in ‘rich prick’ taxes because no one man needs that much money.

    And these lefty sell outs, having preached the evil of wealth accumulation for decades, are suddenly cozy in bed with everything their ideology despises. It’s like all the hard left have gone and collected the CEO’s from all the corporates they despise and made a FrankenKim and appointed him their leader. It’s nuts.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. burt (8,037 comments) says:

    The hard left regularly declare that profit is simply unpaid wages. Under their own logic asserted in their slogans others should live by Dotcom must be a disgraceful employer, but they eat at his table.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Than (440 comments) says:

    I can only think of two ways, one would be the IP having a Minister of Justice (don’t they have complete discretion with regards to international extradition requests?) from within its ranks (and having a ministerial post seems unthinkable for a party polling at below 1%).

    The IP wouldn't need to have the Justice portfolio themselves, they'd just need to make a deal where the (presumably Labour) Justice Minister agrees to block Dotcom's extradition. It'd all be hush-hush under the table of course (none of the parties involved would want to be seen making such a blatant corrupt dirty deal) but it would still be a non-negotiable requirement for Labour getting IP support.

    Of course Dotcom denies his extradition will be part of any agreement… but if you believe that I've got a bridge in Nigeria I can sell you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Psycho Milt (2,368 comments) says:

    This is moral bankruptcy of a particularly shameless kind.

    As usual, they’re wrong. ‘Moral bankruptcy of a particularly shameless kind’ is much better illustrated by this right-wing ginger group pretending to offer objective political analysis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Psycho Milt (2,368 comments) says:

    Anyway – do supporters of a government entirely happy to include in its ranks a man found guilty of electoral fraud really want to get into questions of which is the most morally bankrupt party? If Harre was to do that, I really would consider it moral bankruptcy of a particularly shameless kind…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (23,351 comments) says:

    “The IP wouldn’t need to have the Justice portfolio themselves, they’d just need to make a deal where the (presumably Labour) Justice Minister agrees to block Dotcom’s extradition.”

    I asked Andrew Little (Labour spokesperson for Justice) a while ago whether Labour would negotiate on the extradition and he responded:

    The Labour Party doesn’t have any position or policy on the extradition proceedings concerning Kim Dotcom.

    It would be premature and constitutionally improper for any political party to express a view on how a ministerial discretion might be exercised in this regard before the courts have determined eligibility as to do so may give the appearance of trying to influence the court contrary to the principle of independence of the judiciary.

    If the court decides Mr Dotcom is eligible for extradition then the incumbent Minister of Justice must exercise a statutory discretion under the Extradition Act 1999 and the exercise of that discretion must conform to the longstanding requirements for ministerial discretion which include that it must take into account relevant considerations and discount irrelevant considerations and otherwise be rational.

    I do not think that the political requirements of assembling a new government constitute a relevant consideration in determining whether a person should be extradited.

    Mr Dotcom’s extradition, regardless of the status of the court proceedings at the time, will not be part of any negotiations on Labour’s part.

    That’s a clear no to the extradition being a part of negotiations.

    If Labour lead the Government when Dotcom’s extradition goes to the Minister of Justice for consideration this will presumably be Andrew Little’s decision, and it will be under intense scrutiny. If a decision was made that looked like a political favour it would be widely slammed and would discredit the government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Than (440 comments) says:

    Pete, what else would you expect Labour to say? Whether they were willing to make a deal or not, they’d never admit it in a million years. And if they did end up blocking extradition they’d swear black and blue that it was unrelated to needing the IP’s support. Yes they’d be discredited, but they’d still be the government.

    If Dotcom made blocking extradition a non-negotiable bottom line for IP party support, would Labour say no? I doubt it.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.