Meet a charming left wing local body politician

July 31st, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

is a (Labour/Greens) board member on the Auckland Council Waitemata Local Board.

Matthew Beveridge details a Facebook exchange between Dempsey and Councillor Dick Quax. In a discussion over Jamie Whyte’s speech, Demosey says”

and in the afternoon I saw you picking up children from Vick Ave Primary – I should have pushed you into the gutter

It then gets even more charming as you’ll see over the link.

Residents of Waitemata should feel proud they have such a classy elected representative.

 

Tags: ,

31 Responses to “Meet a charming left wing local body politician”

  1. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    Posting publicly where a Political opponent’s kids go to school is pretty bloody nasty…
    Do the Left have no Moral Compass??

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. lastmanstanding (1,278 comments) says:

    No surprise from the Socialist and Communist Parties. All class that lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Quax mocks Dempsey for hanging out around a school.

    And Dempsey’s response is “90% of kiddie fiddlers are straight”!

    I assume Dempsey is gay?

    All he did was point out that the population of kiddie fiddlers has the same gay/straight ratio as the rest of society.

    But the way he said it makes it obvious he was trying to declare that paedophilia is a “straight man disease”.

    These tweets should be up on a billboard in the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ldypen (35 comments) says:

    Dempsey is obviously a real nasty prat, one that probably thinks the sun shines out of his ass, however Quax has shown that he’s not that cleaver either when it comes to using social media. Just show’s how poor local politicians are.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I see he has apologised for his comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. hmmokrightitis (1,582 comments) says:

    You’re very right miken…because, I suspect, it was made more public. What is it with people – not just left people – who think its OK to be a Captain Keyboard Cock? No, not you miken :)

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dime (9,799 comments) says:

    Greased up deaf guy is kinda angry lol

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Rex Widerstrom (5,345 comments) says:

    “I should have pushed you into the gutter”.

    Somehow when I conjure that phrase in my mind it’s being said by some fey aristocrat about 200 years ago, complete with waving of a perfumed hanky. Or the Prince Regent on “Blackadder”. One or the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. lolitasbrother (626 comments) says:

    http://postcardsfrombangkok.blogspot.com/2013/10/racism-in-dogs.html

    racism in dogs

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. David Garrett (6,952 comments) says:

    Lovely fellow…why are they all so obsessed with the fact they are gay??

    Oh and just to be controversial (boring day at the home office) AIDS in western countries IS overwhelmingly a gay disease…the AIDS Foundation was set up all those years ago to try and make out “anyone can catch it”…(which in the very early days, when blood wasn’t screened properly, was sadly true)…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. unaha-closp (1,157 comments) says:

    off topic sort of, but since this spat started over Jamie Whyte…

    Is it Act policy to repeal the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act of 2011 and not replace it?

    This is obviously race based legislation through which the state has socialised all of the beaches.

    The Act Party could clear up this racism accusation very easily by saying that they will repeal the foreshore bill and let the courts decide who owns the beaches. The Maori tribes could then develop their property, put a few fences up – that sort of thing.

    The privilege of going to the beach for free would be banished to the pages of history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. David Garrett (6,952 comments) says:

    unaha: that was certainly ACT policy when I was in…I am not sure what their policy on the foreshore and seabed is now…

    Except they would have to establish customary title to particular beaches..and that would not be easy…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. unaha-closp (1,157 comments) says:

    DG – Yeah, John Boscowan used to reiterate it from time to time.

    If Jaime Whyte comes out and explicitly says he wishes to remove the privilege of visiting beaches for free, along with the privileges of Maori entrance criteria and RMA power which he has repeatedly highlighted, it would show he is trying to be unbiased.

    Whyte keeps repeating those privileges conferred upon Maori as being objectionable and neglects to mention privileges granted over Maori…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. itstricky (1,767 comments) says:

    Meet a charming left wing local body politician

    Of course a “right wing” person would never be nasty. Stop being so…. ….politicalist. Jamie will be on to your backside.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. itstricky (1,767 comments) says:

    Whyte keeps repeating those privileges conferred upon Maori as being objectionable and neglects to mention privileges granted over Maori…

    funny…David Garrett seems to have gone quiet… Perhaps he’s got it now…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. duggledog (1,496 comments) says:

    There are beaches, lakes and rivers all over New Zealand – especially from Palmy North north – where if you are minding your business, having a day out and there’s nobody else around, and you’re obviously white, you can easily be approached by an angry Maori or two or ten and told to get the f*** off my whenua whether it is or isn’t.

    This has happened to five different people I know of and myself. With the nearest cop miles away and no cell reception, who you going to call? Chris Finlayson? Dempsey? Doesn’t he still live with his mum or something? Weirdo

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. lolitasbrother (626 comments) says:

    Pretty tough heading to beach up the North East Coast, need some serious equipment.
    It is not possible to govern a country when beach heads are controlled by private interests, whoever they are

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,875 comments) says:

    Dumb bastard it illiterate as well as ill mannered. Seems to think incredulous means incredible.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. David Garrett (6,952 comments) says:

    Its and idiot: touché…I was actually at a wake down at the local…had to leave early because of the heavy constabulary presence…

    duggle: Not long before my political career came to an end I did a speaking tour around Northland on this subject… At Every meeting we held – and we were getting 30 and 40 people in the middle of the week at this time of year – there was someone who had had some bros order them off “their” beach…and that’s before the bloody law was even passed!

    ACT’s position then – I don’t know about now – was pretty straightforward: a return to the status quo ante the court decision that cast doubt on what had been settled law for 50 years i.e. that the foreshore and seabed was owned by the Crown – and allow individual Maori or hapu or Iwi to make claims to the High Court for customary title over specific pieces of F & S… and the bits that were so declared would be that iwi/hapu’s private property, which of course they could charge for entrance to…But all the rest would have been owned by the Crown.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. itstricky (1,767 comments) says:

    Its and idiot: touché…I was actually at a wake down at the local…

    Well I feel terrible now. Sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. itstricky (1,767 comments) says:


    and allow individual Maori or hapu or Iwi to make claims to the High Court for customary title over specific pieces of F & S…

    Why do you not conceed that this is an example , as the poster above said, of an removal of Maori right rather than going on about privilege? I mean surely an ex ACToid, hot on individual property rights, would proclaim this as a travesty of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. itstricky (1,767 comments) says:

    Hold on I think I can answer that one for you. You’re going to go all whacko Ansell on it and.proclaim it was never theirs in the first place, aren’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Griff (7,262 comments) says:

    Good oh itstricky
    We will go back to pre contact property rights.
    Go down the local beach and a Maori tells me his chief owns it.
    So I shoot the Maori , all his family and the chief except those I wish to keep as slaves, tattoo up for the smoked head market or for a later dinner.
    All legally mine now.
    Maori didn’t have property rights stronger than might. property rights are what they received from the treaty which allows English law
    English law the crown owns all the sea bed foreshore and navigable rivers

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. DJP6-25 (1,355 comments) says:

    No surprise here. It’s SOP for the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. David Garrett (6,952 comments) says:

    It’s… (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt re you comment about the wake): In brief, ACT’s legal position is this…If the F & S was owned by anyone pre 1840 it was probably owned by local iwi who had traditional food gathering/fishing sites etc…just as all of the land in NZ was owned by the possessors as at 1840…I believe I read somewhere that the Auckland isthmus changed hands 15 times or something in the 100 years pre 1840, but a line had to be drawn somewhere…The treaty as originally drafted contained a “Crown pre-emption” clause, which basically said only the Crown could be buyers of land from Maori…the intent being to prevent Maori being ripped off by sly land sharks…at the same time, all deals done prior to 1840 were nullified..

    As far as anyone can tell, no-one gave much thought to the F & S…it was just assumed to belong to everyone or no-one…then in the 1850’s there was some legislation passed which decreed that the F & S around the whole country was owned by the crown…that was challenged in the 1960’s in a case whose name I cannot immediately recall, and that case confirmed the status quo .i.e. that the F & S was owned by the Crown on behalf of all NZers…that remained settled law until the 90’s when some iwi made a claim to a specific portion of F & S in Marlborough…the result of that case was a suggestion that title to the F & S had never been “alienated” (I,e taken by the Crown) in the first place, which in turn prompted the Labour government’s F & S Act to legislate for the status quo ante.

    ACT’s position was to go back to the status quo ante the case in the 90’s, but to allow individual Maori or groups of Maori to take claims to the High Court over particular beaches.

    But then perhaps you are just stirring, and are not really interested in my answer…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. David Garrett (6,952 comments) says:

    ah…that would appear to be the case then…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. itstricky (1,767 comments) says:

    Very funny. Two hours, that’s all you give me? I do have other things to do, you know.

    I am interested in your answer. Apart from it being informative, you’ve not answered my question. Although the F&S is something that will never be truely satisfied one way or the other, you would have to agree that there is a Maori point in there to be made about the whole “assumed ownership”. And, therefore, a legally enforced disadvantage from the 1850s. Why do you not take that into account when you go on about Maori privilege?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (9,770 comments) says:

    Professionalism. Who needs it?

    Just act like a teenager.

    That gets you everwhere in real life, so obviously that’s what you do as a politician.

    Can’t help but notice this is in Auckland…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. WineOh (625 comments) says:

    They both look like douchnozzles to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,770 comments) says:

    Why didn’t Dick Quax just say “What’s wrong with you?” And ignore anything further?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. deadrightkev (409 comments) says:

    Never heard of Chris Dempsey, nor do I know who he stands for in politics. I do know now he is a Johnny come lately wanker who knows nothing about NZ history, Maori, the Treaty of Waitangi or equality however.

    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.