by frog
Aaron Bhatnagar has gleefully swooped on the Herald’s ‘revolution’ article this morning and has swallowed whole its implication that you lot are all Green Party members. Perhaps you should all be insulted by his assessment of your credentials:
I had a gander at the controversial Green Party posting and comments, and there is the usual nonsense about Rupert Murdoch owning the Listener (he doesn’t), presumably this being a reason why the Green Party gets bad press. Other members want nice esoteric arguments like “Both left and right believe that its wrong to commit murder. Do both believe that its wrong to poison people? What constitutes poisoning a person? Can you legislate a form of social responsibility without a social welfare system?”.
Good luck guys.
A “Controversial” blog posting? What ever next! 
Earlier he says:
More solar panels? Peak oil? Sticking up for Ahmed Zaoui? This stuff is simply not relevant to everyday NZers.
Oh, really? Aaron, if you’d said “not of interest to everyday NZers” you might have had a point. But curiously everyday NZers find being able to bathe their children and get to work cheaply, and even the spotlessness of their country’s human rights record, rather relevant, so dare I suggest that *our* issues, are not going away…
Published in Campaign | Media by frog on Wed, October 12th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
“I suggest that *our* issues, are not going away”
On the contrary, as an amnesty will soon be in place in Algeria, Ahmed will be able to go away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I didn’t chip in at the time, but I think the coalition-negotiation news-dead-zone is a key driver of the current bout of Green-bashing/dissection. I’m probably dead-centre in the Green-swing voter core demographic (ie post-grad educated, 24-29, middle-class intellectuals/professionals, allergic to hippies, not Green Party members) so I think I can vouch for the source of the swing (which I did not join). The Greens didn’t do anything to chase away the votes of people like me, or make any serious election cock-ups. All those past Green voters like me, still like the Greens. People in my demographic were just shit-scared of National getting in. That’s it. Shit-scared. Simple really.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what an absolute tosser Bhatnagar is. I just posted this on his blog:
Aaron, it’s a bit crap of you to take the odd comment from a public discussion forum and somehow make it out to be representative of the membership of the Green Party. I’m sure if I looked widely enough I could find some comments on your blog that are a load of rubbish too (there’s one from sinner above for example).
There are completely rubbish comments on frogblog from both left and right-wing people, just as there are very well reasoned and astute comments from both left and right wing users. IMHO there are a larger proportion of reasoned comments (as opposed to crap ones) on frogblog than most other NZ politics blogs, many of which often degenerate into rabid slagging off tirades.
It’s a public comment system, each comment is only the view of it’s author and no-one else. That’s the whole point. As a blogger yourself I’d have thought you would understand that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
andrewfalloon:
Ahmed may well go home one day, but the precedents of his case and human rights generally aren’t going anywhere
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Too right, frog.
Except that ACT wouldn’t consider human rights causes *their* issue. Some of the worst human rights abuses stem from developing countries with heavily deregulation and hence the proliferation of carte blanche anti-worker and anti-union policies in place. To expect laissez-faire advocates to be concerned about human rights is much akin to expecting Hilter to be concerned about the rights of Jews.
ACT – Advocates of Corporate Tyranny
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew said “On the contrary, as an amnesty will soon be in place in Algeria, Ahmed will be able to go away”
Once again, ‘the right’ demonstrates the singular ability to miss the point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stuey,
I asked the question about whether murdoch owned the listener, my grandmother had told me that he does and I genieuinely wanted to know. I also posed the questions about murder, poison and social welfare. I am sorry if my ignorance has put frogblog into disrepute but I do not consider those posts to be “rubbish comments”.
Maybe I am asking “esoteric” questions. Why doesn’t this Aaron chap try to answer them? If he’s got an answer I’d love to hear it. Calling an inoccent question about the ownership of the listener “usual nonsense” and making absurd assumptions about the reason for the question is the real “rubbish comment”.
It seems to be a trend with some people that they are not interested in actually discussing an issue / question, but rather they run anybody down who brings up an issue / asks a question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Murdoch owns News Corporation which in New Zealand is the Sky network. His newpapers include the Sun in Britain and the Australian in obviously Australia. The main media owners in New Zealand are Fairfax Publishers (all the newspapers on stuff.co.nz) and CanWest (RadioWorks and TV Works i.e. C4, TV 3, the rock, the edge, moreFM etc).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I also think he owns Prime TV but I could be wrong. At any rate he currently doesnt own any print media here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
one more thing… questions about the domination of Murdoch in the media are really important and need to be asked. dont be ashamed for wanting to know more. NZ is starting to come under threat of domination by certain companies in their media products, and we need to start thinking outside the square about what kinds of media we are using and relying on. for example, have you noticed how reliant the TV news is on other sources of information “CNN reports…” “ABC reports…” is just as common as one of our own presenters. and you certainly need to think about who owns the media you use – is it a company where the CEO controls the editors (see the Out Foxed DVD its really good) or is it an independent media source where there will be no bias whether from the owners political views or from the need to please advertisers and get higher ratings.
ill put a plug in here for http://www.gnn.tv which is an international alternative media site – guerilla news network
independent from corporate media control and dedicated to presenting unbiased truthful media.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey – I shall struggle to sleep tonight knowing you don’t like me. Actually, I might sleep better.
However, as I responded in to your comment on my blog, and to others, Wizban did characterise himself with phrases like “We Greens” and “Our policies” – which does make him look like a Green member or active supporter. The characterisation I made was quite accurate.
As for Wizban’s (or his grandmother’s) question about whether Murdoch owned the Listener – what bloody difference would that make to the Green Party? Even if Murdoch did own the Listener, are you seriously suggesting that a liberal organ like the Listener that was 10,000 miles from his home in the USA would compel Rupert Murdoch to show interest and interfere in editorial control that was anti-Green? And why would he then ask a left commentator like Chris Trotter to tender an opinion on how the Greens could best improve their lineup?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks portia. As it happens the question about murdoch had been answered on the same frogblog thread (by a regular commenter Craig Ranapia) two days before Aaron Bhatnagar wrote his peice. I also note that Aarons Dates are incorrect on his blog as his thread was dated 10/12/2005 I don’t know how he managed to write this in december when its only october now, I can only assume he’s using an inferior dating system. Also (while Im being soo pedantic – as only one with such hurt feelings could be – ) He claims that “other members want nice esoteric arguments” this is an outright baldfaced lie as I asked both the first and subsequent questions, he should have said “the same member.” The assumption that said member was a member at all AND that said member “wanted” an arguement is …… is, …… is suckarsed!
And for the record, I find him to be repugnant! (imho)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oops (i feel like some one whos been having a go at someone then turns around to see that person has been standing behind them for the last 2 minutes).
hi Aaron, well ah, (ehem) now that your here, I’ll answer your question.
- no I was not “seriously suggesting” anything about a “liberal organ like the listener” I was just asking a question. Your reaction to that question seems to suggest to me that YOU think that Rupert Murdoch is anti green, but I won’t make that assumption.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A “controverisal blog entry”. Hehe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
RedGreen,
And some of the worst Human Right abuses occur in countries with heavy regulation (North Korea, China etc). Your Point??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ps. “himself” ?!?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew – did you read RedGreens post?
The point was that “Some of the worst human rights abuses stem from developing countries with heavily deregulation”
Yes, heavy regulation can be equally bad, but that’s not relevant, nor does it change the argument.
Jesus H Christ I am sick of deliberate obtuseness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wizban,
Relax. Certainly don’t think you’re dragging us into disrepute. Aaron’s just stirring.
You’ll have noticed that Aaron paraphrased what you said instead of quoting you directly because he was attempting to make it look like we were busily hatching conspiracy theories, instead of a simple question being asked. If he’s willing to paraphrase like that, and avoid context or detail, then given a long enough thread of comments it’s certain he would have found something he could misrepresent suitably. So if it hadn’t been you it would have just been someone else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stymied,
Yes and my point is that they can occur in any situation, regulated or deregulated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Isn’t “everyday NZers” much the same as “mainstream New Zealanders”?
To be translated as “my mates in the club”. None of us are in contact with as many people of diffeering views as we ought to be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wizban, sorry if you took offence, I don’t think any of your comments are rubbish, that was just for Aaron’s blog readers. I couldn’t think how else to put it – should have thought a bit harder. Personally I think the only rubbish comments on this blog were those from peterquixote.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew, RedGreen said that abuses can occur because of anti-union and anti-worker policies – what happens in other situations is (again) irrelevant.
Your responses boil down to “yes, and it can happen in other instances too”. So you do agree that “Some of the worst human rights abuses stem from developing countries with heavy deregulation”? The fact that it happens in other cases is extranious to the argument, but your replies imply you agree with RedGreens point, even if you don’t recognise it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I want a date with Viggo Mortensen. Otherwise, revolutions are dreadfully messy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
AF:
My point is this: That the Greens as well as many others are concerned about human rights abuses that occur BOTH in countries with heavily deregulated economies and totalitarian (Stalinist or otherwise) regimes. (I am not sure that ACT and other free market advocates do; the Libertarianz say that there is no such thing as human rights as we understand it, only property rights. Hmmm…)
Mind you, countries like North Korea may have regulated economies, but they are Stalinist, and many academics would regard ‘state capitalism’ as being synonymous with Stalinism.
And if you look at China, the government is Communist only in name, for they have embraced full-fledged capitalist tendencies. Low wages and poor working conditions derive from their desire to be ‘competitive in the marketplace’ – hence the drive for profits trumping all else.
Furthermore, in both North Korea and China, both countries do not have independent workers’ unions. They do have state unions however, which actually act as arms of the repressive regimes themselves.
Stymied sums up my point exactly: I never said that human rights abuses derive *solely* from developing countries with deregulated economies, only that they are among the pool of perpetrators of human rights abuses. Moreover, I was illustrating the point that free market advocates pay little attention, if any, to human rights abuses that do occur in these countries, because do to so would necessitate legislative protection and policy measures and hence REGULATION – the complete antithesis of laissez-faire.
This somewhat ties in with my point on another thread, AF: You cannot claim to advocate the position of workers on the one hand while trumping free markets policies on the other, policies which in many respects contribute to wanton and arbitrary abuse of workers and their rights.
Incidentally: doesn’t ACT support the idea of a free trade deal between NZ and China? If so, then why the comment “some of the worst Human Right abuses occur in countries with heavy regulation (North Korea, China etc)”? If you recognise that human rights abuses do occur in China, as you most certainly (and rightly) do, and yet despite this still support free trade with such a nation, then you have illustrated my point absolutely, that being this:
1) Either the position ACT takes is contradictory;
2) Or ACT and other free market advocates don’t really believe in the protection of human and workers’ rights after all.
Or perhaps it is both.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah peterquixote, what’s all that about?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I do find this whole “he said/ they said/ he replied” so much like a soap opera; those things which I detest and ban my children from watching.
Isn’t there a muscle somewhere twitching guys, ‘cos you’re so far away from thinking about what you own and beleive in the way of policy philosophy, and so sold on just picking each others statements apart??? Your brain is so much more than a semantic search engine for epithets and insults.
Wizban: this works for me – just say it straight to their face and be upfront about how you feel, why should you apologise unless, of course, you didn’t mean what you said :-O
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stymied,
I’m just curious,what does the “H” stand for?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
RG,
The point it seemed you were trying to make was that derugulation contributes to human rights abuses; I do not believe it does as they can occur in any market system.
As far as free trade goes, yes I would like to see NZ sign a free trade deal with China, as I believe we will have more influence over China than we currently have (which is next to none) if a deal benefitting both countries is struck. But of course, you will no doubt disagree wiyh this too
Fire away…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
AF:
1) Most certainly; but that wasn’t the *only* point I was making…
2) I think deregulation both causes and permits human rights abuses to occur. By ‘permits’ I mean allowing them to take place, due to lack of legislative measures.
3) You say “they can occur in any market system”; in so doing you’re actually agreeing with my point insofar as you do not dispute the fact that systemic rights abuses *can* and *do* occur in a deregulated system.
Workers’ rights are violated in every system, no doubt. But this happens to a greater extent in deregulated market systems, given the lack of recognition and protection of workers’ rights in statute. If Indonesia had anywhere near what we have here by way of the ERA (I’m talking about the amended Act, owing to the ERAA 2004), and if so were it to be stringently enforced, I doubt there would be the conditions that we now see in the sweatshops there. (Btw I don’t think the ERA, even as amended, is wondruous by any means, but it is a long shot from what Indonesia has.)
Or are you unaware of the existence of ‘sweatshop labour’?
We could go on forever re free trade, so I wouldn’t even begin with it. But I think you’d expect me to be opposed to it.
But you still haven’t answered my question: are you opposed to human rights and the observation/recognition/protection of them? If so, the matter rests. If not, then do you think it is ethical to trade with a country that so systematically violates human rights at every level?
That’s a bit like me doing business with someone whom I know tortures his wife and sexually abuses his children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“You say “they can occur in any market systemâ€?; in so doing you’re actually agreeing with my point insofar as you do not dispute the fact that systemic rights abuses *can* and *do* occur in a deregulated system”
Human rights abuses can occur anywhere in the world.
“But you still haven’t answered my question: are you opposed to human rights and the observation/recognition/protection of them?”
Opposed to human rights?? Of course not. Do I believe that Government (which in many cases is a major perpetrator) is the best body to protect these rights?? No.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
AF:
I’m intrigued by your reluctance to acknowledge that human rights abuses have ever occurred and/or can occur in countries with deregulated economies.
You say: “Human rights abuses can occur anywhere in the world.” Absolutely. Let’s shake to that. We have found agreeance somewhere. But now, moving on…
Some countries (yes, SOME) with deregulated economies have widespread occurrences of human rights abuses. Or are these countries not part of ‘the world’?
Granted, government is not always the best protector of human rights; but that’s not to say it never is. Besides, who would you rather have protect them? Corporations? Sure, let me cede by bodily integrity and all rights that go with it to ExxonMobil and Monsanto.
As someone who believes strongly in the rule of law, then why this cynicism of the effectiveness and application of statute?
It is legislation which at the very least gives rudimentary protection of human rights; and along with that, international treaties.
Also, think about the role of unions: they act as a voice of – and shield for – workers against both employers AND the government. Deregulation, and anti-union measures that go with it, takes away this very basis of a safety net.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bagatar is a moron and one of the people on centre right to earn utter disgrace during campaign,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the reason the green vote declined can be summed up with a quote by Winston Churchill ” If a man at 20 is not a socialist he has no heart, if at 40 he is not a conservative then he has no brains”. Probably sums up your support base.
The mainstream deserted you because of fringe economic ideals. Stick to environmental issues because otherwise the greens will never make 5% again. Yes yes yes, i know some of you feel the two are intertwined but face facts , it hasnt worked. Labour stole your support.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, yawn…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
marsboy1
Believe that if it makes you happy!
The Greens believe the evidence (from different sources) that many who wanted to Party Voted Green in this close election, gave that vote to Labour to avoid a National-led-Government, and what it might do. (Yes! the thought of such a government really DOES frighten a considerable number of people!)
Unlike Winston Churchill, Greens prefer to keep their hearts because, as a group, they are aware that the Party is very well endowed in the brain department.
Stay happy Marsboy … don’t try to think too hard!
e
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Marsboy1:
I am intrigued to hear that you think the Greens advocate fringe economics. Or as Don/Hide said, “caveman economics”.
Ecological economics is both a modern/contemporary development and an increasingly supported/accepted model. If anything, the free market model is both outdated/prehistoric and has been increasingly discredited and refuted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)