http://www.michaelbassett.co.nz/articleview.php?id=111

come on greens … time to get off your high horse. you know that politics is a dirty game, both the red team and the blue team did their best to put you off the other party. it just seems that the green team and the only one’s whining about it and crying home to mummy. if you want more votes, come up with new and interesting policies. like the ‘buy nz made’ one. thats a goodie for a start.

Re property rights: that’s like arguing that it would be true to say “National’s policy opposes marriage” because National opposes extending the legal status of marriage to include gay people. Given a vote on whether or not the legal convention of marriage should exist, National would obviously vote in favour of marriage, not against it.

The Greens didn’t vote against protecting private property rights - they voted against adding _additional_ legal protection to property rights. If there was a vote on whether or not property rights should be protected by law the Greens would obviously vote in favour of property rights, not against them.

There’s a big difference between voting against extending and increasing something - eg marriage, or property right - and simply voting against it simpliciter.

Which is why Jeanette says “half-truth”, and I’d simply say “lie”.

The Greens (in the words of the EB pamphlet) “voted against protecting private property rights”. Kudos to the Greens for having had excellent reasons for so doing, but don’t call something a half-truth, when it is 100% accurate.

On drugs: I would strongly disagree that the EB pamphlet suggests the Greens want to decriminalise ALL drugs - perhaps it implies that the Greens support decriminalisation of cannibis oil, and cannibis resin, as well as marijuana (I’m not actually sure whether the Green party policy differentiates between different types of cannibis). The point I was initially trying to make was of course that if the matter came up in a defamation suit then it wouldn’t be as clear cut as some here seem to think, because the would be a very real risk (and it would be a risk) that the EB would not only plead the defence of truth, but could also win (which would look really bad for the greens)

Onto another point: quoting Frog: “The critical difference with the EB leaflets is that the unions clearly identified themselves and thus their interests, clearly supported Labour rather than implying it.”

That may be the critical point, Frog, but you don’t seem to understand what it means - it is clear endorsements without proper authorisation that are illegal in New Zealand (like the unauthorised Labour Party pledge card). If the unions had put out pamphlets supporting Labour without Labour’s permission then they (the unions) would have broken the law. It is only because the chief electoral officer consideres that some of EB pamphlets clearly support National (rather than, for example, just attack the greens) that there is a problem.

Well, I guess the location of the sideshow depends where you’re standing. And as I’ve written precisely nothing defending this ham-fisted intervention by members of the EB (a fine distinction, but one worth making) - in fact, have said that I’m profoundly uncomfortable about any religious body fudging the line between secular partisanship & faith, including the Catholic Church of which I’m a member - I really don’t see where your allegation of *ahem* selective blindness in my right eye comes from.

If folks want to pontificate about true Christian values, how about the section of the Ten Commandments that says “Do not bear false witness against your neighbour”? I think there’s a serious debate to be had here, and I’m quite happy to give serious people a fair hearing. But I guess no party wants to talk about the tacit corruption of their partisan activities being paid for out of the public purse, because the status quo is a little too convenient for all concerned.

Good luck pursuing a heftier punishment, but you can get carried away with that. In the end, the truth came out and it hurt National. That is a lesson for any bigger operators looking to sneakily influence politics in future.

I think pursuing anything in the pamphlet that misrepresents green views will get no traction. That is part an parcel of political propaganda, on both sides. The real issue was the sneaking around, and it bit them on the balls bigtime.

The critical difference with the EB leaflets is that the unions clearly identified themselves and thus their interests, clearly supported Labour rather than implying it.

The issue is not public bodies supporting political parties, there’s no problem with that, its how they go about it.

Your last comment is at least consistent with your political views but responds only to a side show. You fail to recognise or even acknowledge the problem with the EBs dishonesty, that’s disappointing but I hope if it ever occurs in the future in favour of Labour you, in fairness, will be equally blind.

If you (or Sir Humphries) had clicked through the link in that section of the leaflet rebuttal, you would have found a speech in the House by Mike Ward that gives ample and detailed reasons the Greens voted against the private property bill in question. Check it out - http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech8650.html - it wins “the contest of ideas” you’re looking for, I reckon.

Once you’ve read it, let us know if the rebuttal still ‘lies’ on that point being a half truth.

And re: cannabis decriminalisation, bjchip has largely said it, yes the Greens have called the for cannabis decrimilisation but NOT for any other drugs, thus the description of it being a ‘half truth’.

Sorry, but I have a very big problem with any political party disseminating partisan propaganda or electioneering bumpf using public money.

First, it is unfair to those who don’t have the luxury of incumbency.

Second, I believe it is a violation of the idea of freedom of political association. I choose to be a financial member of the National Party, and am quite happy to support its principles and policies through my membership subscription, voluntary labour and patronage of fundraising activities. I do not see why anyone else should be compelled to do so, through their taxes, when they may well find them to be utterly repulsive.

I understand your desire to try and distract us from this salient point. However, you will be aware that many parties use PS for sending information to electors, I received a PS stamped fax from Act during the election campaign. I don’t have a problem with this because:

1. It was clearly marked as being from Act
2. It was clear who funded the fax.