by frog
I haven’t yet seen the Act rip off of the Green Party Aila television ad but I reckon it’s a bit of a compliment from what I’ve heard. Last election, devoid of ideas, Act just copied National’s much talked about iwi/kiwi billboard style. And it seems this election this time they are again happy to pick the best advertising campaign from another party and aspire to imitate it poorly. I guess the fact that we are polling well must be the signal Act needed to use its very small allocation of television funding to attack us and run our billboards.
I do however wonder how Aila and her photographer father must feel having had her image used without her consent. As toad notes, it’s an interesting approach to private property rights from a party with such a strong proclaimed position on them.
Edit – I’ve just found the Act attack ad here It’s apparently not Aila but another photoshopped model, so ignore my last comments – But they’ve obviously been saving money on production costs as well as creative ideas.
Published in Campaign | Video by frog on Sun, November 2nd, 2008
Tags: act party, advertising, aila, Campaign, frogblog, green party, new zealand, property rights
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Cough, frog, “compliment”. I agree, though, it is. But it’s not Aila, it’s a model, so I don’t think it is copyright violation, just a very convenient reminder of how scared the right are of green ideas, and how pissed off they are that the “one child” smear didn’t get any traction.
As one of local members said, they’ve “fabulously and conveniently gone completely bonkers”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You seemed to think it was quite ok to use other people’s images without consent. In fact you found it quite humorous
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/23/the-comedy-duo/
And when has breaching property rights ever bothered the greens?
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/30/greenpeace-converts-keys-helensvi lle-office-to-industrial-dairy/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I didn’t have any problem with it when I first saw it. The right to satirise is part of the right to free speech.
Then I thought some more, and realised that they were putting words in to Aila Morgan-Guthrie’s mouth without her permission, and turning her into an eight-year-old version of ‘the two johns’. And I do have a problem with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks pingpong – fixed now. And Patrick, as I said above, I don’t have a huge problem with the ad so long as Aila and her family are ok with it. It would be pretty funny if Act had broke copyright law in an election where they’ve campaigned on ‘zero tolerance/tolerence for crime’. It also shows they are running out of ideas of their own.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I say sue the bastidges!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s a parody, and a good point.
Kids without opportunity at home leave for overseas.
I certainly did…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I work on the ACT campaign and have been involved in the advertising. The ad that was shown last night on TV3 was the incorrect ad and should never have run. When we first submitted the ad we were alerted to the fact that using the picture of the little girl in the Green party ad may be a breach of copyright, and so we re – did it with another little girl.
We resubmitted it and were assured the first ad had been removed and would not be shown.
I am investigating how this mistake occurred.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve often thought, whenever I saw that swathe of equal opportunity vandalised billboards after the weekends, that if ACT was really zero” tolerence” for crime they would have set up infra red cameras like Stephen Franks, or had vigilante posses sitting in cars all night to watch every billboard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is good to see the Greens focussing on “current generations” like the child on the billboard rather than on those “future generations” who conveniently never arrive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This really is rather Sad. ACT used to have principles. But expediency obviously rules the day for Rodney (e.g. funders say bring back Rodger Douglas or there’s no funding; and now this poorly execute imitation of the award winning Green adverts).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks for the info Karen – see my previous comment though. That about sums up the lack of principles in your campaign.
And while I’m at it you should “pull” the Chch Central candidate. She is not a good advert for your party !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Our local Act candidate has been vehemently anti green with nasty letters to the editor and a failed attack on Russel Norman at the Queenstown financial leaders debate (nice slap-down Russel!). Is this happening elsewhere in the country? It is a low ploy by Act.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This was a great ad by ACT and stuck it to the dirty fasists in the Green party well and truly.
Green policies have killed millions of poor people in the third world and they have the cheek to say “Vote for me’….
They are the watermelon party…..BLOOD red on the inside and starting to appear that way on the outside….don’t be fooled.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The girls image is public now….thanks to the Greens….its also a legitimate target for response by others….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James – loved your comments – you’re a superb spokesperson for the Act Party. Your point about ‘targetting the girl’ that’s revealing, James.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Some dumb arse says:
‘Kids without opportunity at home leave for overseas.
I certainly did…’
Right. All those kids in damp statehousing slums in sth ack whose parents work shifts for minimum wage and still can’t pay the power bill are just queuing up to buy $3000 plane flights so they can work as policy advisors in the UK. That’s exactly how it works isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The ad shown on TV One last night first ad during the News 1815hrs was of Aila Morgan-Guthrie, not another child.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is a very poor move by the Act Party. It lacks ‘honourable-ness’. I’m dissapointed in them. Hide and Roy ought to be embarrassed and ashamed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think its quite that bad greenfly, it is a little bit off though.
Is that little girl Aila Australian?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – you are supporting Act, through your support for National. This kind of thinking (let’s spoil the Green message and put cynical words into the mouth of the young girl ) is not my way, nor that of the Greens. Is it yours?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like BP I left for overseas during the 90s when first Labour then National then National/Winston First slashed funding for science. I went to Japan, a more socialistic economy where science is valued. I returned in 2001 when there were more opportunities for scientists. Now I see that taxonomists and other basic scientists are being highly sought after, thanks mostly to the slash and burn policies of the 90s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“shunda – you are supporting Act, through your support for National.”
And you are supporting labour which is even worse!! . Labour will have alot more seats than Act, and Act can’t go with anyone else, so how much power are they realy going to have?.
My strategy is very much a balance thing, and we are over balanced to the left and about to roll over.
Peter Dune will keep Act on their leash any way (I know how much you like Peter greenfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James – Is this real or is it parody? I’d be astonished if you had the slightest idea what we stand for if it was a real comment. So perfectly wrong on every point… oh wait, there WAS no point was there… so clever too…
Maybe you could take up politics. I understand there will be some openings in the Republican party in the USA shortly.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Please, nobody can be reasonably accused of supporting any party they don’t vote for, advocate, or defend. That’s a principle that should apply Right or Left- it’s only your party affliliation and (political) words and actions that should matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“James – loved your comments – you’re a superb spokesperson for the Act Party. Your point about ‘targetting the girl’ that’s revealing, James.”
How so? You guys used her to put out your message…you put her up with the intent of making your political point….ok fair enough.
But that also then licensed your oponents to turn that back on you and try and damage you by revealing contradictions, flaws and downright danger in your positions to the voting public…which ACT has done and scored some points it seems…..otherwise why this fuss?
It seems the Greens are going to get the scrutiny that they have so far avoided by appearing soft and fuzzy to a public that hasn’t really had to consider the substance behind the facade….thats changing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – how much power would Act have? If it comes down to them enabling a right-wing government, plenty, I should think. Are you comfortable with the morality they exhibit? Not very Christian, is my summation. McCully, Williamson, Smith and Smith, English, Brownley, Hide, Douglas, Dunne – the milk of human kindness ???????????? Shunda?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James – don’t see it yet? Nevermind, you will. The defacing of the Green advertisement speaks volumes to the public, about the Act Party. I hear a noisy backfire away in the distance, drawing closer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shunda – how much power would Act have? If it comes down to them enabling a right-wing government, plenty, I should think. Are you comfortable with the morality they exhibit?”
I am.A respect for the human individual and their NATURAL rights to life,liberty,property and pursuit of happiness.A recognition that Government is supposed to be the servant of the people…not its masters.That human beings have the natural right to reform nature as they see fit and prosper from that,every other spices adapts its surroundings as it need to….why not man?….that private property rights are the best protection known for the enviroment,genuine human rights and real sustainibility..
No…Im happy with that morality thanks
I ask just which other party in Parliment can hold a candle to ACT when it comes to morals and justice?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James -I’m referring to what they do, not what they profess.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“James – don’t see it yet? Nevermind, you will. The defacing of the Green advertisement speaks volumes to the public, about the Act Party. I hear a noisy backfire away in the distance, drawing closer.”
Then get ya ears checked comrade because thats actually the sound of the Greens heading out on their arses via crap’inefficient public transport no one else wants to use…
“What defacing?……is that what happens when the truth is used to wipe over Green dogma revealing the red beneath?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James -I’m referring to what they do, not what they profess.”
Define please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ “James – Is this real or is it parody? I’d be astonished if you had the slightest idea what we stand for if it was a real comment. So perfectly wrong on every point… oh wait, there WAS no point was there… so clever too…”
Control,bans,socialism,more control,more bans….stop me when I get something WRONG BJ…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I will admit for the record that ACT isn’t perfect in my view…still the odd Socialist strain within…..but its still the best cab in the rank…..at least till Libz become a serious prospect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Last election, the attempt to undermine the Green Party came from the Exclusive Brethren. This election it’s coming from the Act Party. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm………………………………………………
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The ACT parody awakens in me the discomforting thought that perhaps the Green Party doesn’t speak for future generations after all, and in fact that it is extreme arrogance and vanity for it to claim that it does.
Maybe, just maybe, the one real family value is to enhance and hand on to our children the liberties we have enjoyed, rather than stripping them away bit by bit in the name of society/family values/equality/whatever.
- “This is a very poor move by the Act Party. It lacks ‘honourable-ness’. I’m dissapointed in them. Hide and Roy ought to be embarrassed and ashamed.”
Whereas exploiting Aryan-looking children and claiming a monpoly on the interests of the young is perfectly acceptable?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Last election, the attempt to undermine the Green Party came from the Exclusive Brethren. This election it’s coming from the Act Party. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm………………………………………………”
At least ya know whos saying it and its loud and proud baby…yah!
And what was it that the Brethren said about you that was factualy incorrect comrade? That question is always missed in the indignation the left spews over being challenged by them last election…..
The Green party is “undermined” by the fact that their politics are hard left socialsim and authoritarian….just read their stuff and listern to their speechs…its pouring out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Are you comfortable with the morality they exhibit? Not very Christian, is my summation.”
Well if national/act are “not very christian” labour/greens would be absolutely antichrist!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat nonsense. Strreeeeetttttccchhhhing it wat, to say the Greens are claiming a monpoly or even a monopoly, on the interests of the young. I’m sure I’ve heard ‘children’ being mentioned by other parties. If they haven’t, then I guess you are right and the Greens ought to be recognised for their policies for children. The Greens certainly do have the welfare of children high on their priority list.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – contact Act quick and get your ‘The Greens are the Anti Christ’ idea up and running! Beauty!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
no.. wait
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…”The ACT parody awakens in me the discomforting thought that perhaps the Green Party doesn’t speak for future generations after all, and in fact that it is extreme arrogance and vanity for it to claim that it does.”
One has to ask Wat… if the Greens want any “future generations “at all! Humans are a plague on the face of gaia you know…!
Beause human beings are required by their NATURE….(that comes from the same “over-nature” that creates everything including the enviroment etc ) to think and then adapt their enviroment to prosper and survive it stands to reason that the Greens anti-human nature dogma is a contradiction that must be expoused and debated.
Why does man not get to be man whilst every other species get free licence to follow their natures..?
Its anti humanism that the Greens really champion…not nature.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James – it’s very hard to find anything worthwhile in your diatribe to refute. In fact ….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda – which one is the ‘evil face’ – I think you have them mixed up in your mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog Says: “And Patrick, as I said above, I don’t have a huge problem with the ad so long as Aila and her family are ok with it”
Well im sure the same would apply to Gerry Brownlee and John Key. Did you (or your coalition partner) ask if they were ok with it?
If you exploit an innocent little 8 y.o girl in a political ad campaign don’t try hiding behind her innocence if others target it. I’m sure that was amongst your reasons for chosing her in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Patrick, we originally wanted to use a decrepit, universally disliked, faded politician, but another party got him first.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s what Jeanette has to say about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And Jeanette is quite correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “The Greens certainly do have the welfare of children high on their priority list.”
I’m guessing your idea of children’s welfare involves still more state control over them?
- “And Jeanette is quite correct”
Nonsense, she comes across as purse-lipped and humourless and completely unable to grasp that this is a parody deliberately employed to skewer Green authoritarianism. It’s like ACT laid an obvious trap and she blundered right into it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually, no she’s not.
Having previously been in the Greens for 7 years, I know for a fact the Greens have a proclivity to adbusting, and speaking in favour of adbusting as a light-hearted and legitimate means of reframing the image(s) for the purpose of sending a political message.
Now that you have had a taste of your own medicine, you are crying foul?
You can’t have your cake and eat it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In reply to Jeanette:
Inspite of repeatedly getting assured by the ad people and TVNZ that the original ACT ad featuring Aila Morgan-Guthrie was pulled and wasn’t to be shown due to legal raesons it in fact was…much to the constination of the relavant ACT people and especially the new girls mother who was looking forward to seeing her feature…she is after all “far prettier than Aila”….(Mums words..not mine)
The fault for this happening lies with the ad people as ACT had assurances that the new ad was the one that was going to air.
Inspite of this the message was still delivered and ACT proudly stands by it and has this to say to the Greens…”Nuts!” Come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough”
Disclaimer: The last sentence above is my own opinion as an ACT member and not that of the ACT party ….although I know they would agree!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James Says:
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
> And what was it that the Brethren said about you that was factualy incorrect comrade? That question is always missed in the indignation the left spews over being challenged by them last election…..
I can’t remember what the Bretren said, but the Greens did put out a list at the time of all the things that were incorrect in the EB pamphlets. I think there were 13 statements about Green Party policy, and 12 of them turned out to be lies.
The question of what was incorrect in the pamphlet was not missed at the time – it was answered quite promptly. The claim that the Greens couldn’t find anything incorrect in the pamphlets is a blatant lie, and most of the people who made that claim probably knew it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh….and did the Greens get permission to use Rangitoto island…a symbol for Auckland city,it its ad?
Pot,kettle, Green…..it seems
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Some dumb arse says:
>>‘Kids without opportunity at home leave for overseas.
I certainly did…’
That would be, Mr Moose.
If you give it, you should be prepared to take it.
We’re not talking about the losers of this world. We’re talking about those with skills and an education who can afford the measly few hundred/thousand dollar plane ticket out.
You know – the people who pay for your state-sponsored South Auckland intensive breeding program.
You support it. Not me. YOU deal with the consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Some dumb a*se says:
>>‘Kids without opportunity at home leave for overseas.
I certainly did…’
That would be, Mr Moose.
If you give it, you should be prepared to take it.
We’re not talking about the losers of this world. We’re talking about those with skills and an education who can afford the measly few hundred/thousand dollar plane ticket out.
You know – the people who pay for your state-sponsored South Auckland intensive breeding program.
You support it. Not me. YOU deal with the consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Living a sustainable rural lifestyle as I do, I have just had the job of killing five
bantam cockerels and preparing them for coq au vin.
Bantam cockerels are roosters of course but are smaller than regular roosters.
Also being roosters their pelvic girdle is narrow.
As I was grunting through the last stage of the process (yanking all the guts out through the
pelvic girdle) I thought to myself “If I had a young Chinese woman on the workforce, or living nearby who would like a bird or two in exchange for some genuine manual labour,
she would be ideal for this job because my hands are so big I am damaging the carcase.”
Is it not strange that, according to modern mores, expressing such a thought would disqualify me from the job of Minister of Immigration and even demote me out of cabinet even though I, like another person who springs to mind, am scientifically literate, and presumably could be an asset to a modern cabinet?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat dabney said: [Jeanette appears] completely unable to grasp that this is a parody deliberately employed to skewer Green authoritarianism
wat, Jeanette acknowledges that the parody aspect is okay [Imitation is the highest form of flattery and this would be just funny].
What she thinks is not okay, and I agree, is using someone elses – in this case that of the agencies working for the photographer and the Green Party – intellectual property without their permission.
That is theft, not parody, and is the last thing I would have expected a party that champions property rights to do.
James, sure it may have been a mistake and not intended by ACT that the one featuring Aila went to air. But the intellectual property right relates to the whole image. It doesn’t go away just because ACT put another, similarly looking, girl into the image.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Got two political pamphlets in the post today.
The National one was explaining their policy for families, health, education etc, was well written and positive in tone, it did not even mention the labour party.
The labour party pamphlet had nothing about any of their policy, plans or otherwise.
All it was, was a beat up on John Key with meaningless twaddle and half truths, it is a pathetic example of playing the man and not the ball. At the end it states “YOUR FUTURE. IT’S ONLY SAFE WITH LABOUR”
It is blatant fear mongering to play on peoples fear and ignorance, it is pathetic.
If the greens are the party of principle then you need to distance yourselves from labour because they are a party of no principle and gutter politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“James, sure it may have been a mistake and not intended by ACT that the one featuring Aila went to air. But the intellectual property right relates to the whole image. It doesn’t go away just because ACT put another, similarly looking, girl into the image.”
Overlooking the hysterical irony of Greenies whittering on about property rights,intellectual or otherwise…..Rangitoto Island,the sea and the beachs aren’t owned by the Greens (yet) ya dickstick!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“No Patrick, we originally wanted to use a decrepit, universally disliked, faded politician, but another party got him first.”
I’m guessing here but; Karl Marx?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James said: Rangitoto Island,the sea and the beachs aren’t owned by the Greens (yet) ya dickstick!
No, they are (deemed to be) owned by the Crown, consequent upon the Foreshore and Seabed Act.
That was among the Parliamentary legislation that the Greens fought most strongly – precisely because it extinguished property rights that may have been established through the Maori Land Court.
The Greens were on the side of property rights with that one too James – alongside ACT – much to the irritation of the Labour Party and left wing commentators like Chris Trotter who still harps on about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
- “That is theft, not parody, and is the last thing I would have expected a party that champions property rights to do.”
According to Nandor in April this year, the Greens had “concerns about the lack of protection for fair use in relation to copyright infringement, particularly when used for satire and the like.” http://www.greens.org.nz/node/16999
Obviously those concerns don’t extend to the satirical use of the Green’s own propaganda material.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James
You were wrong with the first word after my name. Control is not what the Green party is about. We’ve also gone through your list of bans, in detail. Not a lot of meat there… so I am still waiting to see if you actually have a point worth discussing.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This reaction here from ACT supporters, copiously full of diatribe as it is, gives me the impression that Act is becoming politically irrelevent. I think it will be replaced in this country by the more honest yet, in my humble opinion, hopelessly misguided, libertarian movement. THe populus needs a real choice between (a) Mankind as the be-all and end-all (Libertarians), (b) Mankind as a responsible member of the environment (Greens/Environmentalists) or (c) The (rapidly disintegrating) status quo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
”
“James
You were wrong with the first word after my name. Control is not what the Green party is about. We’ve also gone through your list of bans, in detail. Not a lot of meat there… so I am still waiting to see if you actually have a point worth discussing.
BJ”
From kiwiblog….
“The Greens banned list
October 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
The Greens are often a contradictory party. They stand up for civil liberties on the one hand, but want to ban almost anything they disagree with or think is bad. They advocate in favour of scientists when it comes to climate change, but campaign against science when it comes to genetics.
In many ways they are the ultimate nanny state party. The list of things they want to ban puts Labour in the shade. In recent days I got wondering how many things do they want to ban? So I engaged my masochistic side and decided to find out by reading every Green policy they have released. Yes I have now read every single one. And below is the list of 85 things the Greens want to ban.
Now of course with any list that long, there might be one or two different people agree with. But what is scary is looking at the list as a whole, and seeing how banning is their first instinct.
Now this is only stuff they officially want to ban as detailed in a policy statement. I haven’t even attempted to go through the masses of press releases and speeches where MPs have advocated additional bans on anything that moves. So this is a conservative list.
1. Ban fizzy drinks from schools
2. Ban fuel inefficient vehicles
3. Ban all gaming machines in pubs
4. Ban the GCSB
5. Ban violent TV programmes until after 10 pm
6. Ban feeding of antibiotics to animals that are not sick
7. Ban companies that do not comply with a Code of Corporate Responsibility
8. Ban ACC from investing in enterprises that provide products or services that significantly increase rates of injury or illness or otherwise have significant adverse social or environmental effects
9. Ban commercial Genetic Engineering trials
10. Ban field testing on production of GE food
11. Ban import of GE food
12. Ban Urban Sprawl
13. Ban non citizens/residents from owning land
14. Ban further corporate farming
15. Ban sale of high country farms to NZers who do not live in NZ at least 185 days a year
16. Ban the transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours
17. Ban crates for sows
18. Ban battery cages for hens
19. Ban factory farming of animals
20. Ban the use of mechanically recovered meat in the food chain
21. Ban the use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed
22. Ban animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans
23. Ban cloning of animals
24. Ban use of animals in GE
25. Ban GE animal food
26. Ban docking of dogs tails
27. Ban intrusive animal experimentation as a teaching method in all educational institutions
28. Ban smacking
29. Ban advertising during children’s programmes
30. Ban alcohol advertising on TV and radio
31. Ban coal mining
32. Ban the export of indigenous logs and chips
33. Ban the use of bio-accumulative and persistent poisons
34. Ban the establishment of mustelid farms
35. Ban new exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves
36. Ban mining activities when rare and endemic species are found to present on the mining site
37. Ban the trading conservation land for other land to facilitate extractive activities on.
38. Ban the further holding of marine mammals in captivity except as part of an approved threatened species recovery strategy
39. Ban the direct to consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals
40. Ban sale of chips and lollies on school property
41. Ban any additional use of coal for energy
42. Ban fixed electricity charges
43. Ban further large hydro plants
44. Ban nuclear power
45. Ban further thermal generation
46. Ban private water management
47. Ban imported vehicles over seven years old
48. Ban the disposal of recyclable materials at landfills
49. Ban the export of hazardous waste to non OECD countries
50. Ban funding of health services by companies that sell unhealthy food (so McDonalds could not fund services for young cancer sufferers)
51. Ban healthcare organizations from selling unhealthy food or drink
52. Ban advertising of unhealthy food until after 8.30 pm
53. Ban all food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food
54. Ban the use of antibiotics as sprays on crops
55. Ban food irradiation within NZ
56. Ban irradiated food imports
57. Ban growth hormones for animals
58. Ban crown agency investments in any entity that denies climate change!!
59. Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in tobacco
60. Ban crown agency investments in any entity that is involved in environmentally damaging oil extraction or gold mining
61. Ban non UN sanctioned military involvement (so China and Russia gets to veto all NZ engagements)
62. Ban NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defence
63. Ban NZers from serving as mercenaries
64. Ban new casinos
65. Allow existing casinos to be banned
66. Ban promotion of Internet gambling
67. Ban advertising of unhealthy food to children
68. Ban cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes
69. Ban new buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles
70. Ban migrants who do not undertake Treaty of Waitangi education programmes
71. Ban new prisons
72. Ban semi-automatic weapons
73. Ban genetic mixing between specieis
74. Ban ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ
75. Ban limited liability companies by making owners responsible for liability of products
76. Ban funding of PTEs that compete with public tertiary institutes
77. Ban the importation of goods and services that do not meet quality and environmental certification standards in production, lifecycle analysis, and eco-labelling
78. Ban goods that do not meet quality and sustainability standards for goods which are produced and/or sold in Aotearoa/New Zealand
79. Ban new urban highways or motorways
80. Ban private toll roads
81. Ban import of vehicles more than seven years old unless they meet emission standards
82. Ban imported goods that do not meet standards for durability and ease of recycling
83. Ban landfills
84. Ban new houses without water saving measures
85. Ban programmes on TVNZ with gratuitous violence”
etc etc etc…..
Now BJ….not all of these bans I disagree with….per se.
But you guys are so anti liberty and choice that you just have to wonder…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat, go and see a lawyer specialising in intelelctual property rights and find out what “fair use” actually means!
My (own personal) Party Vote Neanderthal spoof on g.blog is “fair use”. Using images commissioned by the Greens in ACT’s state-funded political advertising is not.
I was mocking National’s billboard on a blog as a piss-take (fair use, parody) – not stealing their images for a television advertising campaign(theft of intellectual property).
Big difference. Mine is lawful, ACT’s is not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Wat, it’s more like ACT made an obvious blunder and she just trapped them in it.
Personally I reckon its a storm in a teacup, but the attitudes displayed by the right-wingers here indicates a certain amount of fear. We might have some actual say in the way government works after the next election. The possibility of Gnats and the Peter Overdunne and Rodney Hide parties forming government is just as real as the alternatives that include Winston-First.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James
Lets have a real look at that list then? We already did.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/10/29/banning/#more-3382
SO sorry you can’t figure out the difference between having a government and having survival of the richest.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ahhhh did you READ that response BJ? You admit to at least half of the bans as true……and fluff about on minior deatil on the rest…..try again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Heres the new link to the youtube page…..someone took down the last one….hummmm…..?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6DeZBof3c
“Personally I reckon its a storm in a teacup, but the attitudes displayed by the right-wingers here indicates a certain amount of fear. We might have some actual say in the way government works after the next election. The possibility of Gnats and the Peter Overdunne and Rodney Hide parties forming government is just as real as the alternatives that include Winston-First.”
The “fear” may be that your loopy ideas impoverish people and may even kill them in the long run….theyy certainly reduce liberty and human rights. They have been tried before and the results have been fatal for human survival….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s not as though the Green ad was original anyway. Here’s its forerunner from 1988:
http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/the-green-truth/#comments
But you’re absolutely right. The Green 2008 version is the single most enduring advertising image from this campaign, and you should be proud to have it spoofed.
What’s causing your churlishness, I suspect, is the realisation that the spoof version is true.
What did you expect when you tried to take advantage of an innocent young girl to imply that Green/communist policies will benefit children?
People are entitled to know that policies like the ETS are far more likely to leave her barefoot and pregnant, or at least jobless.
(Though, as I say in my ongoing scrap with greenfly this morning, at least she won’t starve to death as a result of the Green eco-hoax, like millions of her African contemporaries have done.)
ACT is the only party with the guts to tell the truth about man-made climate change, as befits the only party with an environmental scientist for a leader.
If the little girl spoof upset you, wait till you see our press ad:
http://johnansell.wordpress.com/
But back to parodying other parties’ ads…
I can assure you National were delighted with the 4000+ spoofs of the 2005 billboard campaign, as it reinforced that ours were the ads everyone was talking about.
The Greens’ response to Beaches/Iwi/Kiwi was to call for it to be banned.
(As you do.)
How can you ban an ad without a verb??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
You protest too much. It would have been much better for you if you had ignored the parody entirely rather than, firstly, drawing everyone’s attention to it and, secondly, responding to it in such a curiously maladroit manner.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – storm in a tea cup for sure, but you gotta ask yourself; why is Act attacking the Greens, through their candidates, their advertising and their trolls? They’ll pretend it’s ideological, but it’s more likely they’re following their brief to damage the percentage of voters who tick Green, in line with National’s stated aim do just that, in order to win the election. Perhaps that’s what Mr Hide and Mr Key were discussing during their cafe tete a tete today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
maladroit manner sounds like clutz castle – what I sense here is a malodorous act
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I find it rather amusing that the Greens, keen supporters of adbusting, are now crying foul when they get a taste of their own medicine.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When I first read about this attack ad I confess to feeling a bit nervous, but having now watched it I’m relieved. It’s rubbish! I suppose the choir will enjoy the sermon but I can’t imagine anyone who hasn’t already bought all this tripe about banning and controlling will be swayed by such an amateurish ad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James Says:
November 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
> Ahhhh did you READ that response BJ? You admit to at least half of the bans as true
half of it’s true? That’s not really a very good record, is it. You’d expect someone who wnet to the trouble of putting together a list of the supposed policies of another party would check to make sure all of them were true. Wouldn’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hello, my tuppenyworth.
I thought this ACT ad was pathetic. It was the sad knee jerk reflex of old men and women, looking back to the 1980s, incapable of looking to the future, utterly oblivious of the present economic mayhem, and the devastation we’re causing to the only home we have. I don’t know what Aila would think but she’d probably have to ask “Who’s Roger Douglas?”, and I would have to tell her “Look him up in your history books”.
There once was a party called the McGillicudie’s Serious Party, I rather miss them, and their slogan “The Great Leap Backwards”, But I didn’t need to pine, because we now have The Act Serious Party, and the National Serious Party, both dinosaurs stuck in a now extinct era of financial, monetary and economic dogma, which even now is reducing the global economy to smoking rubble.
Act, you’re history, thank God. Pick on someone your own size, and go and retire to your vineyards, at least global warming, which of course doesn’t exist, might improve your vintage, because your age certainly doesn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi y’all
Just wondering if some of the ACT supporters here could actually answer the point about intellectual property. ACT was loud and proud defending Telecom’s profits based on “property rights” but when it comes to the IP of small New Zealand businesses, its a different story. The Greens paid for the right to use that photo – it doesn’t belong to them, so when you plagiarise the ad, it is not the Greens IP that is violated, it is small private businesses.
The Greens have no problem with satire or parody, just with hypocrisy.
JGG
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well we will see on election day….and I’ll tell you this for free…..the blue collars hate you guys with a passion for fucking them about on light bulbs,showers,smacking kids,having kids,what kids are allowed to eat,when they can eat it…etc etc
And thats without really being aware of what the ETS is going to do to them….
Happy trails!
oh and this….” I don’t know what Aila would think but she’d probably have to ask “Who’s Roger Douglas?”, and I would have to tell her “Look him up in your history books”
Yes Aila…he was the man who liberated New Zealand women from secound class status by deregulating 2nd hand vehical imports therefore dropping the price of cars so many Women were able to afford one and get jobs and independance…..which the Greens will reverse by making you ride in a crap bus.
LOL!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Greens have no problem with satire or parody, just with hypocrisy.”
and satire ….and being rather anal…..and critisism….and human prosperity….and….oh you get it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Greens paid for the right to use that photo – it doesn’t belong to them, so when you plagiarise the ad, it is not the Greens IP that is violated, it is small private businesses.”
Which…if it means helping the Greens, which is tantamount to aidding your own murderers…..means they deserve all they get….;-)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James – I’ve said it before and here it is again – you’re the stupidest contributor I’ve ever read! Go boy!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James Said:
November 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“Heres the new link to the youtube page…..someone took down the last one….hummmm…..?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6DeZBof3c ”
I reply:
The advert depicted here is very different from the original copy of the advert which I saw “screened on behalf of the Act Party” at 6:15pm prime time TV yesterday, as the first advert break in the News.
That advert used, uncut, the image of Aila from the Green’s advert but with a changed voice-over.
Damage has been done … and I sincerely hope that most of it comes to rest with the Act Party … where it belongs:
I believe that this is a BAD JOB that was very badly done !
I find justifications for such behaviour on this blog very sad.
This is our country. These are our citizens and our electoral processes. Such behaviour is inappropriate and entirely unnecessary here.
Overexposure to USAn TV (and values) ???
That is no excuse!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jockmoron,
Thank you! Your “tuppenyworth” has restored my balance.
I too rather miss the Mc Gillicuddie’s Serious Party and the “Great Leap Backwards” … with boots, hairy legs and bagpipes (plus the occasional haggis) … and VERY serious faces !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So will the Greens follow their smitten pride and file charges with the courts (is this a civil or criminal suit?) for copyright infringement?
Or is this just a beat up without any intention to follow up the rightious indignation with action?
For if the greens dont follow up with court action you are just politically point scoring.
So lets see some backbone and stand up for your conviction that this is an infringement of property rights.
Was there a copyright sign on the bill boards? Without one you may well find that the court case will be short and not favourable.
If you want IP protected you need to notify the users of that fact (read the fine print on any CD or DVD).
Otherwise once something is in the public domain it is fair game for all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I can assure you that ACT HQ are furious that the TV channel screened the original girl rather than the replacement girl.
Having been told to change the girl they did so, as they were very conscious of their zero tolerance for crime position.
I don’t know what more they could do. But as for the spoof itself, that’s fair and you should be flattered about it – unless the spoof touches a nerve, which I suspect it does.
I personally think the ad is too tame, and should have dealt with the much more serious issue of what will happen to Aila as a result of the ETS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Act HQ are furious? We feel deeply for them, just as we do for Aila and her family. What an awful mess Act have made of all this. The public will no doubt be very forgiving of Acts despoilation of this wee girl’s image and the heartfelt message she carried, won’t they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But as for the spoof itself, that’s fair and you should be flattered about it – unless the spoof touches a nerve, which I suspect it does.”
No nerves touched by this standard Act bullsh*t, I assure you. Just lovely of them to give our billboards more air time.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Gandhi
Good to be moving forward!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
As Campaign Operations Manager I can tell you John Ansell is right, the ACT party are furious that the TV channel screened the wrong ad. We had been made aware of the fact that there were copyright issues involved if we used the image of the original model in our spoof and therefore we filmed, edited and submitted for broadcast a completely different version of the ad to be certain we avoided the copyright and property rights issues raised on this thread.
We take those issues as seriously as you do. That’s why we reject the claim we ‘played’ the ad. Act did not play the ad. We sought to prevent the version that was screened going to air. It was a ‘draft’ and we were assured it would never be seen.
If anyone wants answers as to how this happened, they will have to join the queue because we will be seeking an explanation first. Like the Greens, we want to focus on the issues and our tolerance of this sort of error is zero
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To greenfly and others:
1) Here’s an analogy: Say you contract a company to put up your election hoardings. To your horror, you find out that they don’t have an authorisation statement on them. So, you mail the correct hoardings to the company, and go to great lengths to ensure that these are the hoardings that will go up. You receive an absolute guarantee that this will happen. But alas, the wrong ones go up.
Whose fault is this?
I think the answer is obvious, as is the case with the ACT ads. And you know it. But you persist in rehashing old–and already refuted–points (see James’ comments), because you have nothing new to say.
Clutching on straws demonstrates desperation.
And red herrings are a cop-out, exposing the weakness of your position.
2) Sounds like we’ve struck a raw nerve with the ad. This this was the intended consequence.
Thanks for taking the bait, as predicted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Since you missed it a few minutes ago:
No nerves touched by this standard Act bullsh*t, I assure you. Just lovely of them to give our billboards more air time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Green/Communist”
You’d be funny if you weren’t so completely misguided, and you James with your worry that we might have a policy that bans something as beneficial as stuffing healthy animals full of antibiotics so we can wind up with new resistant strains of pests.
Frankly I’m disgusted with the lot of you. You can’t quote a policy of ours properly, you can’t speak about us without discussing communism which has nothing whatsoever to do with our policies or this party, and you haven’t got a clue about what we stand for. You only know what you’ve been told. I don’t know why people like to lie about us so much.
I reckon though, that John Ansell is speaking truth about how ACT HQ is taking the way the advertisement parody was played by the TV channel with the original girl in it. Unlike you lot I give some credence to what you are likely to know about your own party, as I know something about this one.
Would that the same courtesy were shown.
What will happen to Aila’s children as a result of the destruction of the planet that supports us all might be a reasonable topic to touch on John. You probably still believe there isn’t such a thing as AGW, or if there is, there’s nothing we can do about it and therefore nothing we SHOULD do.
I can’t explain briefly how wrong that is. It requires understanding of the science and that clearly hasn’t been something that ACT is capable of. There are Libertarians who understand it. We can work with THEM… but ACT seems somewhat denser than a slug of depleted uranium.
You worry about economics of the ETS but the laissez-fair politics that permit the central banks and bankers to create toxic CDS paper and defraud every living person on the planet AND all the voters in Chicago
, those are no product of OUR policies. The original Carbon-Tax supported by the Greens was too hard for the corporates to swallow, it all has to be watered down, The economic system of Fractional-Reserve Debt-Based Currency has created enormous cloud castles of fraudulent accounting and fake wealth… and the storm of oobleck coming down from those clouds isn’t going to go away..
Of all the countries in the world, CUBA is the only one that will feel almost no effect at all from this sh!t storm.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmm
Sooo, this is getting a bit repetitive but here goes again.
The point here is not that the Greens can’t laugh at themselves, rather its that you need a good joke if you want people to laugh. With a little more originality, the ACT ad could even have been funny.
If there is legal action I’d expect it will come from the people directly affected.
ACT seem quite strange to me – so much anger and vitriol. They used to be fun, now they’re just a bid sad. I actually read an ACT ad today that said global warming is a socialist conspiracy. Yes indeed. And the US financial crisis is all the work of the Illuminati……
JGG
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Left out the word “investment” when discussing bankers…. sorry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, lets get this straight. ACT’s ad company produced an ad that got as far as the TV company without ACT campaign HQ knowing about it? Yeah right!
Much as Shawn and others might try to beat the “raw nerve” drum, the Greens were actually quite flatterred to be doing well enough to merit an attack ad. Haven’t had that since National added a Green balloon to its ads in the final week of the 1999 campaign.
I’m also a bit bemused why ACT bothered, rather than concentrating on their own message. But hey maybe they have moral qualms about using public broadcasting money for that, and thought they’d tried their hand at satire. Main recommendation – next time accept John Ansell’s help
JGG
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Heh all this (faux?) outrage is great for ACT. The more bluster there is about this the better – perhaps amongst it all people will take a look at the messages and realise there is more than a little truth to them. I surely hope so.
Yes ACT does stand for IP and all property rights. Credible explanations have been given for what happened and apologies too. If you guys want to continue getting worked up – fine by me. Refer to paragraph one.
Oh and there is no vitriol in this comment. Just before someone wants to start saying all ACT people are vitriolic again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Karen Bridgman – thank you so much for your clarification. Here was I thinking that Act had done a grubby bit of work, hijacking the work of another advertising agency, smearing the heartfelt message delivered by an 8 year old girl about her hopes for the future and broadcasting a cynical and deceptive message under the guise of another party’s livery! But you’ve shown me that Act were the victims in this sordid affair – my heart goes out to them! You’ll be furious with those responsible! Who were they again, those people who created the smear ad that screened across the country?
And to Shawn Tan, who writes (of the dreadful turn of circumstance),
“But alas, the wrong ones go up” – my liberal bleeding heart bleeds for you Shawn – how distraught you sound! (ps all of you – act your age)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To greenfly et al:
The problem with you lot is that you regurgitate the trite about poor little Aila being exploited, when we already provided an explanation for why this happened.
Even Jeanette felt to put out a press release on this – even your dear leader doesn’t quite get it.
To Valis and others:
If you’re indeed flattered, and no raw nerve has been touched, then why does Jeanette rant on about Aila being exploited and the Greens being ripped off?
And explain the hysterics of greenfly above? Must have caught a whiff of bugspray, methinks.
To bjchip:
Actually, we’re having great fun. Just last week, we put on some street theatre (involving a farmer and a witch) to highlight our opposition to the ETS. Now, we’ve engaged in some adbusting – familiar territory for the Greens, no doubt.
And to everyone out there who thinks we’re trying to chip away at your lofty polling, please be mindful of your swelling heads not popping.
It’s sad to see the Greens, once known for their modesty, now quite overtly displaying their haughtiness.
Let’s see who will be celebrating on Election Night.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let’s see, why would a politician put out a press release? Hello? You’re digging the hole deeper Shawn.
And if you’re happy on election night, it is unlikely to be due to anything other than riding on the Nats coattails.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the whiff wasn’t bug spray, shawn tan, it was the squiffy odour of someone caught in the Act.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# Valis Says:
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 pm
> You’re digging the hole deeper Shawn.
> And if you’re happy on election night, it is unlikely to be due to anything other than riding on the Nats coattails.
of course, Shawn may be a member of a different party come election night. Will be interesting to see which one he chooses next.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gee whiz, you greenies are really mad about this one!.
Well if you don’t like the heat get out of the kitchen.
If the greens are going to buddy up to dirt slinging, smear hunting, gutter politics labour you are fair game I am affraid
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis:
Why put out a press release when the matter has already been explicated?
Yes, the hole I’m digging is for you and your ilk to fill. I do still believe in composting organic waste.
Greenfly:
“…someone caught in the Act”…of what, exactly? What an anticlimax.
I was hoping for a glorious moment of brilliance from you.
Kahikatea:
The party of common sense, that’s for sure. And, granted, there are so many of them to choose from.
At least I know which party to eliminate straight away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shawn tan said:
Greenfly: “…someone caught in the Act”…of what, exactly?
Use your imagination shawn
(and have a go at creating your own advertisements while you’re in that foreign land
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or how about we wait for you Greenies to create them, such that we can parody them again, and make an absolute mockery of your policies?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Act Party provide the answers to wish the Country is seeking.
We create a better future, for our children/and grandchildren.
Ironically, the Greens are the one’s who resort to cheap advertising. I hear that you where walking up and down queen street giving out stickers to females. “I only date boys that vote green?” What demographic are you reaching.? Hardly, the ones who have any understanding of your policies. Give young intoxicated women (date boys that vote green) stickers to wear in gay bars & KRoad Venues. Hmm, i don’t think all the gay boys will take any notice….they’re too busy checking out the same sex. Maybe you should centre on better marketing strategy, than cheap desparate resorts….one’s that no one will remember the next day.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The greens getting worked up? I think its the libs getting worked up. Do the lib posters here if ever refrain from just posting the first thing to come into their head? I think they need a little more time to actually think about the the facts been presented. Nice to hear the ACT members apologise for the mistake. The watermelon analogy was good the first time now its just been over done. Maybe try to think of another fruit next time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is this the same ACT party that had it’s “Fight Crime” trailer illegally parked on the Northcote Expressway on Sunday afternoon? I wonder if Transit will prosecute?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You could parody Act by having the kid driving a Hummer (as in the Hyundai? adv.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ps You would have to find a fat spoiled little brat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What a shame that ACT had to waste it’s TV time telling lies about the Greens.
The ACT Party can’t have much going for them…….and little integrity to back it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Outinfront
What lies?, the advert is entirely factual.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# big bro Says:
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
>What lies?, the advert is entirely factual.
the only lie I noticed was the ad implying that the Green Party wanted to restrict the number of children people can have. But I only saw the ad once, so I may have missed something.
It seems to me, BB, that you have a knee-jerk tendency to assume that everything said by a left-leaning party is a lie, and everything said by a right-leaning party is factual.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – let me guess, you’re wearing a plain shirt, right, no tie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea:
You said “the ad impl[ies] that the Green Party wanted to restrict the number of children people can have”.
Actually, I can vouch for this.
I developed the Greens’ Immigration Policy, and took over the policy document when population policy was still part of it. Even when Population Policy was demerged, it was developed in parallel to Immigration Policy. And there were numerous similar members in both Issue Groups.
At the discussion group I chaired in the Rotorua AGM, I had attendees say we should stop having so many kids, because it is unsustainable and irresponsible to overpopulate the Earth, etc. Some even said it was immoral to breed, when there are orphans who should be adopted. I was rather shocked.
I did raise this as an issue at the time, that the Greens will get much flak for its Population Policy, based on how the public would construe it. Nobody listened.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Shawn, all you are vouching for is that some individuals in the Green Party would like New Zealanders and the world population to reduce their birthrate because over-population is the greatest long term threat to the planetary eco-system.
That’s a starting point for discussion, but not the final policy. I was on the population issue group, and there were a few discussions like that, but when the full range of information was shared, including the fact that our birth rate is more or less at replacement level, and that general education of women and availability of contraceptives are the most reliable way of reducing the birth rate, coupled with our appropriate decision-making policy, the consensus that is our final policy developed easily. Families make their own choices about family size.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Plus a ps, Shawn, I don’t think we’re given to backing away from issues because we might get flak over them. I appreciate your saying that your worry was with how the public would construe the policy, not the policy itself – it was in the very early stages of development then, IIRC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn Tan said: I had attendees say we should stop having so many kids, because it is unsustainable and irresponsible to overpopulate the Earth, etc. Some even said it was immoral to breed, when there are orphans who should be adopted. I was rather shocked.
Shawn, as with any political party, there will be some individuals in the Green Party who have rather extreme views on issues. But because of the democratic manner in which Green Party policy is developed, those extreme views don’t achieve consensus membership support so don’t end up in the policy. And people who stand as candidates are required to pledge to support the policy, not their individual views.
I might say this is in contrast to the ACT Party where people with extreme views on issues appear to get to make lots of the policy and end up at No 3 on the Party List.
And to set the record straight, the clause in the Green population policy that the ACT ad refers to reads:
ACT appears to be conveniently ignoring the last four words.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Shawn, as with any political party, there will be some individuals in the Green Party who have rather extreme views on issues. But because of the democratic manner in which Green Party policy is developed, those extreme views don’t achieve consensus membership support so don’t end up in the policy”
What utter rubbish!, Russ Norman is a classic example of somebody with extreme left wing/communist views as is Keith (I love Pol Pot) Locke.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
loosen the collar of your plain, tie-less shirt big bro, it’s too tight! Perhaps your scarf is heating your head too much as well!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
IMHO, the issue with the population policy has more to do with the Green’s tendency to be controlling and overbearing more than anything. Personally, I do believe that we should be concerned about overpopulation, but we shouldn’t be doing the one child approach – I would simply solve the problem by getting rid of welfare schemes that encourage parents to give birth to more children. With less money, parents would think a bit harder about it.
Of course, free trade (and by that, I mean true free trade) would also help, as Third World nations would get richer and therefore be less likely to have more children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi pingpong,
I think it is unfortunate that the Greens have so little trust in rational individuals to make informed decisions that they see fit to advocate (through Green Population Policy) the use of awareness programmes and educational initiatives.
Interestingly, when China introduced the one-child policy, it too had to resort to awareness programmes and educational initiatives. Why? The Chinese government knew it would not be well-received.
A rather inconvenient coincidence, I must say.
There would be no need for state-sanctioned and state-funded indoctrination and propaganda to promote social policies, unless the state knows the plebs won’t buy it.
Which really begs the following points:
1) If something is going to be unpopular, don’t force it down the people’s throats by sugar-coating it.
2) The face that the state should even involve itself in the private affairs of citizens is a ghastly thought. Whatever happened to the separation of the private and public spheres?
3) This proves the ‘left’ (used in a broad sense) has no faith/confidence/truth in people to regulate their own affairs.
“Families make their own choices about family size,” you say. That certainly will be the case, until the Greens’ Population Policy is implemented.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shawn – can you explain to me how young parents can choose the potential size of their family-to-be without knowledge of ways to control conception? Do they have to make a wild guess as to ways to limit or maximise their family size? You are objecting to education about family planning – there is to be no advice given by churches? Schools? Medical personel? Are parent-to-be supposed to absorb this information from their mattress? Tell me, shawn tan, where are they to get the information they need. Pure chance doesn’t foot it when it comes to building a family, mr tan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad:
Sure, the parents concerned make the final decisions – but not before being guided to the right decision of choosing fewer children, after being ‘informed’ and ‘advised’ nu state-run programmes. Interference still occurs, so it’s not a free choice.
pingpong:
Actually, I had a problem with the policy itself too. I called it “social engineering in a cloak of sustainability”. I got shot down early in the show.
Having failed to convince anyone that the Population Policy itself was erroneous, I switched my focus to expressing concerns over its portrayal. That didnt make much headway either.
In fact, I found those involved in Immigration/Population policies some of the most narrow-minded individuals I had to deal with. They already made up their minds, and simply wanted to push their personal agendas through.
Toad:
We are proud of our so-called “extreme” policies, toad. We make no apologies for them, because we believe in them. Voters either ‘take them or leave them’.
As the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer observed, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
ACT’s liberal policies are not for everyone. But over time, people will realise their logic and eventually accept them.
As for the Greens, you try and sugar-coat your extremist policies, then take offence when your detractors expose your policies for what they are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly:
Certainly not from organisations with agendas.
Schools are meant to provide objective, balanced and non-partisan information.
Ask yourself this: Would you go to McDonald’s for nutritional advice? Or a neo-Nazi for information on multiculturalism?
Where do young parents go? They exercise their personal responsibility and seek the necessary information through their own means. The information is out there. Seek, and you shall find.
I am not “objecting to education about family planning”. Again, you miss the point. My problem is with the Greens masquerading their anti-population-growth agenda as “information” and “education”.
Parents don’t need information shoved down their throat, especially information intended to induce them to think/act/choose a certain way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Again shawn, where (be specific now) will these parents-to-be find that information. Where?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Shawn, I’ve been away delivering leaflets, and have just come back to your comments. This is the bit I wanted to comment on.
“I think it is unfortunate that the Greens have so little trust in rational individuals to make informed decisions that they see fit to advocate (through Green Population Policy) the use of awareness programmes and educational initiatives.”
I think you and I (and the rest of the Greens) have a different perception of what might be involved here. The policy says “support initiatives to raise awareness amongst parents and potential parents regarding the issue of sustainable global population levels” . Now to me, that is “objective, balanced and non-partisan” (and scientifically verifiable) information about the impacts of different human lifestyles and growth patterns on the ecology of the earth. That to me is the sort of basic information humans need in all their endeavours, ecological budgeting, if you like, beside the sorely needed education in financial budgeting. This is a natural outcome of the ecological footprint emphasis of the policy.
I guess if you are already inclined to view the green message as interfering and authoritarian, you will immediately see it through a different filter. You certainly seem to have had a Road to Damascus conversion. I wish you well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“greenfly Says: Again shawn, where (be specific now) will these parents-to-be find that information. Where?”
Unlike you and your ilk, I do not dictate where parents-to-be should obtain that information.
I’m sorry to hear personal responsibility is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yawn shawn, where, where, where? Easy question. Where’s your answer. Where?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shawn.
“rational individuals”, “informed”, ha! and you say the Greens are the ones living in a deluded world?
also, what is this “home castration kit” i read about?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
written in the stars, shawn? scribbled on the footpaths with chalk? carved into the bark of trees? shawn? where?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi pingpong:
I have no problem with objective, non-partisan information being conveyed. But I can’t help but wonder how objective an information session about population growth can be, when those disseminating the information have a particular agenda.
Moreover, the term “sustainable global population levels” itself is a loaded term. It’s much like the Left’s criticism of the Norm Withers referendum of 1999 regarding tougher sentencing, or the recent Kiwi Party-initiated referendum on the ‘Anti-Smacking Law’. When you frame the debate according to a predetermined worldview, the results will always be skewed because you define the terms of analysis such that your conclusion fits the hypothesis.
In other words: The Greens don’t like the idea of uncontrolled population growth. It’s unsustainable, they say. Therefore, we must regulate. We must tell people about this concept of what a sustainable global population level ought to be. This will be done through educational programmes and initiatives. Hopefully, parents will reach the right decision, i.e. the decision not to overpopulate the Earth (aka stop having so many kids).
I feel ’sustainability’ has become a bit of a euphemistic blanket the Greens are beginning to throw over every single policy. It got tiresome. This is one of the reasons I left the Greens.
My “conversion” actually began last year, after revisiting my ethnic roots and values I was brought up with. The nail in the coffin for my belief in the Greens came soon after Sue Bradford blamed the murders in South Auckland on ‘Rogernomics’. How irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.
The rationale for my conversion goes deeper: There is a reason why a recent poll showed about 60% of Chinese voters favouring National, 4.1% favouring ACT, and no-one else, including the Greens, registering above 1%. Centre-right politics tend to be more commensurate with Asian values.
I remain a civil libertarian, but I’ve adopted free market politics after realising the folly of economic Marxism (or indeed any system that involves state intervention and regulation). After shedding my misconceptions of capitalism, and understanding how markets truly work, ACT were the only natural home for my newfound beliefs.
But because of my civil libertarian views, I began to regard many of the proposals of the Greens as draconian and authoritarian.
Regulation, whether well-intentioned or not, is still regulation, however you want to dress it. And paternalism does more harm than good.
I don’t doubt the Greens are well-intentioned. What I’ve realised though is that because the Green analysis is based on a particular worldview–one that is, in my opinion, both illogical and utopian–the prescription will always be disastrous.
However, I wish you well too. I’m not sure who you are (I don’t know why lefties/greenies never use their real name on blogs…), but I would be keen to catch up over a drink after the Election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly:
Calm down, and take your meds. Smoke a joint, maybe.
If you guys have your way: By decree from the state.
Sapient:
E-mail me to place an order: shawn.tan@act.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shawn – you played the ‘cannabis card’ – I win!
It would be polite of you to answer my question shawn – your evasion is just a yawn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re sounding desperate now. Not getting what you want?
Don’t worry, ask the Nanny State, and she will provide.
And how was that a “win”? I was just looking out for your welfare.
Isn’t that what all Greenies want?
For the record, I’ve provided you answer after answer (namely, that parents can find out the information themselves, by exercising their personal responsibility) – but obviously it’s not the answer you expect.
Tough. I’m not obliged you tickle your fancy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(Correction: I’m not obliged to tickle your fancy.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
see ya shawn
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Likewise buddy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greens outrage over ACT spoof itself hypocritical bullshit….they did it first!
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/greens-all-outraged-over-ad#comme nts
An ad designed by current ACT advertising guru John Ansell back in 1988 was ripped off by the Greens for their “vote for me” ad….well suprise suprise!
Got ya pinkies!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why on earth would a virtually uninhabited country like New Zealand want to limit its population growth?
As far as I can see, we don’t seem in any imminent danger of becoming the China or Java of the South Seas any century soon.
Could it be that the Greens’ optimum human population is zero (plus Green Party members, of course). Would that be, as you say, sustainable?
Please tell me your rationale. I’d like to understand it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John Ansell:
The Values Party, a forerunner to the Greens, advocated Zero Population Growth as part of its policy platform.
The Greens today consist of ex-Values Party members, many of whom have office-holder positions within the party hierarchy.
So I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the unspoken position for many in the Greens today.
Perhaps we will see this as the Greens’ election slogan for 2011:
“Zero Tolerance for Growth.”
Very apt, because this will explicate both their Population Policy and Economic Policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John Ansell Says:
November 4th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Why on earth would a virtually uninhabited country like New Zealand want to limit its population growth?
……………….
Obviously a city boy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John
If we have a total carrying capacity (sustainable) of 5.7 million and the total of people here or coming here is 5.4 million, I don’t understand how you can claim the place is “uninhabited” .
What prompted this erroneous claim?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James
As pointed out on another thread… I was part of a campaign for a school budget in Mineola, New York even longer ago, that exercised that same meme… I know better than to claim that the meme itself is protected under any interpretation of copyright.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Greens……By Greens!
have fun flopping about in opposition…..heh!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Greens……By Greens!
Hopefully the new Government produces a top rate spelling programme.
‘BYE James
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# James Says:
Hi Greens……By Greens!
have fun flopping about in opposition…..heh!
……………………….
Is this the end of Global Warming, peak oil, sustainability, population, financial shenanigans and Values as issues?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James go over to Kiwiblog and ask David Farrar who backs National and what they get for it (Hollow Men).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe this for starters:
“MP Simon Tremain is a former real estate agent from Napier – I believe that given Key has said “no new bureacracy” that the 2007 Real Estate Act will be repealed or postponed as this Act would have seen a new Real Estate Authority set up at an initial cost of many millions and ongoing millions every year to run it. So Tremain may review the situation with this act. All that was really required was a simple review of the old Act with increased fines for indiscretions – REINZ and the REALB can do the job – they just needed more power to penalise Clayton Cosgroves so called “land sharks”.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s another (Who supported National and what they may have got:
“# Gibber Says:
November 9th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
AREINZ said “replace it with a new home buyers grant of around $30,000 and a existing home grant of around $25,000 in order to help people into homes – this should be done before Christmas. This will help counter the 20% deposit problem created by the banks in recent weeks”
Great Idea!!! Lets smuggle Tax Payers money to those developers and vendors who are struggling to sell their over priced properties and developments. Subsidising the Vendors and Developers like that is brilliant. Disguising it as a First Home Owners grant, so the money can be passed to the true beneficiaries, is a great way of ensuring the market stays up. But lets disguise the real purpose. Instead of the “Subsidy to Keep House Prices up for Vendors and Developers”. Lets call it a First Home Owners Grant.!!! That way we can help them into a great big mortgage!!!
Those banks are downright unpatriotic for recognizing that their money might be at risk if they don’t insist on a reasonable deposit in today’s housing market. Lets get the housing bubble going again by directing a stream of tax payer’s money into the housing market. After all, if the deposit is lost due to house prices dropping it will only have been taxpayers money and not the deposit saved by the first home owner.
Sounds good to me. All those tax payers who voted for smaller government will be disappointed. But hey, didn’t New Zealand just elect a socialist big-spending government?
Yes!!! Lets restart the housing bubble with a humungous subsidy.
But is $30,000 enough? How about $50,000? Can I buy a house for my kids and get the subsidy? I’d like that. I hear that savvy people did that in Australia when the “Subsidy to support Vendor & Developer’s House Prices” was introduced.
I’d much rather subsidise developers and existing home owners than just about anything else that tax payers money could be spent on.
And lets try to stop people from looking at the effect the grant had in Australia when it was first introduced. People might start to work out the true beneficiaries are not first home owners.
“
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)