by frog
Yesterday, National and Act activists tried to ruin Helen Clark’s visit to Canterbury University, summed up nicely by Russell Brown as follows:
Some of the sweaty little Tory boys who heckled Helen Clark at Canterbury University seemed determinedly unreconstructed. Although given all National’s whingeing about personal attacks, the signs they waved around – ‘Y R U So Ugly?”, “Nice teeth” and “Speed kills and so do your looks Helen” – rather had the effect of grotesque hypocrisy. Apparently, however, it’s what Jesus would have done.
I’ve just been told by an eyewitness that National and Act tried to pull the same stunt at Victoria University this lunchtime, but were outgunned by both the numerical advantage of Labour and Green supporters on campus and the Prime Minister’s humour. One young Nat, the eyewitness tells me, decided to strip down and streak in front of Miss Clark. She shot back words to the effect of: “I think we’ll need to get everyone a magnifying glass.”
The kind of humour Kiwis wouldn’t usually expect from the Prime Minister, but I’m told the joke brought the house down among the student audience. It’ll be interesting to see how prominently this features on the news tonight…
UPDATE: Another eyewitness tells me the streaker was a young Act member, not a young Nat. My apologies.
Published in Campaign by frog on Wed, September 14th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
*yawn* Always amusing being called a hypocrite by a hypocrite. Still, nice to see Helen give as good as she got – which she should have done in Christchurch rather than flounce off to her next photo op. And, yes, you’re supposed to stack photo ops you stilly tits – good to see the lefties at Vic got the memo.
BTW, this also just in Michael Cullen has been ordered by the Ombudsman to release all the Treasury costings of the student loan interest bribe by 5pm. Could set some interesting precedents down the road…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was quite shocked when I heard 3news calling the turn out for Clark a “protest”. I think it’s quite heartening that so many students turned out to see her, and just disappointing that the hecklers were so obtrusive that the majority of the crowd couldn’t hear or see a thing. No wonder she left so soon, – it was essentially pointless to stay.
And the personal jibes were lame. Almost as strange as the lone girl holding up a “raise interest rates” sign… Odd.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
*shrug*
I remember when it was the anarchists at Uni Cant who’d shout down visiting ministers and plan photo-stunts to embarrass them. Seems like just yesterday…
So it’s hard to hassle the little tories on the basis of their tactics when they’re just doing the same.
Not that any sitting PM dared step on campus in those days of yore. There were too many students there whose life plan aged 15 had involved universities that charged no fees and gave student allowances to all, and who found the new reality of large fees, scarce allowances, and student debts in 5 figures a shock. It’s a bit of a shock to consider how _normal_ students consider these now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tomorrow’s leaders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Acutally he was David Cassidy, and ACT on Campus member and is on the VUWSA Executive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There was a small zeal of shamelessly aggressive hard righters at the meeting, but, the quad was totally packed with students cheering for Labour and Helen. It sounded great.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does the VUWSA Exec have magnifying glasses, or does he keep his pants on at meetings?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
a) I (and nor did the people around me hear the hilarious ‘joke’
b) There were indeed more Labour and Green people there than Act and National folk, but there was a great turn out from the right, and we got our point across. Only three more days to freedom, frog-man!
c) at least Clark and her cabal got the PR stuff right today – stacking the front of the Quad with Labour lackeys and balloons – who turned quite hostile actually, as the speech wore on…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Chris-man!
1) Ah, well, lucky you have me here to tell you what happened then, eh?
2) Counting, chickens, etc.
3) I’ve heard the speech was inspirational – Clark at her best, defending the NZ she believes in. Guess these things are in the eye of the beholder
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i was there and was a little dissapointed about the way the labour party totally dominated it. it was so contrived and was obviously a reaction to what happened in canterbury. we really wanted to let students ask questions but were told we werent allowed, it was too hard. we didnt know all the other candidates were going to turn up and speak, and we couldnt stop them once they were all up there. it was quite disgusting really. all the signs and balloons at the front meant that the regular non-political students at the back couldnt see a damn thing.
although i dont think that the act or nats in canterbury acted very appropriately either – so you cant win either way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Froggers!
1) I guess so.
2) Well indeed.
3) I’ve always been a admirer of Clark’s public speaking ability, but I would have to disagree that she was at her best today. Sure, she was skilful as always, polished, pushed all the right buttons, but it wasn’t a stand-out performance by any means.
Still, your beholder comment is correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the speech was excellent, the thuggish behaviour of hardline righters only succeeded in putting swinging voters off Dr Brash. amandla!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah, like anyone there hadn’t already made up their mind or just deciding between Labour and Greens…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The only problem with the magnifying joke was she said it to his back.
I guess her memory is going?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On this note re thuggish behaviour on the part of the Right, this goes out to Andrew Straw (and his ilk), who made a comment somewhere about the Greens being negative and cynical. Well, I put this to you dude:
ACT and National supporters have to resort to using ad hominem tactics against Helen Clark. What do personal attacks achieve? In actual fact, they
1) show you lack credibility;
2) give the impression that you are unable to debate from a rational standpoint;
3) demonstrate you lack substance and hence have to resort to personal attacks as a means of compensation for your lack of intellect, or indeed anything worthwhile saying; and
4) detract from your message – even if you have something worthwhile to say.
And out in the West Auckland electorate, National has been:
1) Destroying Green billboards (ripping them down etc.).
2) Putting up National billboards in prohibited areas/spaces.
3) Putting them back up again when the council has them taken down.
ZenTiger, Craig and Andrew – do you:
1) Support the destruction/removal of other Parties’ billboards?
2) Believe that putting up billboards illegally (or in illegal places) is permissible/justifiable?
3) Support the actions of ACT and National supporters in name-calling and hurling personal insults of such a vitriolic nature?
And please point me/us to an occasion when the Greens have been guilty on any of these counts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said, RedGreen !
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What I’ve seen is more of an equal opportunity offensive against ALL the billboards in my area. Greens, Nats, Act, United and Birthday.
respectfully BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was very careful to observe the crowd during clark’s speech. The 150 or so activists at the front certainyl performed for cameras. But the hundreds of ordinary students there did not react or clap at all.
I actually think the best speaker was (seriously) Darren Hughes. The PM addressed the converted and made no attempt to speak to the rest of the crowd and did not connect. However that wasn’t her aim. Her aim was to get some good coverage on TV, not swing 100 students or so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi frog,
I was another ear-witness (can’t say eye, couldn’t see past red balloons) and there was a definite sense of re-arrangement of scheduled event – even VUWSA pres, Jeremy Greenbrook, couldn’t keep off the mike, excusing Helen’s late arrival, et al. But when the PA wasn’t buzzing (there’s dead spots for the amps in the quad, too – bad archtecture…) you could mostly hear what she and her pet ministers were saying.
Some of the cheering was for a stoush happening right in front of the balloons as labour and national teams fought over the relatively small front row immediately in front of the tv crews;
less cheering for the woefully underdressed David Cassidy (please let me be drunker than he was today, if he ever does this again! FYI David lipstick scrawled on your back does not go with a black thong…)
There were quantities of student media and independant photographers, might be worth checking http://www.aotearoa.indymedia.org for not-seen-on-tv pictures.
All in all a fun event, despite lack of question time when so many questions are begging to be asked about student debt.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi RedGreen
In reply to your question (and speaking only for myself)
1) Support the destruction/removal of other Parties’ billboards?
No.
2) Believe that putting up billboards illegally (or in illegal places) is permissible/justifiable?
No to permissible (that’s why it is illegal)
Yes to justifiable (but that is subjective, and people have to accept the consequences of breaking the law)
3) Support the actions of ACT and National supporters in name-calling and hurling personal insults of such a vitriolic nature?
The key is the implied vitriol – no. Banter and bollockings from nutty students of all sorts – its part of life. I’m not in a position to tell others how to behave, and we are all ambassadors, and it would be nice to raise the standards. Still, the PM and her team have set the tone for the rest of the country on that score too.
Like BJchip, I’ve seen destruction of several billboards. I think Destiny have had the worst run, followed by National, but that could just be the area I’m in.
I’ve also dealt with some excessively offensive Greens, and suspect rudeness does not respect political boundaries. It’s also fair to note that blogs and blogging, due to its more impersonal nature, attracts stronger reactions than usual. It pays to have a thick skin and a short memory. Different topics have different levels of importance to people, and that can be hard to account for.
Not sure how those answers help you, but you asked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
David Cassidy…Well he will go far. What a waste. Who would employ a twerp like that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
RedGreen:
Sorry, but the inference that I condone or participate in vandalism of hoardings really pisses me off. I can give as good as I get, and take what I dish out, but you’ve just gone too far.
This is the tenth general or body election campaign I’ve been involved in, and I was an office holder in the Young Nats from 1995-2000. I’ve developed a great deal of respect for EVERYONE who gets off their arses and gets involved in the political process, even if I vehemently disagree with their politics. And no election campaign or political party would last a week without the generosity and commitment of volunteer activists.
ANYONE who vandalises hoardings – including the so-called ‘Lisa Simpsons’ that frog found such a jolly wheeze a while back – are beneath contempt in my book. I don’t give a damn who the target or perpetrators are.
And if you have any specific concerns, contact the Police, the local council or the local returning officer.
And when National candidate Katherine Rich has had a string of anonymous violent rape threats left on her office voicemail, don’t you dare lecture me on how evil and malicious and cowardly National supporters are. And I spent a good chunk of the 90′s in regular contact with a staunch left-winger whose idea of profound political analysis was to preface any mention of Jenny Shipley or Ruth Richardson with “that fat c**t” or “that ugly dike bitch”. Now, did that say anything about “THE LEFT”? Certainly not – I’ve many friends on the left who are decent, honourable and profoundly decent people. But it said a lot about one left-wing arsehole.
As we grind to the close of a thoroughly ugly and superficial campaign, I don’t see a lot of moral high ground. I think there are more than a few people on all sides of the political spectrum – political parties (including the Greens), hardcore partisans, the media and lobbyists – who need to stop pointing the finger and put their own houses in order.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ZenTiger:
Thanks for your measured response dude.
The purpose of me raising those questions was merely to exact an opined response – NOT to make any inference whatsoever. So Craig, I take exception to the insinuation that I was labelling you a vandal or whatever.
Just a few quick notes:
Firstly -
* Destiny signs being ripped down: Yes I am aware of this happening, and the group who are responsible are a wide coalition of Christians – progressives, moderates, etc. – who are offended by and concerned with the Destiny message. They feel that Destiny are doing a great disservice to Christianity and feel really passionately about it. I know this ‘cos I know a couple of people who are in this group. None are Greenies though, I can assure you.
* So Craig – the Greens are NOT behind ANY destruction of other parties’ billboards. We ensure that we are in strict compliance with the Electoral Act, and also don’t resort to underhanded tactics. That, I believe, is the difference between us and National – as for us it’s not ‘anything goes’.
Secondly -
* Being offensive: No doubt there will be some people who are offensive. But:
a) It depends on one’s definition of ‘offensive’. I have talked to people who find our stand on GE offensive, for instance. I guess what I’m trying to get at is ad hominem attacks in particular. I believe the mantra ‘attack the idea, not the person’ holds true. So while our attacks on National’s beliefs (and those of other right-wing parties) may come across as offensive, NEVER have we resorted to personal attacks, name-calling, hurtful insults and the like.
b) Even if there are some Greenies who resort to that, they are few are far between – and nothing on the scale and extent of what ACT and National supporters stoop themselves to.
…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…
And to continue on…
Craig:
1) FYI, I used to be a member of the Libertarianz. Do not get me started on right-wingers being righteous and clean. I have rubbed shoulders with people whose ideas are even more conservative and extreme than those of National and ACT. And I have also heard the disparaging remarks they have to make of the Left.
2) And then, after being so disgusted with the free market paradigm and the rationale behind it – “the market is the epitome of Darwinian competition, and it is good that some may have to suffer to allow others to have the opportunity of getting ahead” (words uttered from an unnamed Libz member – I joined the Socialist Workers Organisation (yes they are orthodox Marxists).
The reason I mention this is to show that I have been involved in both extremist Left and Right politics before, and so I agree with out insofar as I have seen people – both on the Left and Right – who are rather unpleasant. Yes some Leftists I know can be rather caustic and crude in their comments.
However, NOT ONE Greenie that I know or have ever known has resorted to ad hominem attacks or crass remarks. That MAY be the case of some oon the Left, but specifically not for any of the Greenies I know.
I’m saying all this, not to get on some moral high ground, but simply because in some cases the best form of defence is attack.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One further point:
I think that when one focuses more efforts on deriding her opponent rather than making constructive statements, it says something about her beliefs and those of whom she may represent.
Why have National supporters concentrated their efforts on mocking Helen Clark that saying what the Nats stand for?
I was in the Auckland Uni Quad yesterday afternoon when Helen Clark spoke and noticed that out of the 12 or so Nat signs/placards I could see, 8-9 of them contained written disparaging remarks about Ms Clark, such as ‘Helen – go brush your teeth with Botox’ and ‘Ugly bitches like Helen are lesbos since they can’t get guys’. How very constructive and informative.
I have yet to see a Labour, Greens or Progressives supporter hold up a sign saying ‘Don you bald piece of shit’ or anything of this nature.
The Greens believe in clean politics. Bob Brown came to New Zealand to emphasise the need for this (it is dirty in Australia).
I issue a challenge to National to practice clean politics – or at the very least make a token attempt to do so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
RedGreen:
If you want to pontificate about “clean politics”, I notice you’ve alleged several times that the National Party has engaged in an organised campaign to deface or destroy Labour/Green hoardings. Do you have any evidence – and if so, I enourage you to present it to the appropriate authorities while making a complaint – or are just going to keep making scurruous allegations of criminal behaviour?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ad hominem tactics
Funny, but I have never been called an “ilk” before. I’d call that name-calling, myself.
I am for honesty in politics. That means I don’t support any hooligans tearing down signs. That is criminal behaviour, and I am 100% against it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good grief..!
why on earth are you commenting on a 2005 thread..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Guess I am a bit recursive. The issue of destroying signs will be a perennial one, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)