Nandor is back

Nandor has decided he will return to Parliament to fill the seat left vacant by Rod‘s tragic death.

Nandor says:

“Rod Donald’s death is an enormous blow, personally and politically, but the work continues. Rod always encouraged me to be myself within the constrained environment of Parliament and I intend to do that, with a vengeance.?

He is about to speak on National Radio’s Nine to Noon show.

(a bit later, if you missed it, a reminder that Radio NZ put their programmes online for about a week afterwards, so click here after Noon today to get to that menu. FYI, they already have audio of all of Rod’s funeral)

39 Comments Posted

  1. Alexei,

    You’re not one of them, don’t worry. Thought I’d put your mind at ease. 🙂 I was directing it more at those who kept making derogatory comments about Nandor – those who think he is a liability, those who think “he should have said *this* / he shouldn’t have said *that*” etc.


    Well put. Indeed, “environmentally sustainable goals and socially just and sustainable goals are absolutely inseperable”. Justice for Mother Earth and justice for humanity are not mutually exclusive, since we’re part of an interconnected whole – the ecosystem – which inevitably necessitates in a holistic package.

    Besides, dealing with the two separately in fact does the environmental cause in and of itself no favours, since it suggests that environmental problems aren’t part of the same systemic malaise that generates socio-economic problems.

  2. Maybe it’s worth pointing out that Nandor actually said “Parliament CAN be a pretty toxic place”, presumably at times, and surely even Hyde would concur with that.

    Welcome back Nandor!

  3. Musbee:

    Well done!

    One father-in-law talks to one of his friends who talks to ….

    This is the way that opinons can change.

  4. I’m pretty sure that buy NZ made would be part of Nandor’s philosophy, along with getting Industrial hempproduced here so that the Hempstore can stock NZ-made.

    isn’t most of the cannabis sativa smoked in NZ grown here, or has my entire life’s experience of reading media reports of police crop burnings been a hallucination?

    not suggesting any link, of course,just random doodlings…


  5. musbee…

    “..I’m pleased to have last night convinced my father-in-law that Nandor’s range of political focus was indeed quite wide, and that his dreadlocks were of the highest quality, and should cause no reason for concern!…”

    tee hee…’ small step for man..’……eh..?..:)


  6. “I am not sure which people you are talking about when you say “environmentalist-only? greens.”
    Alexei – Awariki seemed to me to suggest in this blog that the main purpose of the greens was environmental and that any social justice causes should be incidental. For me, I don’t see how environmental sustainability is possible (or even worthwhile) in a world where there isn’t a degree of sustainability in the relationships between people and nations. When I refer to “environmentalist-only” greens, I may or may not be refering to anyone in this thread; I’m not sure how completely anyone is of that mold. But I am referring to a number of people in other threads on this site, or in the media in general (though I’d hazard a guess that most of the media commentators aren’t greens themselves!) who seem to think that it is possible and even essential for a green party to exist solely for the purpose of environmental policy, and working with parties across the economic and social spectrum. My point is that if the NZ Greens went in that direction, there is a large proportion of current Green voters who would turn away (And I, like you, could do so freely, not being a member, though a Green voter). Fortunately I don’t imagine it happening, as there are few alternatives for us ‘red-greens’. There are those who would prefer a purely environmental focus. My suspicion, from frequently lurking around this site, is that they are in the minority to those for whom environmentally sustainable goals and socially just and sustainable goals are absolutely inseperable.
    On the Nandor issue, I’m pleased to have last night convinced my father-in-law that Nandor’s range of political focus was indeed quite wide, and that his dreadlocks were of the highest quality, and should cause no reason for concern!

  7. alistair..”..If only he’d get a haircut and start drinking alcohol, eh!..”

    that is funny…

    stuey..your comments on cannabis policy/priorities and succession were concise and right on the money….

    re the ‘one-dimensional’ label….just give that one a bit of

    and i will repeat..(and echo)..the counsel that a very effective way for this to come about would be for nandor to take up rods’ mantle of ‘buy nz made’..

    get him out and about/mix and mingle as much as


  8. alexei,

    I didn’t think your comments were “offending” and your wording did identify your “separateness”. Your contribution to the debate is worthwhile, so please do stay around!

    I felt perfectly relaxed about Nandor saying “parliament is toxic?. I am sure Rod would have agreed with him.

    The Greens are “helpful” enough in so many ways, and should be allowed the occasional “right on the mark” criticism of parliamentary behaviour, which I believe they all find distasteful at times. (Unlike you I think that “80-90% of the population” might well agree with Nandor on this! … If not quite that percentage, a majority anyway.)

    Nandor would be one of the most tolerant, gently spoken, considerate and inclusive of the MPs in Parliament. I have always found what he says worth listening to.


  9. I am probably one of the offending parties that RedGreen is annoyed with. For those I have offended I apologize. For the record I have voted for the Green party since I was able to vote. But I am not a member of the NZ Green party, one of the reasons being that I feel having an affiliation with a political party would undermine my ability to be impartial on scientific matters (as I am an evolutionary biologist in my day job). I don’t know if that makes me a “fellow Green” or not, but I suspect not. Nevertheless, I do very much hope that you guys do extremely well this term and in the next election.

  10. Red Green said:
    “At a time when the Party needs unity, it sickens me to hear all this squabbling and bitching, especially behind someone’s back.”

    “Nandor gets enough shit from the media, the public and the Right; the last thing he needs – especially at this difficult time – is for his fellow Greens to be deriding him.”

    I get the distinct impression that the offending comments are made by people other than “fellow Greens”.

  11. That might have been me making the comment about playing politics that you echoed Stuey. I meant it for everything, life in general rather than just some people not being completely happy with nandor or his comments. My opinion was meaning that if you get too political or stategic over issues etc you risk losing touch with reality or the here and now side of things.
    in the interview Nandor seemed to me to be coming directly from where he was or wahtever at that particular moment, and i don’t think it’s wise to create barriers to that state of mind too much. Even if you don’t agree with everything said, it’s still refreshing to hear people talking from that space and too me more valuble than someone worried that they might say the wrong thing-not that i personally have any prob with anything said!
    This isn’t relating to the interview specifically, but just on the topic, you can’t please everyone, and people make mistakes, but it’s one thing to amke a genuine mistake and another to make one cause you were being tricky or strategic or whatnot. Ultimately it’s what yur candidates stand for anyway, getting political about every little thing is not the point.
    Also i echoe mustbee’s post and think it’s right, the holistic principle she/he was saying about is dead on.

  12. Welcome back Nandor. 🙂 You’ve brought a huge sigh of relief to youth across the nation.

    Awariki said:

    “For me, justice and social issues are secondary to keeping the planet habitable for ourselves and other wonderful life forms.”

    I dunno how many times I have heard this comment. And I have repeated the Party line time and time again.

    The Green Party is NOT an environmentalist party, PERIOD.

    It is a party which stands for social justice, non-violence, participatory democracy (aka appropriate decision-making) and ecological wisdom – all EQUALLY the founding principles of the Party.

    No one principle trumps the other.

    Rod’s life and work, incidentally, epitomised the *perfectly well-balanced* Green spirit and philosophy – he fought for social justice and human rights AS FERVENTLY AND PASSIONATELY as he did for environmental justice and awareness.

    As for Nandor not talking about Green issues on talkback, let me just say this:

    Nandor did not go on radio to give a party political broadcast. He was not obliged to say anything except anything that was on his mind.

    At a time when the Party needs unity, it sickens me to hear all this squabbling and bitching, especially behind someone’s back.

    Nandor gets enough shit from the media, the public and the Right; the last thing he needs – especially at this difficult time – is for his fellow Greens to be deriding him.

    Anyone with a problem with Nandor, e-mail me at and I will provide you with his mobile number. Please then feel free to bitch to/at him directly yourself, rather than post here for all the world to see.

    Nandor will also appreciate your HONEST thoughts.

  13. hhhhmmmmm…for what it’s worth I thought Nanador performed very well on 9-noon; and most of what he said was very sensible (I can think of other Green MPs who come across much less sensible). The problem, I think, is the stereotype that he gets tarred with – which isn’t his fault; nor is it something the Greens should cave into.

  14. “A good option is for the Greens to allow the decriminalization policy [however watered down some members may believe it has become] to move to the bottom of the agenda in terms of priorities.”

    This has already happened! or do you have any evidence that it is above any other priorities? I’d love it if people that suggested this, that we rate cannabis above other things in priority would actually have some evidence of this. I don’t think that cannabis could get much lower in “priority” for the Greens.

    I maintain that even if the Greens were to completely give up their cannabis policy and become prohibitionists that the public perception and Peter Dunhill attacks would still be that we favour legalisation. I don’t think there is anything we can do about that, other than try and persuade people that they are wrong on cannabis – I reckon going on the attack and taking the moral high ground over medical cannabis is the way to help achieve that.

    I also echo the comment that deliberate politricks such as backrom deals to get someone else on the list other than Nandor are not the Green way. Some commentators may be surprised to hear this, but the Green Party is not controlled by a cabal who decide everything, but rather by the members – nandor was voted to 7 on the list by the members and so he should be our next MP. The Greens do not see this a strategic decision to be made – its called appropriate decision-making, or democracy.

  15. musbee:

    I am not sure which people you are talking about when you say “environmentalist-only” greens. No-one here has denied the importance of social justice. The discussion is only about priorities. How do we allocate effort to the various causes. Social justice and environmentalism are both global issues. I would contend that social justice is a fundamental requirement for a modern society, but I would also contend that New Zealand is far closer to being a just society then India, China and most countries in Africa. New Zealand has more social justice than the USA and Australia as well IMHO. What NO country has, including NZ, is a sustainable future.

  16. ‘For me, justice and social issues are secondary to keeping the planet habitable for ourselves and other wonderful life form.’ – Awariki

    Like Adagio, I fail to see how a planet can be ‘habitable’ or healthy without taking social justice into account – the way we treat each other is inextricably linked with the way we treat the world we are part of. Furthermore, I think many ‘environmentalist-only’ greens would be shocked by the sizeable number of votes that would be lost if the Green Party lost their parallel social justice focus. Many *many* of us have come to the Greens because of their holistic approach to the world; lose that, and we become like every other party, trying to make disconnected changes to a world that cannot and should not be split into neat little disconnected boxes.
    Congratulations to Nandor on coming back, albeit in deeply distressing circumstances. I hope he can shake the faulty ‘one-issue’ label. I’ve been impressed time and time again by the wide-ranging, compassionate and intelligent work he has done on issues, even if sadly, I had to dig deep to find the information.

  17. Yes, Nandor is as good an MP as any of the other current Green MPs.
    However, he is a lightning rod for the media on decriminalization of cannabis, an issue which is not supported by a majority of voters.
    As a result, it’s very easy for the Greens to be painted as demons on this issue, which then washes over into other policy areas. Perception becomes reality.
    A good option is for the Greens to allow the decriminalization policy [however watered down some members may believe it has become] to move to the bottom of the agenda in terms of priorities.
    There are other more pressing policy issues this term.
    But this change of emphasis needs to be clearly signalled to the media and the public, and Nandor needs to focus on the priority issues and publicly remove himself from the decriminalization debate.
    Industrial and medicinal use of hemp within business and health sectors is a more benign focus to take at present, and one which can be progressed.
    Nandor taking over the Made in NZ platform would be a good use of his talents and allow him to encourage industrial use of hemp.
    The opportunities for Greens to make progress in the new political arena exist, there is immense public goodwill after Rod’s death. It shouldn’t be squandered on one issue which alienates that same public goodwill.
    I’m sure Nandor understands this well and will work for the bigger Green vision of the wider membership.

  18. ‘For me, justice and social issues are secondary to keeping the planet habitable for ourselves and other wonderful life form.’ – Awariki

    Sounds sensible to me. In terms of priorities, it is *obvious* that the planet comes first, because without the planet no society is possible whatsoever. I guess most people are only interested in the fairly immediate future though – and it is arguably the case that social justice can be addressed more easily and more immediately. Couple this with the prevailing opinion is that the planet is not in imminent danger, and you have the reason why many are more worried about social justice than climate change.

    However there is some scientific evidence suggesting that the planet *might* well already be in imminent danger – insofar as it is possible that the climate is approaching a “no-turning-back” transition in conditions. If the arctic ice pack disappears this century the knock-on effects will probably be irreversible for millenia. Is this potential risk ignorable in preference for extending social justice causes?? — its not obvious to me. Of course as a scientist I must admit that the uncertainties around this information are colossal, and all the worrying might well be for nothing, but with so much at stake, even small probabilities should be taken seriously — its called insurance!

  19. ‘For me, justice and social issues are secondary to keeping the planet habitable for ourselves and other wonderful life form.’ – Awariki

    It would seem to me that, in terms of quality of life, you can’t have one without the other. A beautifully green, healthy planet sans social justice? Not for me.

  20. Hi Katie, thank you for being involved in stopping ge foods, Although i instinctively supported that i was like many, pre-coocupied with whatever the distraction of the day was. I don’t think yu were being radical though, getting involved in democracy shouldn’t b deemed radical and usually isn’t unless it involves sticking up for the public good.
    I think mankind and the planet has benefited enough already from replacement of timehonoured food practices for lab foods, and i don’t care how tricky the learnt definitions are.
    Why bother playing the media, all sources are owned and controlled by corporate interests, just look at other western countries, do you really believe New Zealand is different? It’s happening constantantly, despite the obligatory token efforts to appear impartial. Not that i watch t.v. but i did turn on to see about Rod Donalds death and what did channel one give me? Leaders of parties in parliament saying nice words about Rod but inexplicably National got two of their party on praising Rod compared to everyones elses one, Brash (some one give him the bash) and Brownlee. Also they both got more time than anyone else!!
    Greens should just do what they do and hopefully get more momentum independent of Media.

  21. In answer to those who think that Nandor is the best person to represent the Greens consider the opportunities he missed in his interview with Linda Clark on National Radio this morning. He had about 20 minutes to say pretty much what he liked but all he talked about was himself emphasising how much he disliked the toxic nature of Parliament. I heard nothing to convince doubters to support the Green’s vision or to reasure supporters that the Greens were still focused on environmental policies after the shock departure of Rod..
    Given the considerable public sympathy for the Party right now, Nandor blew a great opportunity to advance the Greens’ vision. Like Greenboy, I would have preferred Mike Ward, a positive enthusiatic representative with a Green agenda, as our replacement.

    Its not too late or inexplicable for Nandor to change his mind given his tardy acceptance of the vacancy and obvious distaste for his work place.

  22. Katie:

    As a geneticist (who does not support GE in foods), I would really like to know what makes you think that GE food products will cause genetic defects in your children more than mobile phones, TVs, burnt toast et cetera. Many forms of radiation can and do cause genetic defects: chief amongst them being (very natural) sunlight (which causes melanoma). Free radicals can cause genetic defects, Burnt toast is carcinogenic, mobile phones have the potential to cause tumours. So why pick on GE food?

    I don’t like GE food because I don’t like Monsanto and the other multi-national companies that want to use it for nefarious purposes of profit rather than human and planetary good.

    GE technology is not in itself necessarily harmful IMHO, and indeed is potentially very good. Of course it has inherent risks and should be treated with care just like every technological advance humans have ever made since stone tools. The only real problem with GE is that it is so easy to do and there are many companies that want to GE things for profit rather than human good.

    If you don’t like mutant foods then don’t eat broccoli, or cauliflower, or cabbage or brussel sprouts – they are all mutants of the same species (Brassica oleracea).

  23. Me and my kids, and lots of other greenie families and their kids, also played a part in stopping GE from being “normalised” into the food chain in NZ. Nandor is not out on a limb there. Where are you sitting that preventing genetic defects in our kids is “radical”?

    Sue Kedgely is also a key antagonist to GE, as a part of the Safe Foods and Organics campaigns. Health issues in our country need debating; far too may issues around regulation are about enabling multi-national corporations to make profits from the sick and disabled.

    Sue Bradford is campaigning on child poverty issues in NZ. GE will not help feed low-income families in NZ. GE is not about “feeding the poor”, but about restricting access to seed stocks to those who can pay for fresh seed each year, as GE plants have non-viable seeds. Poor countries traditionally plant from seed saved from the best of their crops, which disadvantages third world farmers if GE seed is all that’s available. The nature of wind-born pollinators in many grain species make it almost impossible for farmers to stop GE crops from cross-pollinating with non-GE crops. This is putting farmers out of business in Canada and the US, where Monsanto is suing farmers because of wind-pollinated GE plants appearing in places where no seed has been purchased (ie: infringeing patent on seed stock).

    There is currently an exhibition about GE showing at Te Papa, in Wellington.
    The exhibition is sponsored by Merck, Sharp and Dohme, a pharmaceutical company based in the USA, with a lot of the material having been produced by the Natural History Museum in NY.

    There is very little about New Zealand in the exhibition, and what is there minimises the input of Greens during the Moratorium, the report from the Commission on GE is sealed inside a perspex box (don’t want anyone to read that, do we) and activists are only shown by a couple of photo’s and a very small description – no acknowledgement of 2 – 3 years of campaigning by thousands of people, no reproduction of the photographs that graced articles in the Listener, et al, showing huge peaceful protests, complete with children and butterfly costumes.

    Yeah, I’m ready to get radical again. Just try to stop me!

  24. Nandor seems like someone with things to offer. I am sure he will do a good job, and no doubt Rod Donald’s legacy will figure in that.

    However, comments like “parliament is toxic”, while perhaps true, are unhelpful. It is something I could not imagine Rod Donald saying (but please those that knew him correct me if I am wrong). Its the kind of thing which I imagine immediately puts 80-90% of the population off. Few people share such a strong opinion. I strongly dislike the lack of backbone, and apparent conivance evident in many politicans, but to say “parliament is toxic” is only reasonable if you are willing to give a supporting argument that people can understand. None was forthcoming from Nandor in his interview today.

    I maintain that the Green party could garner a lot more support if they were able to get their priorities clearly communicated to the to the New Zealand people without letting the media lens distort it. The Green party has to realise that the media are not benevolent, and that if the Green party doesn’t play the media, the media will play the Green party – as they have for many years. You don’t have to lose your righteousness, your ethics or your courageous altruism to do this. You just have to realise that the media is not a pane of glass, but a lens, with sensationalism and ratings the drivers of the focus.

  25. I don’t think the greens should play politics too much or else they are getting distanced from their source. They are not wanting power for the sake of being in or protecting priveledge, and too get side tracked by that line of thinking into playing politics would weaken them. Once you start playing politics the system has you.
    I agree that they need to prioritise issues and it may be that why they favour the decrimalising of cannibis, it is given lesser impetus than other issues. It all comes down to how they rank the importance of different issues and how they organise that sort of stuff. But they should never compromise who they are, as you can’t please everyone, and also mayby many people don’t really care about particulars anyway, and just respond to honesty the best anyway.
    So Nandor being defined mainstream or not, who cares, as long as supporters know what greens stand for it doesn’t matter. Also didn’t he play a big hand in stopping ge foods being given a free ticket into our food supply? And that is deemed radical?

  26. I agree with everything Eredwen, Katie and Alistair have said. I’m glad Nandor is back in parliament, and I wish him well.

  27. For those who argue that Nandor should not take the now vacant seat in Parliament, a few facts would be a good idea.

    1. Nandor is the next candidate on the Green Party List.
    (That list order is decided by a democratic process whereby all candidates are ranked by every current-at-the-time member of the Green Party of AotearoaNZ.)

    2. This web page is worth looking at before commenting:

    (or better still … to get some idea of the depth and breadth of the real Nandor, as opposed to the media and other-political-party creation) …

    3. go to and enter the word “Nandor” in the search bar at the top of the page …

    Nandor is very far from being the “one issue” person that other political parties and the media tend to portray. (The question worth thinking about is … why do they do that? and why do people (want to) believe them?)

    We need Nandor in Parliament, and Parliament needs Nandor.
    I am personally very grateful that he is willing to go there again!


  28. Nobody can replace Rod, that’s not the question. Nandor is next on the list, there’s no “blunder” there. It’s a real shame people have their knickers in a knot about his religion and his hairstyle, I guess NZers aren’t as tolerant as they like to think they are.

    But when you look at his achievements, and the respect he’s won from MPs, the press gallery, and everyone who’s met him, then you’d have to conclude that he is in fact leadership material… If only he’d get a haircut and start drinking alcohol, eh!

  29. I think Nandor is great but I don’t think he’s the right person for the job. I think the issue is that Rod gave the Greens mainstream credibility and male co-leadership, neither of which Nandor can do. Sad but true. It is a major strategic blunder.

  30. “The policy committee dealing with this issue may need membership revision to help achieve this change of emphasis.”

    Er, no I think they have managed to revise our policy several times without member input, so I don’t see why they need help now!

    In 1998 the party approved a “gradual legalisation” policy, this was then watered down several times, without going through the proper policy process, so that we now have a “partial decriminalisation” policy.

    I’m not complaining, I’m a pragmatist, but I point this out to show that any further watering down of our policy is not really possible – we couldn’t get any less in favour of law reform, without becoming prohibitionist.

    I also completely disagree that our cannabis policy puts people off the Greens – given that nearly 40% of the population support decriminalisation, but only 5% support the Greens, that means that there are 35% of the population who choose not to vote Green for other reasons apart from cannabis, and who could be persuaded to vote green without us changing our policy. I think that the cannabis effect on our vote is completely overstated. Most people think that cannabis is not that much of a big deal.

  31. As one who has worked with young people for much of my adult life, running term-time and school holiday youth programs, and having worked with Nandor on Tertiary education issues, I respectfully suggest that many of you have confused a piece of journalism ( scripted by the journalist, who chooses which questions to ask, and which pieces of answer to ignore) with any of the policy documents and statements scripted by Nandor and his office staff.

    Try reading the Green party material, which actually states policy represented by Nandor in his time in Parliament, look at his record for getting social justice legislation enacted, and then express your opinions, which you are entitled to without reserve. I expect that as intelligent bloggers you will find the information refreshing, and while opinions can come from deep-seated roots in one’s subconscious, information is always useful for framing opinion.

    I for one am grateful for his insisitence on policies regarding Universal Student Allowances, and a return to Free University Fees; the Labour Party did not come up with it’s pre-election Student Loan Interest write-off package without the realisation that our Green Policy was far more attractive to NZUSA and the regional Students’ Associations than anything they’d said up ’til then. A decade of debtors, and $8 billion in outstanding Loans is a lot of afffected students, now adults, employed, voting, and overtaxed for something their elders got for “free”, right up to PhD level.

    By the way, the 1991 definition of “Free” for students with a Standard Tertiary Bursary was a weekly allowance, (means-tested to exclude married students with working spouses, but hardly anyone else) plus 75% rebate on fees, which left students paying between $300 – $500 p.a. for a full-year course, cheapest for a B.A., dearest for M.D, B.D.S, LLB (well, that’s still the same…)

    Welcome back, Nandor, I’m looking forward to some more campus visits when we swing into Education Action at VUW next semester!! 🙂

    Tino Arohanui ki a koe, e tuakana i te mahi matauranga! na Keri

  32. I’m very glad Nandor is back. While he might be best known for his campaigning on drugs, he’s done an awful lot more than that and is one of the few NZ politicians to have advocated sensible, liberal policies on a wide range of issues.

    I was personally very impressed when I queried some financial numbers on student loan policy – I think it was on Bloggreen and Nandor came straight in with a clarification.

    While decriminalising pot may seem a side issue (and I prefer the idea of legalising *all* drugs) I think it is a measure of society that we are willing to criminalise an activity pursued by a large number of young people.

    Good on ya Nandor!

  33. I agree with Awariki. It was a soft interview, avoiding the key issue.
    Nandor must contribute to the wider Green vision, and leave other parties/groups to now take the running on cannabis decriminalisation.
    Within the Green vision, Nandor can quietly practice his own religious beliefs, and can also work towards normalisation of industrial and medicinal hemp development within the business and commerce portfolios.
    If Nandor once again becomes the lightning rod on cannabis for the media and others who would otherwise support the Greens, he needs to reflect again on whether he should be an MP.
    However, I have confidence that Nandor is aware of these issues and the changed nature of the political arena after the last election.
    I hope he will take a personal lead on removing cannabis decriminalisation from being a Green priority.
    The policy committee dealing with this issue may need membership revision to help achieve this change of emphasis.

  34. I actually agree with Awariki. The whole Nandor-Cannabis thing put many potential voters off the Greens (not to mention making it hard to convince people why i voted). I’m not going to stick up for a policy that I have no interest in, nor that I think is that much of a great idea. I would have preferred Mike Ward to come back, who in a similar vein to Rod Donald, linked social and environmental issues together well during his time in Parliament.

  35. I had doubts that Nandor’s return would be the best for the Greens and his interview with Linda Clark confirmed these doubts. It was mostly personal stuff with nothing about why he was a Green and what work he was returning to Parliament’s “toxic environment” to accomplish.
    For me, justice and social issues are secondary to keeping the planet habitable for ourselves and other wonderful life forms. Nandor is best known for his efforts to decriminalise marajuana an irritating side issue in the great scheme of life and one that puts people off voting Green. Nandor did nothing to discourage this view in his interview with Linda Clark.

Comments are closed.