The hypocrisy of Brash’s “one law for all”

Failed National Party Leader Don Brash has been banging on a lot again about “one law for all” since his hostile takeover of the ACT Party last week.

So I thought I’d take a look at Brash’s track record when he was an MP:

Seems the Brash “one law for all” dictum applies only when it preserves the privilege of straight, elderly, wealthy, white men.

19 Comments Posted

  1. brash grew up in christchurch…(dosen’t that explain everything..?..)

    aside from telly-documentaries…he didn’t see other-hued people until he went to university…

    (i don’t think catholics were even allowed to cross cook straight/get christchurch residence-permits way back alone the other-hued…eh..?)

    aah..!..christchurch…that bastion of tolerance/free-thought…eh..?

    (i still reckon they should just bulldoze the place..sterilise the remaining results of generations of class-inbreeding…

    ..and cast them to the winds…

    ..and just draw a curtain over the whole sorry episode of swamp-city…

    ..and its’ feral/narcotic-riddled/class-crippled racist under/overbelly…)



  2. I don’t quite understand as to how being wealthy or white comes into it when voting against any of the above bills? As far as I can see they don’t seem to have anything to do with race or socioeconomic status.

  3. Depends who makes the law, who is affected by it and how – ‘the law’ is not an immutable thing but a human construct. There have been and are huge numbers of unjust laws in every time and in every place. Whenever tangata whenua have been involved in working on laws and systems (Judge Mick Brown’s reconciliation and marae justice ones for example)it benefits all of society. AS Hone said, he doesn’t want a separate state for Maori, he wants to see a society where we can all live. And all participate. Colonial societies still have a long way to go. We have the opportunity of honouring the Treaty properly or continuing to marginalise our Treaty partners instead of respecting their values and ways of doing things by incorporating them into the system that affects us all. I know which I prefer.

  4. I fully support one law for all. The alternative is abhorrent.
    Interesting to note the result of the TVNZ poll on close-up. The (very badly worded) question ‘should Maori have a special place in NZ?’
    19% yes
    81% no

  5. I used to believe Aotearoa/NZ could be a ‘land of milk & honey’ for all.. but under this N-Act Govt. it looks like, more milk & honey for the top 51% & maybe stale bread & water for the rest ? Hardly one law for ALL..
    Watch out for the gap, people !
    Oh Dear.. Kia-ora

  6. Sharia law for Brash, Sam?

    Definitely not. Sharia bans interest payments. You can’t earn a reward on capital unless there’s a risk involved (so you can invest in a company, but not lend for a fixed return). Can’t see Brash tolerating that!

    Also requires zakat – charity to the poor from those who can afford it.

  7. toad, you’re saying that the 90’s position of not applying it for the unemployed was a moderation of his earlier position.

    The 21st century position of restoring a youth rate minimum wage is more moderate still.

    At this rate by 2200 he’ll support indexation of the minimum wage to the average wage – if only we can get his political corpse to vote Green … .

    What we are witnessing is not so much Brash becoming more personally enlightened but how the debate between economists has moved on from old fashioned views about the minimum wage. Now the area of contention is in the area of youth rates and there is widespread support for minimum wage levels. Hong Kong has just instituted their first minimum wage.

  8. ‘One law for all’ might be a good call. Question is, which law? Would Brash be happy living under a law based on Maori tikanga? (applied equally to everyone regardless of race or creed)

    In effect, he just wants his own culture to dominate.

  9. If Don Brash cannot see the need to mitigate treating all people equally when some need a hand up (such as exceptions from general immigration rules for political refugees) and ensuring that where an injustice that has occurred in the past this is remedied, then his doctrinaire position is a weakness rather than a strength.

    And that is without noting the special nature of a nation founded by Treaty and international expectations of how indigenous peoples rights are to be recognised.

    And yeah, his belief in discrimination on the basis of age and sexuality is exposed in the public record.

    You could add discrimination on the basis of employment status, because back in the 90’s he proposed that the unemployed be paid below the minimum wage.

  10. One law for all.. maybe
    what about equal tax breaks for all & not just favouring the rich & the filthy rich or those who can write everything off on their company tax ?
    Act & Nats, are about a country run by the Rich for the Rich.. the rest of us will just get any left-oves, if there are any & look-out if you are on benefits or the minimum wage !
    Maybe he would have them begging on the street (like the 3rd world). Kia-ora

  11. Sums it up very well – Brash simply refuses to acknowledge what he doesn’t want to hear, which is that this is an agreement between two parties. He was totally embarrassing on tv last night.

  12. Lew over at Kiwipolitico has a very insightful post on Brash’s hypocrisy with regard to the Treaty of Waitangi. It’s well worth reading the whole post, but here’s his conclusion:

    By failing to honour the Treaty Don Brash is in violation of his own stated principles as the representative of a party which believes in responsibility. By failing to honour a Treaty drawn up by Pākehā, on Pākehā terms and according to Pākehā custom, we as New Zealanders are, more than anything, violating ourselves.

  13. rjs131 is technically correct, but the fact remains that Brash, Textor/Crosby, and the rest of the Hollow Men failed to achieve their goal of a govt possibly even more extremely neo-liberal than that of the 90’s (persued by lying to voters about what they would do, it should be remembered) and for that we can be very thankful.

  14. Frog, should nt you describe Dr Brash as a former leader as opposed to a failed leader. Yes National didn’t win the 2005 election, but what percentage of the vote did National win that year and what percentage did the Greens win? Surely on the same basis every Green party leader is a failure because a Don Brash led National party won 35 odd percent more votes?

Comments are closed.