Hello to the Exclusive Brethren
A big, cheery welcome to our new Exclusive Brethren readers! Now that you’ve got access to computers, and thus hopefully Frogblog, and you’re also able to vote, you might like to peruse some of the Green Party policies on topics of relevance, such as Children, Food, Water and Economics. I’ll look forward to your contributions to the board and welcome your votes later in the year.
Bookmark to:
January 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Very interesting, now that the EB are going to vote will we see an apology from the Greens for the way they have been persecuted?
After all the only half decent justification I have ever seen for this persecution was the fact that the EB do not vote, or PERHAPS it is more to do with the fact the the Greens just do not like anybody who does not agree with them.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Big Bro- perhaps around the same time we see an apology from the Brethren for the scandal their apparently rogue members caused, it might be appropriate for the Party to apologise for labelling said scandal as associated with them. Given that the church leadership has been suspiciously quiet on the issue as far as I understand, I would find it inappropriate to apologise given that they could easily be tacitly approving of the conduct at that election.
I’m sure we all have some issues with people that don’t agree with us, but I’d hardly call drawing attention to what was essentially an attempt to cheat an election “persecution”, especially as the people involved clearly identified both themselves and their cause as associated with the Brethren.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Ari
From what I can see the EB told the truth, why on earth would they need or want to apologize for that?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“From what I can see the EB told the truth” - you should look more closely. The fact you only misrepresent someones position doesn’t mean you are telling the truth. Having looked through their claims I only see 6 of 16 claims that seem justified. While the others may not be wholly inaccurate, it is a stretch to say thet were telling the truth.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
BB said: From what I can see the EB told the truth
Jeanette did an analysis of the EB Green Delusion leaflet hortly after it first appeared. It contained one true statement about Green Party policy, 7 half-truths, and 7 outright lies.
What’s more, the timing of the leaflet was deliberately designed to give the Greens no opportunity to respond by direct communication with voters (one actually arrived in my letterbox on the morning of polling day), leaving the Greens totally reliant on the media to refute the untrue allegations contained in it.
It is the deception and mistrepresentation by the EB, and their anti-democratic practices, rather than whether they vote or not, that is the reason the EB have not been flavour of the month with the Greens. But it’s hardly been “persecution” - just a healthy challenge to their practices. Personally, I would welcome them entering the political debate, as long as that abide by the rules, we know who they are, and their campaign spending for or against any political party is on public record.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Are ‘interested parties’ even allowed to electioneer on election day? I guess they are or the cops would’ve busted them on it, but still…
January 28th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
# big bro Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
>From what I can see the EB told the truth
The most blatant example of the Exclusive Brethren lying was the full-page newspaper ad they ran in which they said the Labour government had dramatically cut defence spending. Actually the Labour government in question had dramatically raised defence spending.
But you’ve got to sympathise - their self-imposed rules prohibiting them from using the internet probably made it difficult for them to check their facts
January 28th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Well, lets just start with a lie from Jeanette.
In her rebuttal document she said the Green Party saying they would cut defence spending by half was “an outright lie”.
Yet this from Keith Locke:
The Green Party has announced at its annual conference that it will campaign to halve spending on defence from $1.6 billion to $800 million. “We see this cut as a ‘peace dividend’ providing much-needed money for social and environmental projects,” said Green Party Defence Spokesperson Keith Locke, speaking at the party’s annual conference in Wellington this weekend.
“The saving will come from disbanding the offensive capacity of the Defence Force.
Full details here: Jeanette caught in a lie
She either lied or is very ignorant on party policy (I refer to the “peace dividend” that is the money saved by cutting defence spending in half) the Greens have promoted in other press releases.
In any event, the Greens need to change their rebuttal information (which would help hide the historical accuracy so may be advantageous in case the media investigate) and apologise to the Brethren.
BeShakey - good effort. Only 6 of 16 now justified. Does this make it 7 for 16? Let me know and I’ll help you re-examine the remaining ones.
Jeanette certainly misrepresented a cut in defence spending by arguing that increasing foreign aid is the same as defence spending.
I don’t think you can accuse the Exclusive Brethren of mis-representing the information. It’s more their heart felt assessment of the damage Green policy might do. Just like the prostitution law reform bill hasn’t kept 13 year old’s off the street. For some reason, liberals don’t want to punish the buyers, just the sellers. Shame.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Sorry - I should have said: Does this now make it 5 for 16?
January 28th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
# ZenTiger Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
> Just like the prostitution law reform bill hasn’t kept 13 year old’s off the street. For some reason, liberals don’t want to punish the buyers, just the sellers. Shame.
Are you using the term ‘liberal’ to refer to people who opposed the bill? Because Before the bill it was the sellers rather than the buyers who were punished. And now, in the case of underage prostitution, it’s the buyers not the sellers who are punished.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
which ‘this weekend’ was it? i.e. if it was last year it would be after a very out of date rebuttal from Fitzsimmons.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Sorry let’s not distract you. Jeanette’s response to the EB about the Greens Defence Policy was called “an outright lie”
And I’ve caught her in a totally incorrect response (lies or ignorance, take your pick) and she told half truths with regard to “foreign aid” is the same as defence spending.
Yes or No?
January 28th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
ZenTider said: Sorry let’s not distract you. Jeanette’s response to the EB about the Greens Defence Policy was called “an outright lie�
No, ZT, you just haven’t researched it properly. Keith Locke’s press release about cutting $800m from the Defence budget (i.e. halving it) was dated 5 August 1999.
The EB’s leaflet hit the streets some 6 years and 3 elections later. It is the EB who are lying here - both Green policy and Government defence spending change over a period of 6 years, but the EB purported to pretend neither had, and seized on an ancient media release that had no current relevance other than to try to discredit the Greens.
IMO, that is an outright lie by the EB. It would be just like me saying now that the National Party’s policy is to resume US nuclear-armed ship visits to New Zealand. It once was, but times move on (hopefully).
January 28th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Not a word is said about Chinese Warships visiting our ports complete with armed guards on the wharves . You hypocrites - forget the EB and get real you dreamboat sailor boys !
What bloody minded Yank bashers you twisted communists are !!
January 28th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
No Toad. Your defence policy did not change. Your team branded it “peace dividend” and continued to advertise this in other documents and on your CURRENT web site. An ancient media release? And you are still quoting the Peace Dividend on your main archive page? Jeanette admits to phasing out of frigates and the air strike wing still!
So don’t accuse me of lack of research. I linked to my own research, (follow the link) pointed to other instances where the Greens continued to promote this concept and have spent a fair amount of time on your blog researching this.
The Greens did NOT publish a new defence policy in all that time either. Subsequent calls were made to drop the frigates and air defence and to close down the GCSB etc.
Other than the excessive expenditure on the LAVs (by Labour, not Greens), defence in other areas did decline. Which meant the Greens did not need to be as vocal about reducing our defence capability.
National changed their position on defence and published it. What on earth makes it credible for voters to believe you don’t want to reduce defence spending and direct the money elsewhere? You have nothing to counter that, and only a series of documents and statements that make your position clear - less defence spending.
I don’t know which I find worse. Your attempt to wiggle out of this and claim you don’t want to reduce defence spending, or your apparent about face suggesting you are all for spending more money on defence, in spite of lack of policy documents to support this u-turn.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
d4j said: Not a word is said about Chinese Warships visiting our ports complete with armed guards on the wharves.
I’d prefer that we didn’t have them here either. But China donesn’t operate the same “neither conform nor deny” policy as the US, so if thay confirm a ship is not nuclear armed it will not fall foul of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987.
If you have evidence they are carrying nuclear arms, then make a complaint to the Police, because that is an offence under section 14 of that Act.
Or am I detecting a bit of “Yanks=white=good”, “Chinks=yellow=bad” bigotry here?
January 28th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Toad
“Or am I detecting a bit of “Yanks=white=goodâ€?, “Chinks=yellow=badâ€? bigotry here?”
You probably are and I personally find that kind of bias annoying, however the irony for me is that you can so easily see this bias when it is pro USA yet you are blind to the endless and obvious anti USA posting that happen here on a weekly basis.
January 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am
“Not a word is said about Chinese Warships visiting our ports complete with armed guards on the wharves.”
Does anybody know who authorised them to carry guns and why? Far as I know moping about the Wellington wharves with a sub-machine gun is an offence under the Firearms Act. I was out of town at the time and didn’t get a chance to check their firearms licences.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:14 am
ZT said: And you are still quoting the Peace Dividend on your main archive page? Precisely, ZT, on an archive page, meaning the campaign is not longer current. Along with others on that page like the campaign against wasteful WINZ spending (it’s not even called WINZ anymore) which is no longer relevant because it was stopped, and the campaign to stop the Waikato water pipline to Auckland, which is no longer relevant because we lost and it was built.
Your attempt to wiggle out of this and claim you don’t want to reduce defence spending,… Who ever claimed that on behalf of the Greens? Not a claim I’ve ever seen.
Fair cop about not publishing a formal defence policy before the 2002 or 2005 election though ZT. I guess that left the Greens open to claims that old policy still applies. Hopefully one will be released for this this year’s election.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
There would be no “anti-us” bias if the US were not in the thick of things. The only way to get around this would be for people to ignore what the US is up to or for the US to have a radical turnaround as model world citizens seeking to provide a global benefit instead of feathering their own pockets.
Remember no country has ever benefited from a US invasion (military or commercial).
January 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
toad said:
It will indeed, toad. I agree it was a rather unfortunate omission, and one I can assure you will not be repeated.
Ivan Sowry
Green Party Policy Co-convenor
January 29th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Fair cop about not publishing a formal defence policy before the 2002 or 2005 election though ZT. I guess that left the Greens open to claims that old policy still applies.
Then calling this an “outright lie” by Jeanette might be a little strong? It’s not as if your various policy statements have changed over the last 9 years, except for the fact the air strike wing has been removed.
Back in 2005: This year, the government suddenly announced it was spending an extra $460 million a year on defence which, if put into overseas aid, would have brought our spending up to 0.66% of GNI.
Sounds like you are still averse to increasing expenditure.
and We are wasting around half a billion dollars a year on a naval combat force…
and it is still policy that this should go, at the very least in favour of “cheaper” alternatives that would support peace keeping rather than defence?
Whatever. We’ll find out soon with the release of your new defence policy. But I remain convinced the Brethren had every reason to make the claims they did, given they were based on specific money saving proposals that are still supported today.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
i’ve found this a difficult discussion to follow because of twisted formations like this. please look to your grammar!
why should any foreign military vessels be allowed in our ports? i don’t get it.
i could understand if it was a country with which we have a formal, active alliance.
saying we can just lay a complaint with the police if we have reason to suspect there are nukes on board is insultingly disingenuous. do you really see the police boarding with a warrant & inspecting it & impounding the ship? law is futile in the face of this kind of politics. was it legal for police to use busses to block protestors? was it legal to arrest & then release protestors without charge? was there any legal force behind the order to remove protest banners from the airport so it wouldn’t offend the chinese government? does ANYONE in the country outside of the government want increased trade or other relationships with china?
& what kind of evidence is the man on the street going to bring to the police about nukes aboard chinese vessels? “it’s the chinks, we can’t trust them as far as we can throw them” is hardly going to cut it.
i wouldn’t want any contact with the US military given they’re among the world’s foremost aggressors, but i find china every bit as sinister.
on a side note, does it seem to any other observers that the bleach in the water has become chronic since the tapping of the waikato?
is there something in the waikato water that seriously needs killing?
January 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Well there is an awful lot of mercury from the geothermal plants up river
January 29th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
i could be wrong, but i didn’t think bleach would kill mercury! but maybe it disguises the taste…?
January 29th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Sorry to interupt your defence discussion but as I’ve only looked in ….. re your ‘Hello Exclusive Brethren, now you can vote’……………..
EB vote? EB speak! Like the individual exercise last time. The Secret Seven funded the campaign……yeah right, have another Tui.
Heard of media management?
January 30th, 2008 at 1:03 am
This Government (which you lot help to keep prop up) has reduced the NZDF capability though pay & conditions i.e. losing most of your junior officer corps, those in the technical trades and those in the combat arms of the army (like me) to Oz, the Poms, and the Canadians or to private sector. The so called re-equipping of the NZDF is a joke in some cases you lot would been better to new gear instead going for the cheapest option the good old upgrade.
1) NZ is soon going to down to about 2-3 C-130’s for a silly short term upgrade. Where in the long run it would have been cheaper to have backed onto the Oz air force order when they got C-130J’s where they have a life span of 40yrs. Again the you lot want to get rid of the P-3’s yet they have the legs to going south and even land on the ice! The only aircraft that have range are the Nimrod and the Tu-95 Bear. 3Sqn is going from 24 helo’s to new 8 ones and the new light helo’s can’t land the Ships in anything above sea state 1 or be put inside a ships hanger more money down the plug hole.
2) NZ can’t even deploy a battalion group on ops. The last time (ET99 -03) it happen the supply line almost broke down on a number of times. In ET06 the NZ Inf Coy we using a lot of our gear so they operate safety while on duty in ET. 2nd/1st had to be role back to light Inf because of the lack of numbers and QA Sqn are there LAV’s in a recon role.
3) The poor T.F forces in all 3 services are more run down ever under this government than the Nats.
4) You lot want to get rid of the Frigates and the tanker but at the same time You lot want them to going chasing the Japs down south what the hell is going on here? And again the greens have seemed to forget the Navy did an outstanding job in ET during INTERFET and later with the UN.
Has anyone in the greens done any real peacekeeping in a Blue hat or an INTERFET Style Op? From the sounds of it sweet f all. This begin my last time that I will vote in a NZ election I would’ve like to have voted for the greens but when u have the likes of Keith, Sue and Russell sorry I can’t do it because of my mates that are still in the NZDF as I’ve lost to 2 mates to peacekeeping already and that’s 2 too many already though the lack of training, having the right equipment all because due to the lack of funding.