I think the progresssive left in NZ are very compassionate, creative, committed and earnest. We are eager to learn new ways of thinking to apply to the problems of the world. We are also very successful, having taken the best learnings from those in the protest movements of the 60’s through to the 1990s and the best thinking so far of the 21st century. And while parliamentary politics continues in a frustrating cycle of centre politics, the New Zealand people are increasingly concerned about sustainability and inequality.
But the threats to the progressive movement are very real. Young New Zealanders, those under 40 years old are increasingly burdened by student loans, restricted access to higher education, scarce employment and high house prices, while they try to raise families and live a half decent life. They have been abandoned by National and are looking for a political movement to be their advocate. Those daily struggles of the working and middle classes make it much harder for them to engage with political activism in the traditional sense. That is not a failing of theirs. It is a consequence of changing political and economic pressures.
So the progressive political movement in Aotearoa needs to grow if we are to improve things for majority of New Zealanders. To grow we need to talk to people about the things that matter to them and be much much less judgemental about what their priorities are.
Its not rocket science. There is no slogan to that will reeducate them. There is no silver bullet piece of messaging that will radicalise the unradical masses. There are no shortcuts.
We need to listen.
Just like the Right we too are hindered by dogma, by which I mean we can be too quick to judge and condemn those who do not agree with us. We can rail rather than show respect, cajole rather than convince, lecture rather than listen.
I’m guilty of this. Just last Thursday I sat next to a guy on a plane who I’d never met before and whose opening salvo was advice on how the Greens should abandon our socialistic tendancies in order to win the votes of people like him who believe in the environment and capitalism.
Yep, here we go, I thought, and yep, off we went. We argued loudly for an hour.
Him: “If you want to protect the environment then that should be your priority, not welfare…You only ever talk about beneficiaries not about conservation…You need to be more credible on economics…I believe in free enterprise, business creates the country’s income not government…
Me: “If you want to protect the environment, then that should be your priority not making money… You clearly never listen to anything we say…We have heaps of economic policy, but if you cant be bothered finding out about it…Government generates wealth too” And on and on.
Eventually we drew a truce and talked about the boat show in Auckland, both realising that the conversation had done nothing but entrench us both.
He was a nice guy. He believed in natural foods and a healthy food revolution in schools. He said he wanted to help with food in schools programs. It was a point of common agreement but I failed to find it early in our conversation. He had said, “…if you want to win votes from people like me” but I was less interested in winning his votes than defending my position and criticising his.
I will give myself a bit of a break – I have a lot of these conversations with strangers and mostly I’m pretty well behaved. But it’s not good enough when the purpose of my professional and personal life is to win people to progressive ideas, to make genuine change for our kids and our country, to be inclusive in my politics. The means is the ends after all.
I need to rid myself of dogma, at least to the degree that dogma causes me to dismiss people who don’t agree with all my views. It by no means requires me to agree with them or to not call them out but arguing dogma with people just wont work to expand our movement.
And I think it’s one of the lessons for the progressive movement as a whole. We pride ourselves on inclusive politics, on being open minded and accepting. Those who dont agree with us on everything have a great deal to offer us – new ideas, new perspectives, challenging our assumptions. It’s what we value in ourselves and we need to value it in others.
Thanks Metiria, that was good.
One point I would like to pick you up on: You make the mistake of many on the Left of thinking National is Right wing. It’s not. It’s centrist. It deliberately sits smack in the middle of the demographic and that’s why it keeps getting re-elected. It is Statistics 101.
If your party keep branding itself as the ‘Not National Party’ you will be forever sharing the thin tail of the distribution curve to the left of the Nats.
My proposal is that you stop focusing on being Anti-National and start thinking hard about what positive contribution you could make to NZ in a practical sense.
Gosh, new tactic, we will be your friendly adviser and ‘help’ you see all roads lead to National….
+100 thanks Metira…certainly was good!
…imo the opposition to the Greens gets louder the more the right wing feels threatened and the better the Greens are doing their job!
…those who want the Greens to blunt their social welfare policies and shut up are NOT real GREENS….they are Nacts who want to kneecap the Greens
…real Greens and environmentalists will come to the Greens on issues of common agreement…this is where the work must happen….and I see it when grassroots NZF voters support the Greens and Labour Party voters support the Greens in putting up their Green election bill boards
GO GREENS!
@Andrew – let’s address this right/centre thing.
You say that “You make the mistake of many on the Left of thinking National is Right wing. It’s not. It’s centrist.”
However, in a comment below you say “Johnathan – you’re right, the centre has indeed moved to the right.”
Well – you can’t have it both ways. And, given your formidable evidence for the centre having moved to the right it would seem that, yes, National is a party of the political Right although it may be near the centre of the voting demographic.
Interesting that you choose to reference the Political Compass – their view of where the National Party sitsoutstandingly confirms that National is a party of the Right rather than the centre.
Hi e-clectic
To answer your question, the centre is by definition the centre of the overall demographic.
Every since the success of Thatcher (and her illegitimate son, Tony Blair 😉 ) the average voter has become more conservative. This has redefined the centre of politics. If you wish to ever gain power you need to accept that and act on it, otherwise you’ll be left with a 10% at every election with only aging hippies voting for you
When you talk of ‘Right Wing’ what exactly do you mean? Do you see thugs in black uniforms down the street attacking minority groups? There is no equivalent of the BNF here. No Golden Dawn. No Le Pen: There is no right wing here. Just mildly conservative.
Best you tell your mates at the Political Compass about how the centre is now defined so that they can adjust their questionnaires and algorithms.
There is no right wing here. Just mildly conservative.
Now you’re just kidding with me you jolly prankster.
Asset sales, mass surveillance, signing the TPPA, inaction on climate change, troops to Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, charter schools, foreign ownership, massive government debt, mining in national parks, offshore drilling, subsidies for offshore businesses – oh, yes, pretty much the hallmarks of the mildly conservative.
e-clectic, none of those things are Right Wing in my view, although most are not part of current left wing dogma (except government debt, which is Keynesian)
We could debate each of those points but let’s examine say, drilling for oil: Do you own a car? Do you wish to live in an post medieval society? Then you’ll need oil & coal. A previous generation of Labour voters would have supported drilling for oil because it creates jobs for working people and wealth for the nation. So drilling for oil should be part of a left of centre manifesto but isn’t today because the left has painted itself into a corner over the issue.
the term was “mining in national parks, offshore drilling,” – not “drilling for oil”
youve switched to talk about ALL oil extraction, while ignoring that the point raised was about specific methods – and you should also know that its “method + policy + economics + historical issues” that is at the heart of much of the rejection of the current govts poilicy re: fracking and deep sea oil drilling
Its not political compass thats shifted the goal posts. And the other day I saw a marvelous new political descriptor – self-servatives.
Hi Andrew. You make some interesting points, but I’m not sure I agree with your definition of the ‘centre’. Politics has it’s own way of defining the ideas spectrum. If, as in NZ, the populace move to the right, that doesn’t mean the centre has moved, just that the people have. At least momentarily. In my opinion both of NZ’s major parties are centrist. Both hold to a ‘mixed market’ economic platform, both support govt intervention across a wide spectrum of economic and social affairs, yet both openly promote private enterprise and the concept of a balance between private capital and state interests. People who label National as ‘right wing’ or Labour as ‘left wing’ just don’t understand the terms.
Now I’m really confused about the left/right thing – apparently the Greens are really Nazis. Did you know that Metiria?
http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/nazi-greens-inconvenient-history
Actually, Andrew, National IS right-wing. They’re just more subtle how they go about it.
I’d characterise them as corrupt, wish lashings of neo-liberal dogma. The objection to ‘socialism’ is dogma, not fact based.
The objection to Socialism is based on the fact that wherever it has been attempted to be implemented in it’s entirety it has impoverished nations and destroyed freedoms. Witness what is happening in Venezuela at the moment.
You’re such a dick Gosman, even you must be aware of how much effort the US spends on de-stabalising places like Venezuela. Why do you spend so much effort trolling sites like this and helping to spread lies that contribute to so much suffering in this world.
Gosman – with the eager help of the US, UK, Europe, et al, no doubt?
When a superpower undermines another nation, what is it that you think will happen?
In Chile, in 1973, the US dispensed with economic subversion and opted for an all out military coup d’etat.
Which, by the one, was one of the sentinel events in my political life that began my journey from the Right to Left.
For you, that is journey you have yet to make.
they are selling off New Zealand to make their management seem better than what it is
@ Andrew. Dear little troll . I can smell the money on your breath from here. Fortunately for The Ware House you’ll have no soul to get in the way of you spending it on all that lovely Chinese, twinkle-sparkle plastic.
An excellent Post from a sound Human mind @Metiria Turei
A problem however is that we Humans are in deep shit. Not just in NZ / Aotearoa but globally. I’ve been reading Al Jazeera and The Guardian and I see where ever there is neo money there’s serious neo trouble.
The Banks are to blame for every single financial woe that besets us and our foreign brothers and sisters . Behind every single dysfunction there is a banker trapping the unwary, the young and brave and the old and desperate.
In NZ / Aotearoa the same can be said with surety. In NZ / Aotearoa the Banks have our farmers in little boxes force laying produce like battery hens . How can that be you might ask? It’s simple . Start a farm up and you must keep it going or it will die . A farm isn’t like any other factory, you can’t just flick a switch at the end of the week and go off to the pub with your mates. Once you start up a Farm, you must maintain it every moment of the day and night in some capacity or other.
No alien entity knows this better than the Banks . The Banks know very well just how enormously productive the average NZ family farm is . They also know just how enormously vulnerable the average NZ family farm is. More importantly , of how easy it is to manipulate the Farmer at the Banks pleasure.
( Hear the interest swaps story on RNZ’s rural report yesterday ? The ANZ deviously entrapped a farmer into an untenable situation then foreclosed . Guess who bought the farm ? Yep, an ANZ employee . And the ANZ are arguing there was no conflict of interests . If you think that would have been an isolated case , think again. Bank versus Farmer swindling has been going on here for 141 years. Since the first shipment of frozen meat left NZ for Europe. )
Ok. So what’s this all got to do with The Green Party of NZ/Aotearoa one might ask?
Well , quite a bit is the answer. Farms, and I mean proper farms, not cowsploitation factories, are extremely dependant on a healthy ecology. It takes generations of farming families to understand the nuances of the region within which they farm. Which animal is best suited to the terrain. Which grass performs best in certain climates etc. And most importantly, to not over-stock or thrash the soils which then require artificial fertilisers to run flat out to keep ahead of Bank demands. ( Thus proceeds for the likes of yankee doodle psycho jonky-stiens personal fortunes.)
NZ / Aotearoa is entirely dependant upon it’s agrarian , export earning sector and yet it’s entirely ignored by The Green Party and the Labour Party. The only political party that has the LEAST interest in the environmental consequences of Bank manipulated , intensive farming practises and the MOST interest in money to be made from the after – gate sell off’s of farmer product is The National Party.
The National Party are the most disastrous pro Bank , anti human/ environmental cadre of greedy sociopaths to ever gain a footing in a vital infrastructure anywhere in the world. They are a virus spread by contact with debt and debt is the new banking product .
My advice would be for the Green Party to drop what ever touchy feely, appeal to dear-hearts people ( You already have them anyway ) and go for the real challenge . Bring the Farmer over to The Green Party and plug them into the Urban Unions for everyone’s protection and security.
Think of all the win-wins ?
The Farmer is able to farm without the terror of the manipulations of the Banks.
The farmer and the Unions are together for the common good instead of being manipulated and set at each other for Bank gain and market manipulation .
The diverse farmer generated product that was instep with the environment . Instead of millions of shitting cows polluting our water ways . ( I read in Fish and Game magazine recently, that at current nitrate increases, all our fresh water aquatic beasties will be extinct by 2050. )
And finally, instead of having a very average and frankly small city pretending it’s flash while praying for the house / debt myth to stay afloat on the wing and the prayer that it is for no other reason than for the opposite to be true being far too horrible to countenance, people move out of that horrible, tangled mess and back into the country towns to do what ever. I’m thinking working three days a week in rotation with no mortgages and tons of lovely foods and wines . Etc. Surely more fun than being stuck in a shitty car, on a shitty stretch of motorway going to a shitty job in a shitty building to work to pay into debt that can never be paid off to foreign banks who pray you’ll drop dead the day you retire.
The New Zealand Farmer and The Green Party. You’re made for one an other.
How to convince the Farmer though?
I know ! Talk to them . They’re only as stupid and ignorant as The National Party and its quisling media will have you believe they are.
your describing the PR not the agenda – theres a BIG difference
Andrew, what rock you under ? The Greens have consistently spelled out very clearly their plans and proposals, but it has to fall on OPEN minded folks with open ears. This whole idea of – left – right – center is meant to distract us and divide us and put us all into narrow little boxes. National keeps getting in because the government owns the media and fills fearful folks with more lies and propaganda. IT IS A FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT NATIONAL IS VOTED IN BY THE MAJORITY OF NZ’ERS – JUST THE EVER SO SLIGHT MAJORITY OF ACTUAL PEOPLE VOTING WHICH IS SMALL.
These ridiculous BIASED polls and likely (?) rigged elections are more about getting their desired results. National keeps getting in because most have lost faith and stop voting. The Greens, in parliament, are so ahead of most of the negative, back stabbing, biased politics. It must be very boring for ethical and intelligent and aware folks in parliament like the Greens to have to sit through the likes of blubbering nonsense we hear from English, Key, Brownlee, Joyce and Bennett etc. with all their corporate sucking up and greedy lobby interests and pay outs.
Their phony rhetoric defending the selling out of our country on the backs of the most vulnerable. Disgusting ! !
In a few days, just wait for their budget – pushing more privatization and economic failure plans taking us further into the toity. Look out disabled, vets in need, poor and youth in need. This budget will not be our friend but will sink us further into despair. So Andrew, listen beyond your righteous beliefs and the ( left / right ) labels and really hear what the Greens are about and what their plans are. You might be surprised.
Funny that politicians for The Greens and Labour fail to kick up any stink about such blatent political corruption.
Gosman – your side used the SIS to smear the Leader of the Opposition months out before the 2011 election – you have as much credibility regarding political corruption as you do your claims that climate change isn’t caused by man made pollution.
I thought that over the last 30 years the ‘centre’ had moved to the right. Bugger perhaps I need a new compass.
Johnathan – you’re right, the centre has indeed moved to the right.
1. Communism died
2. Socialism failed (if you don’t believe me, ask the Greeks and the Venezuelans)
3. Few want to be in a union today. Gen Y has got a life and moved on
4. Unions are powerless to prevent labour arbitrage
If you really want a compass, try political compass:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
and test yourself.
Andrew,(i just about addressed you with the words ”good afternoon wanker”, but, as Met’s is urging tolerance and the Moderator may have had something to say about my use of the phrase i thought better of it),
”Socialism failed”???, really???, even the Liar In Chief admits to Aotearoa being a socialist country,
The argument left v right is in fact surrounding the level of socialism and the methodology of delivery,
Working for Families i would suggest being a modern version of socialism, described by the Prime Minister as ”communism”, He has shown no inclination of scrapping the program,
Those of us further to the left say that this particular program while rewarding the middle classes further entrenched the poverty of those with the least income,
Trotsky among other things advocated that socialism did not rely upon the death of capitalism to succeed, socialism simply relied upon the ownership of the profits of capitalism to be then made available to wealth redistribtion,
If we were to remove socialism from our economy today that economy would collapse in a pile of its own bullshit tomorrow…
You should still try political compass, that is very revealing.
Really???, i played that particular game of trivial pursuit so long ago i forgot exactly when,
My result in large screaming letters said: Are You Pol Pot???…
Not much comment here, Metiria.
You might as well be talking a foreign language to participants in the Daily Blog.
On the Left avoiding megaphone negotiation is particularly important because everyone here believes in an intervening government. Many hope that it can lead to some sort of terrestrial Nirvana. Most know that the way is narrow and winding to achieve that bliss. We have only to look at decades of experience to confirm this conclusion.
You now have all the prerequisites for the development of cults with all the problems that entails. Cults don’t listen. Cults believe they have all the answers and are haughtily dismissive of agnostic and competing cult alike.
It always seems to happen. Intolerance, back-stabbing, venom and the rest. We always have to watch out for it because it is a fundamental risk run by would-be reformers.
It makes it particularly difficult to proselytize among the general population because they are all a priori fools and charlatans or worse.
When we understand that
1. we don’t have all the answers
and
2. there is more than one answer to most problems
and
3. the only way to make meaningful and lasting social progress involves co-operation with people who don’t agree with us on everything we believe in order to promote an image of a future which attract enough people who will not and may never give a toss about our deep commitment to the political future without whom no election will be won.
For the Right to succeed, all they need to do is appeal to the dark side of popular self interest.
But don’t kid yourself. The Left has a dark side too. Unless we recognize this and guard against it, we are doomed to die, cut into innumerable pieces.
Your post is a useful start, thank you.
The way I see it is this: Dogma = Principles held to be Absolute. If your Dogma is Absolutely Right(e.g. human rights,animal rights,sustainable ecological management,conservation) then you are coming from the right place – and the ability to get this across will not include alienation of the listener.
“dogma” and “principles” must always be up for review and negotiation…we must be willing to listen and engage and debate and meet the opposition where they can be met
….however the “VALUES” of looking after those least fortunate in our society should be non-negotiable ….that is if we are to retain a humanitarian and caring and Christian principled society
….what worries me are the number of self -so -called ‘environmentalists’ and so -called ‘Christians’ (who are actually Nact Neolib wolves in sheeps clothing) who object to the Greens social welfare caring economic policies for those least fortunate in New Zealand.
I do not believe these people should be taken seriously or have time wasted on listening to them …they are too far gone…rotten at the core
Chooky, what if I told you that some of the welfare provided to those least fortunate in NZ is exacerbating the problem rather curing it, would you then reconsider the value of those benefits?
Many on the Left feel the more conservative among us are uncaring and selfish when it comes to welfare but it’s generally not the case: we just think that some of the welfare structures are dysfunctional and in need of overhaul.
A good example of policy improvement is the tightening of DPB rules resulting in a large reduction in the number of teen pregnancies. Apparently being a DPB mum isn’t seen as such a rewarding career anymore…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/66157622/Teenage-pregnancy-on-the-decline
there is nothing in that article that supports your argument that “tightening of DPB rules resulting in a large reduction in the number of teen pregnancies”
…the reduction in teen pregnancies has happened for other reasons…like better psychologically targeted teen contraceptive education
…so i can only conclude you are young female bashing , DPB bashing and children of the poor bashing
…also to suggest that the DPB is the reason why young women choose to have babies is contemptuous male chauvinism ….typical of the arrogant Neolib ‘survival of the fittest’ , ‘dog eat dog’ mentality….woefully lacking in compassion, sensitivity , psychology and humanity….such attitudes would be called out for what they are in Scandinavia!
You have that about right Chooky, if the harsher rules surrounding receipt of the Domestic Purposes Benefit were the sole reason for the drop in teenage pregnancies that decline in numbers would have been uniform across the country,
Northland has had no such decline in teenage pregnancy numbers, while Wellington and Taranaki have greater rates of decline than other regions,
Across the country the number of abortions within that age group has also declined by a massive 40% which says that either sexual activity has changed dramatically or contraceptive use has gained favor,
This http://www.radionnz.co.nz/news/national…/steep-drop-in-teen-pregnancy-rates would suggest it is the making freely available of more efficient long term contraceptives to teen girls along with education has much to do with both the decline in actual birth numbers and the number of abortions,
It appears from the data that among 18-19 year olds the birth rate is either stable or rising slightly for 19 year olds,
The evidence from Northland would suggest strongly that while the changes to the DPB might have had some effect it cannot be the sole driving factor,
An unkind person might go so far as to suggest that a large part of the declining birthrate among 14-17 year old,s might be caused by the ‘Andrew Factor’,
Teen girls might be becoming so ‘onto it’ that prospective males with the ‘Andrew Factor’ just don’t get a look in any more, and, speaking anecdotally most of em would rather retreat to a nunnery than suffer such a fate…
You’re wrong. The MSD has studied this in great detail and found that DPB mums are not feckless and unable to control their fertility. Instead they are mostly quite careful in timing their pregnancies to maintain and maximize the cash they receive. This is why National had to change the rules.
Even worse, the Youth Court has studied the causes of criminality and found that single moms are far more likely to produce sons which become criminals in later life, regardless of their mothers income. It seems boys need a dad (who’d have thought!)
“Instead they are mostly quite careful in timing their pregnancies to maintain and maximize the cash they receive.”
As its MSD, and your talking about it, it should be fairly easy to back up the claim then with some docs or links
frankly i think your cherry picking one point and applying it across the board
[Any good points you’ve raised are let down by your abusive comments, Countryboy. Please dial it down. – ScarletMod]
Very well . I will . How about goodbye.
You forget. This is war .
Keep coming here Countryboy…what you say is good
There is a Neolib dogma view in New Zealand that restricting the DPB stops teenage pregnancies
This is counter to the international prevailing view that looks at other social issues such as young female wellbeing and rights ….contraception, supportive family , education and employment independence opportunities etc…better to address these issues than chauvinist female victim blaming and making children of the poor even more disadvantaged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy
“In developed countries, teenage pregnancies are often associated with social issues, including lower educational levels, higher rates of poverty, and other poorer life outcomes in children of teenage mothers. Teenage pregnancy in developed countries is usually outside of marriage, and carries a social stigma in many communities and cultures.[8] By contrast, teenage parents in developing countries are often married, and their pregnancies welcomed by family and society. However, in these societies, early pregnancy may combine with malnutrition and poor health care to cause medical problems.
Teenage pregnancies appear to be preventable by comprehensive sex education and access to birth control.[9] Abstinence-only sex education does not appear to be effective.[10]”
http://sjp.sagepub.com/content/36/4/415.abstract
In countries where women have equality of opportunity and good contraception options they do not choose to have teenage pregnancies…this is a feminist issue , a human rights issue and also an overpopulation issue
question for you andrew – are you more of a conservative or neo-lib?
the two are very different things – and it is this false grouping of the two on the right side of the spectrum that creates a lot of “missing the point” for all.
The modern nat and act parties arent conservatives IMO – and they use the language of conservatism to paper over their true goals and win conservatives to their arguments. As you seem to be demonstrating
I think these terms are just slogans invented by the Left to describe something they don’t really understand.
I look at the issues on a case-by-case basis and form a view based on the facts, rather than adhere to a single dogma.
We live in a complex, multidimensional world with virtually endless ways to view issues yet we only get a simple vote come election time.
So it’s no surprise that no single party exactly matches my world view since my experiences are unique, as are yours. I vote for the party that most nearly matches mine for the issues I think are critical. So no party owns my vote and I suggest you act the same. Ignore the simplistic slogans you see in places like this and on Whaleoil (they’re essentially the same animal but with different coloured stripes) and use you own mind to think these things through.
yeah im talking political ideology – not party
stop playing coy finger pointing games andrew – the terms conservative and noelib arent new, and are widely recognised by people right across the spectrum
in fact they are so widely recognised that theres whole schools of thought devoted to the subject. Why some political parties even use the words in their names. You better hurry up and tell all those “conservative parties” they are stealing the IP of the left
I suspect I’m economically fairly conservative but socially fairly liberal.
But most of all I try to be rational and consider each issue on its individual merits, rather that adhere to fixed dogma – In fact just as Metiria suggested.
you suspect? – didnt you link to the political compass up thread?
i see a “whole lotta dogma” in your words though – perspective i guess
the thing is – im pretty sure you know what im talking about here
lets put it another way – would you agree that old fashioned conservatism and modern right wing politics, while having some things in common, are quite different things?
I’m not sure what your point here is.
So what if Conservatism is different from Neo-Liberalism. What does it matter?
Both NZ First and the Conservative party reflect elements of old fashioned Conservatism. One is more left leaning economically than the other but they still gain strength from harking back to values they think should be protected and preserved.
Once again what is your point?
@Jo Planet – is that a joke? The belief that we’re absolutely right has led humanity to some very dark places in the past. I’m going to presume you’re not so lacking in self awareness that you wrote that comment seriously…but you’ve got me worried.
A lot of people take the belief about being absolutely right to also mean they are the better person and since they’re right the ends justify the means.
Another absolute principal is that we all deserve to be treated with dignity but a lot of activists (from all walks to life) seem to forget one when dealing with other people.
Principles should not be absolute or you will become their slave. Even well-meaning goals may be corrected in the light of experience. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of existential rationalism that the only constant is, perhaps those good intentions. And their expression changes from person to person, time to time and circumstance to circumstance. No golden rule, sorry.
Never get tired of the Life of Brian – probably one of the best movies ever made
A suggestion to Metiria:
Perhaps ask our Dear Leader Kim John Key about this in the House (in Question Time):
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/18/saudi-arabia-advertises-eight-new-executioners-beheadings-soar
We have already learned that the government paid millions to mend past “issues” with a rich Saudi investor, who has a dim view of animal welfare, getting hundreds of sheep sent by plane, plus equipment for a station in Saudi Arabia.
We had John Key pay a visit to King Salman, as part of his charm offensive tour in the Gulf States, to achieve a Free Trade Agreement, where he kind of said that human rights issues get raised with the Saudi goverment, although he looked rather unconvincing.
Now, how does KJK feel about Saudi Arabian authorities looking for more executioners, as they have a record number of behadings, they seem to be catching up quickly with ISIS in Iraq and Syria now?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/18/saudi-arabia-advertises-eight-new-executioners-beheadings-soar
Maybe John Key wants to assist our Saudi Arabian friends with placing an ad in the “jobs” section on Trade Me?
It could send a message to those “Kiwis” considering joining ISIS to perhaps get a job doing what they may feel “inclined” to do quite “legally”, by doing so for the Saudi judicial system instead.
I had to choke, when I read that Guardian article.
Good speech Metiria. I agree with most of it.
It must be gutting for you to read the comments below and realise that you are wasting your breath.
Yes although what Andrew says in theory supports Metiria and he seems to be a tolerant, considered,ethical and very intelligently rational person at this level
….however what Andrew says in practice eg on single mums as bludgers on the DPB is completely contradictory … nor does he have any evidence to support his claims
…in effect he is a sexist misogynist of young women and uncaring of the children of the poor ( he sounds like an ACT person)
…i can only conclude he is a very cunning dissember,here to muddy Metiria’s post and kneecap the Greens social welfare policy
There is a Neolib view in New Zealand that restricting the DPB stops teenage pregnancies
This is counter to the international prevailing view that looks at other social issues such as young female well being and rights ….contraception, supportive family , education and employment independence opportunities etc…better to address these issues than chauvinist female victim blaming and making children of the poor even more disadvantaged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy
“In developed countries, teenage pregnancies are often associated with social issues, including lower educational levels, higher rates of poverty, and other poorer life outcomes in children of teenage mothers. Teenage pregnancy in developed countries is usually outside of marriage, and carries a social stigma in many communities and cultures.[8] By contrast, teenage parents in developing countries are often married, and their pregnancies welcomed by family and society. However, in these societies, early pregnancy may combine with malnutrition and poor health care to cause medical problems.
Teenage pregnancies appear to be preventable by comprehensive sex education and access to birth control.[9] Abstinence-only sex education does not appear to be effective.[10]”
http://sjp.sagepub.com/content/36/4/415.abstract
In countries where women have equality of opportunity and good contraception options they do not choose to have teenage pregnancies…this is a feminist issue , a human rights issue and also an overpopulation issue
Comments are closed.