Green Party picks odd ditch to die in

Same Haircut, different politics

Jacinda Ardern rejects Golriz Ghahraman’s description of anti-terrorist law as ‘dog-whistling’

The Prime Minister is rejecting a Green MP’s description of a law that would impose restrictions on returning New Zealanders involved in terrorism as “dog-whistling”. 

The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill gives police the ability to apply to the High Court to impose “control orders”, or restrictions, on New Zealanders who have engaged in terrorism overseas. 

Green MP Golriz Ghahraman is concerned about the “human rights implications” of the Bill, and feels existing criminal laws in New Zealand already cover “everything that needs to be covered to keep us safe”. 

First of all, the Government is trying to rush this through before that bumbling clown Mark Taylor gets back in the country because the existing legislation is slush, here are the suggested conditions…

TDB Recommends
    • electronic monitoring
    • restricted internet access
    • stopping association with some people
    • meeting with police twice a week
    • rehab or reintegration

…none of these conditions seems too odious, the problem is in the fine print. The Green position, and the one Amnesty International are making, is that this could be misapplied to people accused of being terrorists when in fact they are dissidents or protestors.

I have some sympathy towards the Greens and AI position, and think those concerns could be addressed with a very clear method to review the decision and be open to challenge if it has been misapplied.

But in situations where you actually have radicalised individuals returning to NZ who have been very open about their radicalisation, as Mark Taylor has, these conditions seem totally appropriate.

Anyway, I’m less interested in this applying to Taylor and more focused on wanting it used on white people returning from Trump’s America with MAGA hats.

While the Greens have a point, attacking Jacinda for ‘dog whistle politics’ for wanting to monitor radicalised clowns like Taylor is going to seem terribly woke and alienating and it gives National political relevance with Simon grandstanding for his support.

It’s an odd ditch for the Greens to choose to die in.


  1. Greens now are so far removed from when I was a member in the 2000 Rod Donald/Jeannette Fitzsimmonds era, when we fought for the ‘green environment’ and not for other countries wars and ideologies.

    We don’t wish to be hard on today’s green party politics, but it was then a party about ‘green’ policies but somehow has been high jacked now ans is more about philosophical ideas about ‘how we should care about others wars’ and that is not ‘green’ by virtue but is ‘ideological’.

    I wonder if that is why Green Party has lost many voters now?

    My family will always fight for the green environment/climate change.

    We need to support the ‘Extinction revolution’ as the corporate world simply don’t care what happens to us all.

  2. Scoop cover Golriz’ interview on The Nation at this link: Scoop – The Nation – Shepherd – Ghahraman.

    Through that transcript she sounds very calm, balanced and reasonable, and makes her point clearly. I was impressed.

    The way that Stuff had covered it left the impression that she was at odds with others among the coalition, but there is no sense of that through this interview.

    She says, “I have an excellent relationship with the minister [Andrew Little], and we talk regularly, so it’s- you know, we want due process standards in here. We want people to be able to challenge these orders. We want the definition to be strictly based on what New Zealand considers to be terrorism, and then we would support it.”

    • Great link and great interview that clearly sets out the Green Party stance. Golriz is her usual brilliant self

      • Here’s the thing about centralized authority, there tendency is to dole out resources. There’s this quote from I think it’s Louis the 14th when ever he assigned one person out of ten people to do a task he’d say he ended up with 9 bitter people and one angry person or something like that. But bitter and angry people is what sort of keeps happening with in central authorities. Y’know they can dole out resources but they know that there is no gratitude because central authority figures don’t really do anything to deserve taxpayer money. They just sort of manipulate themselves politically or got into the good graces of the person in power who happens to be in the correct place at the correct time with the person in the correct mood to get anything.

        The thing about central authority is there is a form of the imposter. Most people know that a lot of central authority figures do not deserve to receive the taxpayer funds they’re getting which sets up an entitlement mindset. If you don’t produce anything and you didn’t earn anything and continue to get stuff then that’s an entitlement, and that’s very different from the mentality of National Security, and this is one of the things Iv said before (maybe not here) but essentially when you’ve got a lot of people demanding resources because they feel entitled to it then we have the beginnings of the downfall of civilization. So when you have enough people who feel entitled then those doing the work and by work I mean who is confronting terrorism because NZs track record on the matter is slow, slow, slow and them whoopsie daisy.

        As Margret Thatcher once said socialism works until you run out of other people’s money but even still, somebody has to do the work and when you’ve got a lot of people feeling entitled then there is no one doing the work and everyone else is working and then there is bitterness. So we end up with the situation we have now with a whole bunch of bitter people who have to do the work of the ministry of children or the police or who ever. So that’s essentially what centralized authority causes.

        On the other hand when you have front line staff they’re not appealing for money, they appeal to their networks that want to invest in fighting terrorism and there’s a lot more gratitude there because they don’t feel entitled to someone else’s money. So if you don’t express gratitude or feel gratitude then not many people are going to give you stuff. So the entitlement mentality is almost impossible in an holistic approach to confronting terrorism where there is less power at the centre and more power at the edges. And that’s a really beautiful thing because that’s the way people have lived for a very long time.

        I guess I’m debating about whether counter terrorism can be free where you’ve got the dun bare system where everyone knows everyone in a town and everyone gives money to the local cop to investigate people they don’t know the look of.Tten the cop would feel totally grateful. But if it’s some universal system and they are entitled to services that cost a lot of money and drain the resources of a lot of people with out the public knowing who the threat really is. And then the security apparatus is going to feel really entitled. And that’s sort of the mentality we have today. So you can’t feel grateful if you are entitled and that’s the situation the whole system is in right now. That’s sort of my whole issue with counter-terrorism because there is no gratitude. In a decentralized system there is gratitude.

        When we take money away from institutions then things change radically because first of all they can’t just tax and spend and expand or what ever. So they need set restrictions and if they want money then they’re going to have to set targets that they can meet and if they don’t then no money instead of 3% growth which is probably what they’re getting.

        It makes a big difference in how something is given. Essentially gratitude makes a big difference in the way things are run and so much more easier than an entitlement mentality.

    • Stuff love nothing more than portraying a difference of opinion between members of the coalition government as a full-blown hate-fest. I mean, I know they’re compelled to help out Simple Simon before he completely flushes the last vestiges of his fading credibility, but they could at least be a little less obvious about it. It’s all about the clicks I guess.

  3. This is a guy who fought for ISIS and told NZ he was unhappy that he couldn’t afford an adequate sex slave.

    The desire to get good legislation without rushing it is great but if your good intentions are negated in popular perception with the image of protecting a guy like this it will be very hard on the greens. There will be a large percentage of NZ population who don’t want him back at all.

    • exactly Ben Waimata,

      why do our government (Greens/Labour) fight so much for criminal rights but too busy for the average person who lives/born here whose rights are being eroded under their watch… also when did the Greens get so into nasty identity name calling while seemingly fighting tooth and nail if there is some criminal and or supremacist who needs rehoming in NZ?

      So people with extreme views can’t come here to speak, but can come here to live? Very mixed up!

      As usual they are right in principal for someone who is morally disgusting, while not working too hard for their current constituents rights and future prospects or the planet they live on. Hey, those rights can wait until after the election, or 2050….

  4. In my opinion if anyone is “dying in a ditch” one again its Labour. Yes I personally think this is odious and the Greens are dead right this could be a very handy way to shut up dissidents slapped with the terrorist label. Which as we have seen time and again through history is used by governments who want to vilify legitimate opposition such as the ANC in South Africa.

    An interesting article here:

    I keep coming back to this but we desperately need new political parties in this country. That’s what MMP allows and hopefully more people will take up the option to form parties. The alternative is a future I really don’t want to contemplate.

  5. Did I miss Mark Taylor’s trial? Or does the innocent until proved guilty basis of our legal system just not apply if someone is an idiot?

Comments are closed.