I tell you what I do admire about Phil Twyford, the embattled, bewildered Housing Minister, he at least fronts.
He fronted with me yesterday, took a pasting because you can’t hide or argue your way around the cluster or calamity of facts, and the avalanche of bad news that’s fallen down on top of him.
But at least he is there to actually fight his corner, many these days run and hide.
I also admire him for bulldozing over the Unitary Plans in places, like Auckland, where for years councils have refused to make enough land available for building. National threatened it, but never actually pulled the trigger despite my urging them to do so. It’s so ironic that a National government wouldn’t roll a Labour-esk council and yet Phil took it to his old mate, Phil Goff.
Anyway, that’s about where the good news ends.
If you missed yesterday’s interview, have a listen and just see when presented with facts, just how bad this fiasco is. And by the end of yesterday, Twyford did the honourable thing and admitted the target for year one will not be met.
And when I say target, the theoretical target is, of course, 10,000. 10,000 a year for 10 years. But to be fair in year one they were never going to build 10,000, so they settled on 1000.
The trouble with 1000 was that left 9000 for year two, on top of the 10,000 as part of the original equation, thus potentially making it a 19,000 home year.
Which, of course, is never going to happen either. And you can see the snowball effect, by the time you got to year three and four, you’d be 20,000 to 30,000 houses down and mathematically it would all implode like the house of cards it is.
And let’s be honest year three or four is as far as you can realistically go because governments are generally only good for one or two terms, especially this lot.
But back to year one and 1000, now as it stands they’ve built 33 houses, got 77 underway, which leaves us, well you do the math.
And having done the math not only are they short on 1000, they’re a mile short.
Which brings us back to the beginning of this term where we said over and over and over again, watch this policy, look at the promises, look at what they’re based on, and watch it fall on its face.
And here’s the most troubling part of all of this, making that call, seeing this for what it was, wasn’t hard. It required an element of common sense and a small understanding of the free market, the building sector, the price of money, and the average income of Kiwis. If you had that, you had all the ingredients you needed to call the government’s bluff.
The fact they couldn’t, or wouldn’t, see it is why we should sweat this lot. They’re hopeless, not all of them, but people like Twyford are so far out of their depth it’s dangerous.
This thing started July 1st, just 7 months in, January 24, already the white flag is up on the promise for year one. And if you think that’s the only broken promise, you’re as deluded as Twyford is.
There was an op-ed in the Financial Times yesterday that had all the appearances of being written by a fluent sixth former who wasn’t that smart and certainly wasn’t that deep. But I guess we have to take the FT’s word that the column was in fact written by New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. It read like several of her other efforts (eg here) if with a bit less feel-goodism than some, and a bit more of just making things up.
Since the column is behind a paywall, I won’t be copying chunks of it directly into this post, but even if you don’t have access I hope you get the gist.
She starts with the claim that New Zealand is “tiny”, apparently oblivious to the fact that in the United Nations list of countries and territories there are 100 with populations less than four million. But that claim is really just staging for her opening (and closing) claim about the mouse that roared: “we punch above our weight”. This is the sort of vapid (typically deluded) story that countries – and perhaps especially countries’ ministers and officials – like to tell themselves in private, but which quickly become rather embarrassing, a sign of insecurity and doubt more than anything, when uttered in public.
The only concrete evidence she adduces for this claim is 125 years old: New Zealand being the first country to grant women the right to vote, in 1893. Good for us, but rather a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. (And even from that era, I happened to be reading last week a biography of that courageous British campaigner Josephine Butler, who led the push for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act (in 1886) – this was, perhaps well-intentioned, legislation that grossly infringed the dignity and civil rights of women. Out of curiosity, I looked up the New Zealand experience: we finally repealed ours almost 25 years after the Brits.)
Almost every country has some “first” to its name, and some black spots from its past. In our short history (whether you think of it as 200 years or 1000) New Zealand is no different. The Prime Minister moves on to the claim that we were “one of the first” to put in place a “cradle-to-grave social welfare system that endures in some form to this day”. Do note that “in some form”, as if the Prime Minister is trying to suggest that in decades since then the welfare system has been ripped to shreds, only the tattered remains enduring, when in fact we now have 300000 working age adults receiving welfare benefits and about 750000 getting universal New Zealand superannuation. And today’s health and education spending (numbers, share of GDP or whatever) puts 1938 in the shade.
(And no mention, of course, of the fact that just a couple of years later, New Zealand was putting in place some of the most restrictive provisions around press freedom and conscientious objection found anywhere in the free world during the war. As I say, even the sainted Peter Fraser – from the Prime Minister’s own party – has his blackspots.)
The Prime Minister moves on to claim that “we are sometimes the first to learn valuable lessons”. This is an introduction to the sixth former’s account of the reform process of the 1980s and early 1990s.
Starting in 1984, New Zealand went further and faster than nearly any country in embracing the prevailing neo-liberal economic experiment. We slashed the top tax rate, dramatically cut public spending, removed regulations that were said to hamper business and vastly reduced welfare benefits paid to the sick, those caring for children and the unemployed.
It isn’t even clear where to start here. There is no recognition that we’d been quite late to the party, have wrapped up our economy in heavy protection and distorting regulation for several decades – more so again than most other democracies. Many – not all – of our reforms were about catching-up again. And yet she can’t even bring herself to acknowledge the costs and distortions (notice that “were said to be”). Or to claim some credit – for her own party – for the overdue reductions in trade protection that the reformers put in place. Or to note that as the top marginal tax rate was cut, so the tax base was broadened, and opportunities to avoid paying tax were substantially diminished.
Here is the evil low-tax regime that was created, as illustrated with OECD data on general government total receipts as a share of GDP going back to 1995 (which is about when the reform process ended, and also when the OECD has fairly complete data).
Over that quarter-century, we’ve basically been the median OECD country (literally so in in several years this decade). The comparable spending chart isn’t so very different (although we spend less than most relative to tax receipts – another way of saying we’ve avoided deficits and kept debt low), although the one period in the last 25 years in which government spending looks quite low by international standards is……the first half of the term of the previous Labour government.
But even now the Prime Minister is just warming up because her theme appears to be inequality. Never mind that the labour share of GDP hasn’t changed much in 30 years now, or that wage growth has been running ahead of growth in GDP per hour worked. Never mind the indications that inequality measures haven’t changed much here for 25 years, or that much of any concerning developments seem to relate to the spiralling costs of housing – a development only made possible by restrictions imposed and maintained by successive National and Labour governments. No, it is all the liberalising economic reforms that are “to blame”.
And all this while, oddly (but as she did during the election campaign), appearing to accept that narrative that somehow our economic performance has been just fine. But, of course, there are no mentions of our shockingly poor long-term productivity growth performance (past and present), no recognition that New Zealand export and import performance has been disappointing, no nothing. Far from “punching above our weight”, it is hard to conceive how a country which had built what it had in, say, 1913 could have done so badly in the subsequent 100 years – without even the excuse of the physical devastation of war, military coups, or Communism.
Of course, none of this seems to be based on any analysis or research. Instead, the Prime Minister tells us of her childhood memories, in which kids in the town she was living in “weren’t born into a decade of hope and opportunity, but one of inequality where users had to pay for basic services”. Perhaps she means they had to pay for food and electricity, but then users have always had to pay for those? As for schools and hospitals, they were – and are – more or less free, and we’ve never the British system of generalised free GP visits. So what on earth is she talking about?
And then the violins start up to accompany a mournful tale of the death of democracy and of prosperity from which she, and the New Zealand way, can save us.
We don’t need to start again, but we do need to change the way we do things. In May, my government will present the world’s first “wellbeing budget”.
All, apparently, premised on the weird, tendentious (and borderline dishonest) claim that any government anywhere – especially in the free world – has ever defined success solely in terms of GDP. Perhaps she could pause a moment in her progress among the left-liberal elites to give us some evidence for that claim? Have governments not been spending on education, on health, on defence, on age pensions, even on arts and the culture for generations now? Not just in New Zealand but around the advanced world. Have not cost-benefit analyses – that don’t just cover GDP effects – been part of spending evaluation for decades?
And thus the great mystery of the much-vaunted “wellbeing budget”? Is anything going to be any different from what we might we might expect from a left-wing coalition government anywhere that happened to be running budget surpluses. In her column, the Prime Minister talks of spending more on mental health, especially for young people. You might think that is sensible (I suspect that, even if some of the spending is worthwhile, it is going to be mostly papering over cracks, while refusing to address the social and cultural issues that underlie the problems we observe) but it is what left-wing governments typically do – they throw more money at things. Perhaps it is even what the voters want – after all, globally, government spending as a share of GDP is typically higher than it was 50 years ago – but don’t try to pretend that it is a whole different approach to life, economic management or government management. One only has to look at the wellbeing dashboard to see a grab-bag of vapidity, rather than a serious approach to better policy. It is, among other things, a cover for the utter failure to even begin to grapple with the repeated failure on productivity.
(And, of course, while on the subject of increased spending, there is the oddity that people from the left and right point to: she proposes to change the world, laments how public spending was slashed, but her government published plans just before Christmas that involve
On the government’s own numbers (and these are pure choices, made by ministers), core Crown spending in the coming five fiscal years (including 2018/19) will be lower every single year than the average in each of the three previous governments, two of which were led by National.
She goes on to claim that “this isn’t woolly but a well-rounded economic approach”. Perhaps around the Cabinet table and even among some of her Treasury acolytes they even believe this nonsense. In fact, it is no economic approach at all, consistent with a government that has done nothing – seems to plan nothing – to reverse the decades of relative economic decline, that have so badly limited the possibilities for New Zealanders (reflected, inter alia, in the decades-long exodus of New Zealanders). Weirdly, she claims that this “well-rounded economic approach” is same one she plans to use to respond to (inter alia) climate change, domestic violence, and housing. This in a week when the latest Demographia report again reminds us just dreadfully unaffordable housing is in New Zealand – and when her surrogate senior minister could go through an interview on the subject on Morning Report yesterday and not even (that I heard) mention land liberalisation.
Warming to her theme, the Prime Minister calls on those around the world to look to her “wellbeing approach” could be a “model” for others to respond to the problems of the world. She asserts
I wholeheartedly believe that more compassionate domestic policies are a compelling alternative to the false promise of protectionism and isolation.
Spending more is apparently the answer….but (on her own rules) not more than 30 per cent of GDP. Nothing at all, of course, about lifting productivity growth. Nothing about fixing the huge regulatory distortions that render housing so unaffordable in many countries, notably her own. Just more compassion. More kindness.
As I observed of one of her earlier vapid efforts
We don’t want political leaders who can’t identify with individual need, opportunity and so on. And yet, when one is dealing with five million people – and government policy choices affecting many or all of them – you need to be able to stand back and think about things differently, to analyse issues systematically, to recognise (for good and ill) the force or incentives, to think about the longer-term as well as the short term, and so on. And even to recognise that values and interests can, and often will, be in conflict – in many areas hers aren’t Family First’s or the oil and gas industry’s (or mine for that matter). Politics is partly about navigating those differences, seeking reconciliation where possible, but also about making hard choices and trade-offs.
There is no sign that she brings any of those skills to the job. Just a smile and lots of breezy vapid blather.
The Prime Minister ends her column with another deluded call, suggesting that she hopes New Zealand can once again “punch above our weight” by “forging a new economic system based on this powerful concept [guardianship]”. Which might perhaps be fine if there were any substance to what she is talking about, but there is no sign of any. She wants to spend a bit more (but not much), she wants to eliminate net carbon emissions in an country with seriously high abatement costs which her own government’s consultative paper data suggest will fall most heavily on the poorest, and she does nothing at all to fixing the disgrace that is New Zealand housing affordability, or to even think about reversing decades of relative decline. Perhaps it all sounds good to a few readers – and Davos attendees – but it offers nothing of substance to New Zealanders, let alone to the world.
Having stayed out of the limelight since Christmas, and having orchestrated the usual 4 pm Friday dump of information: that was when the texts from Richie Hardcore were released under the OIA, the princess headed to Switzerland this weekend to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos. I have to wonder what Jacinda can possibly contribute to an economic forum when she doesn’t know the difference between the Crown accounts and GDP? quote.
The WEF highlighted Ardern’s participation among four other “leaders and luminaries” — including naturalist Sir David Attenborough, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Prince William — in the key pressstatement announcing the lineup for Davos 2019.
This is quite striking for a political leader barely into her second year as New Zealand’s Prime Minister and yet to chalk up significant and sustained domestic results. end quote.
Excuse me while I laugh. Angela Merkel is a traitorous has-been who has wrecked her country. David Attenborough makes wildlife documentaries and keeps telling us the world is going to end. It still hasn’t. Prince William is a nice but very privileged guy with zero economic experience and no idea what life is like for ordinary people. Shinzo Abe is almost certainly on the way out, facing accusations of cronyism at home. This must be the comedy hour: the light relief from all the serious stuff the forum will be actively addressing. quote.
Ardern’s star status will inevitably burnish the PM’s credentials as a “next generation leader” with her finger on the international pulse and an instinct for emerging issues.
But how the Prime Minister translates her growing reputation in key offshore circles into concerted political results at home will ultimately be how she is judged. end quote.
I doubt it. Her ‘star status’ is probably due to her being relatively new to world politics and the only word that really describes her is ‘lightweight’. I don’t see how she can have a ‘growing reputation in key offshore circles’ when she has actually done nothing yet. Like Macron and Trudeau, she is one of the ‘brat pack’. Everyone watched them with enormous interest too, only to see them crash and burn spectacularly. Jacinda will go the same way. quote.
Photoshopped image credit: Luke
The WEF has invited Ardern to join three panels — more than many other “minor” leaders — which will enable her to play to her undoubted communication strengths and position New Zealand (under the Coalition Government) as being progressive on some big issues of our times. end quote.
Yes, but it is worth pointing out that Donald Trump will not be there due to the shutdown in the US, Teresa May is too busy with Brexit, and Emmanuel Macron is dealing with a bunch of yellow vested protestors. The heavyweights are not there: Jacinda will just have to do instead. quote.
Ardern’s next panel is “More than GDP”, which will enable her to promote New Zealand’s first “wellbeing Budget”…
A Newspaper end quote.
The ‘Wellbeing Budget’ is nothing more than hot air. It should be renamed the ‘Robin Hood Budget’, as the end result will be to take more money from those that work and give it away to those that can’t be bothered to work.
Jacinda is just going to embarrass herself and her country with her airhead ideas and lack of understanding of economic issues, but it does mean that she doesn’t have to face the media over the Sroubek case for another week.
You may have noticed that she is not taking her family entourage this time, so there will be no cutesie photos of baby Neve. Do not, for one second, think this means she is taking her job seriously. It is far more likely to indicate that all is not well in the Ardern-Gayford household at the moment.
The charred remains of the fleeing car, which exploded after crashing in Christchurch, killing the three teenage boys inside. Photo credit NZ Police.
The father of two of the three Christchurch boys, who were aged 16 and 13, blames the police for the deaths of both his sons who died last weekend speeding away from the police in a stolen car. The Otago Daily Times reported the father’s accusation and defence. Quote.
He saidhis sons were good boys but conceded they had been involved in police pursuits and had stolen cars in the past.” End of quote.
Newsflash: habitual stealing is not a characteristic of good boys. By all means give a kid a break for his first offence, but ignoring multiple car thefts? Absolutely not. Quote.
“They were just kids,” he said.
“They were just boys doing what boys do.”
End of quote.
Actually, no! Not one of my dozen nephews reached adulthood with a penchant for stealing other people’s stuff. Their parents did a good job of teaching them to respect other people and their stuff.
Given this father thinks stealing cars is acceptable, he deserves some of the blame for the strife his boys got themselves into. No person has more influence in a child’s life than their parents.
These boys should have been sorted out much earlier – an education that excludes the biff or any other violence. Kids learn more from what they see than what they are told, and this father has no concept of good parenting. As we now know, he might appears to have missed out in decent parenting too. Quote.
“I knew as soon as this happened what was going to happen with me, with my name – that my brother was going to get brought into it.
“It’s not relevant. The police killed my kids.”
End of quote.
Technically, his kids killed themselves because the police pulled out of the chase before the crash.
And as it happens, there is a history of family violence. The father’s brother, Glen Mcallister, died after a murder suicide rampage in Cathedral Square in 1989. The father of the dead boys is very quick to absolve himself and his deceased violent brother of blame for the boys deaths, but is he correct to do that?
I think violence in the family affects all members. History repeating itself points to parental neglect and lessons not learned, if taught at all. ‘It’s not my fault’ from the father is a man simply denying his part in his children’s outcome. Quote.
“It’s not about me.” End of quote.
Actually, it is about you. Your children learned from you and their behaviour is a reflection of your parenting.
This family history of bad behaviour is not unlike what we witnessed this week from the Liverpudlian family who displayed inter-generational insouciance. They thumbed their noses at the environment, restaurants and the general public. Some families really shouldn’t be breeding.
The police get a bad rap each time the media comes out with “police pursuit” and the families of the deceased take the media opportunity to point the finger, blaming the police for the deaths of their loved ones. Not a bad kid, they say. I guess it’s all a matter of degrees, maybe these errant kids are just not bad enough in their parents eyes.
The police are there to keep us safe from idiot minors, and the courts need to come down heavily on youth who persistently flaunt the law.
If these boys had survived the accident would they have learned anything from it? One would hope so, but probably not.
It is now January 18th, and no one has heard from Jacinda Ardern since before Christmas. She did not wish her long-suffering subjects a Merry Christmas or a Happy New Year, as she was obviously far too embroiled in having a holiday and enjoying herself. Almost a month has passed however and, since we pay her a salary of about half a million dollars, we taxpayers would quite like to see her at least start to earn some of that money, rather than being missing in action… or rather, in her case, inaction.
Even her best buddy and fellow globalist Justin Trudeau called on Jacinda this week to support Canada in its bid to stand up to China. quote.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Monday in an attempt to shore up support for its condemnation of China’s recent diplomatic actions.
The pair discussed the legal treatment and detention of Canadian citizens in China, and the extradition case of a Huawei executive in Canada, according to Trudeau’s office.
Brady said Canada was contacting its allies for support, just as New Zealand would and had done in the past.
“United we stand, divided we fall. The New Zealand Government needs to stand with Canada on this issue. We need the support of our friends and allies too and we must uphold our values-based foreign policy,”
A Newspaper
So she’ll talk to Justin, of course, but the people of New Zealand have not heard a word from her since last year.
Maybe she simply told Justin that she was still on holiday and he should call her back in March?
There was this sighting of her, of course, although the article does state that the interview took place before Christmas.
However, she made it very clear that she did not want to be at the interview by dressing in casual clothes and sneakers, to send the message that she was already on holiday and wanted to remain that way.
Just to make sure that everyone got the message, her main prediction for 2019 was that she wouldn’t be taking maternity leave in that year.
Wow.
With insight like that, we are all hanging on to her every word.
Of course, the longer she stays on holiday, the longer she can avoid awkward questions about Karel Sroubek and Richie Hardcore and the UN Migration Compact that is not binding but will result in millions of unwanted refugees with instant residency rights flooding our shores.
Yes. That will be it.
Photoshopped image credit: Twitter
Or maybe there are just no photoshoots planned until mid-February. Hardly worth making an appearance before then, is it?
Emergency housing payments have risen by 200% over the past year. The government says this is due to the housing crisis; maybe it is, at least in part. However, this government came in on promises to fix housing, fix homelessness, fix child poverty and make everything wonderful again. 15 months in, they are finally realising that these things cannot be fixed with the wave of a magic wand. quote.
Welfare payments for emergency housing have skyrocketed almost 200 per cent over the last year, while hardship payments for food have risen 38 per cent.
The Opposition says this is due to the rising cost of living, but Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni says it is because of the housing crisis.
Meanwhile, Ministry of Social Development officials will meet tomorrow with Hawke’s Bay apple growers, who have been struggling to find workers.
The latest MSD figures for the December 2018 quarter, released today, show that 9.9 per cent of working-age people are on a main benefit – up slightly from 9.8 per cent in December 2017. end quote.
9.9% are on benefits when employers are screaming out for workers? What the hell is going on? quote.
Over the same period, government assistance through the Families Package has contributed to a 10.5 per cent drop – 7567 fewer people – in Temporary Additional Support/Special Benefit, which cover living costs when income is not enough.
But the number of special needs grants for emergency housing leapt from 6172 in the December 2017 quarter to 15,676 a year later – a 154 per cent increase.
That amounted to $19.5 million in government payments, a 198 per cent increase from the December 2017 quarter.
Hardship payments for food also jumped, from $14.3 million in the December 2017 quarter to $19.8 million in the December 2018 quarter – a 38 per cent rise. end quote.
In a market where housing is so expensive, the only way to get ahead, or even just make ends meet, is to work. Admittedly, even then it can be tough going for people on low incomes, but at least they are trying. quote.
The Government announced in last year’s Budget that it wants to build 6400 state houses over four years.
Sepuloni said it would take time for the Government’s programme to have an effect on the number of emergency housing grants, but she did not want to say how long it might take.
“I’m not a clairvoyant … All I can say is that, as a government, we’ve prioritised housing and we’re working as quickly and as responsibly as we can to address the demand.” end quote.
A Newspaper
Four years is too long. There are over 6000 people on waiting lists for social housing now, and that is only going to get worse as landlords leave the market. This government has already had over 15 months to start a building programme for social housing. So far, it has done… nothing. The result of them sitting on their hands is that the problems just get worse and worse.
This government blames the housing crisis, and with that, they make a veiled stab at the previous government. However, the government that campaigned on reducing immigration has allowed over 96,000 immigrants into the country since they have been in government. The housing crisis may have started under the previous government, but it has gotten a lot worse under the present one.
The only thing this government is good at is blaming the previous government. That’s all they can do. In the meantime, immigration gets worse, housing gets worse and more and more people are claiming government handouts at a time when unemployment is at record lows. Never mind. It is not this government’s fault. Put it all down to ‘9 years of neglect’.
Welcome to politically incorrect Comedy corner: the one place on Whaleoilwhere you are allowed to read and share naughty and offensive jokes that make us all laugh even though we are not supposed to. If you are offended by these kinds of jokes then please do not read this post.
Naughty Nana
It’s in the fridge
“An old lady went to visit her dentist. When it was her turn, she sat in the chair, lowered her underpants, and raised her legs. The dentist said, “Excuse me, but I’m not a gynecologist.” “I know,” said the old lady. “I want you to take my husband’s teeth out.”
― Various, 101 Dirty Jokes – sexual and adult’s jokes
Oh dear I think he is transphobic
A man in Scotland calls his son in London the day before Christmas Eve and says,“I hate to ruin your day but I have to tell you that your mother and I are divorcing; forty-five years of misery is enough.” ‘Dad, what are you talking about?’ the son screams. “We can’t stand the sight of each other any longer” the father says. “We’re sick of each other and I’m sick of talking about this, so you call your sister in Leeds and tell her.” Franticly, the son calls his sister, who explodes on the phone. “Like hell they’re getting divorced!” she shouts, “I’ll take care of this!” She calls Scotland immediately, and screams at her father “You are NOT getting divorced. Don’t do a single thing until I get there. I’m calling my brother back, and we’ll both be there tomorrow. Until then, don’t do a thing, DO YOU HEAR ME?” and hangs up. The old man hangs up his phone and turns to his wife. ‘Sorted! They’re coming for Christmas – and they’re paying their own way.’
I have said this before, but homosexuals are simply too mainstream these days. We work with them. They live next door to us. No one bats an eyelid at receiving a wedding invitation for a gay couple. Even two women in wedding dresses does not faze us any more. Now that gay people have become a regular part of our society, they are suffering the same fate as heterosexual people. They are no longer special, no longer marginalised, and that means that they can be attacked… by New Zealand politicians. Ani O’Brien writes at Afterellen: quote.
The gender identity politics rule-book seems to be under constant revision. Not only does that make it difficult for allies to know how to support the trans community, but it also makes it hard for women, and in particular lesbians, to keep track. We are being defined out of existence and this week I experienced what happens when a lesbian says “no”.
In response to a coercive tweet aimed at lesbians I wrote, “I’d never date a transwoman. I’m a lesbian. I’m same-sex attracted,” This shouldn’t be controversial. It shouldn’t be difficult for people to understand. However, by asserting my boundaries, as a lesbian, I outraged a local Trans Rights Activist, Bex, and they wasted no time telling their Twitter followers.
It was ugly. But for lesbians, it’s become routine. Our existence offends ‘activists’ regularly.
However, when Golriz Ghahraman, a New Zealand Member of Parliament and Green Party Spokesperson for Human Rights, waded into the attack, she effectively sanctioned the homophobic rant. I really woke up. I realized that our people in power, our institutions, our government, have all been guzzling the Kool-Aid.
end quote.
Hang on. Isn’t Golriz the poster child for the marginalised and oppressed? Why does she hate lesbians? quote.
The next day, the situation became much more concerning when Bex tweeted the following: “according to someone who just retweeted my photo, being racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic is not an issue, it’s simply setting boundaries.” Ghahraman, NZ parliament member and Green Party Human Rights spokesperson, tweeted an enthusiastically supportive reply, and by doing so, Ghahraman invalidating the real concerns of lesbians.
“Yeah until those boundaries mean almost 1/3 of our Rainbow community young people are made homeless when they can’t come out to their families….just boundaries tho,” Ghahraman wrote.
A member of New Zealand’s Parliament blamed homelessness on lesbians… For expressing and taking pride in our innate same-sex attraction. end quote.
Good old Golriz. She never fails to disappoint. Does anyone remember the days when politicians kept their opinions on such matters to themselves, and got on with the business of running the country? Golriz clearly does not have enough to do. quote.
The conversation carried on between the two. Bex wrote, “Just boundaries. A woman said that. I don’t get how people can be so keen to keep marginalized people down. I guess because they then themselves will have to make an effort, not just thrive purely because they’re mediocre and white.”
To which Ghahraman responded, “of course they’re always the first ones to get offended if any of those boundaries are prejudice against them…say if anyone points out privilege. That’s unforgivable”
The “effort” Bex is demanding from lesbians, is the “effort” to set aside same-sex attraction and ‘allow’ themselves to be coercively raped. end quote
Don’t worry, Ani. I’m sure she didn’t mean that. No one in New Zealand has a clue what Golriz is talking about either. I doubt if she knows herself. quote.
MP Ghahraman is a Human Rights Lawyer. She’s worked for the UN and is on the boards of Action for Children & Youth Aotearoa (NZ), NZ Criminal Bar Association, NZ Centre for Human Rights Law & Policy and Super Diverse Women (Superdiversity Centre for Law, Policy and Business).
Clearly, the human rights of lesbians have been compromised. Lesbians are actively being abused. But when an MP is involved in those attacks and is on the board of the NZ Centre for Human Rights Law, it’s much harder to get people to listen. end quote.
What is strange is that Golriz does this at a time when homophobic comments are still considered unacceptable. Just think about how some homophobic remarks from 10 years ago have damaged Kevin Hart’s career. Also Kevin Spacey. It is not okay to make homophobic remarks… except if you are defending trans people. quote.
The systemic abuse of lesbians by New Zealand government officials is disturbing. Lately, the persecution of lesbians in NZ has increased. Earlier in December, MP Ghahraman Twitter-shamed internationally respected NZ lesbian activist Charlie Montague.
Ghahraman was offended that Montague’s list of NZ women killed by men were women. MP Ghahraman wanted trans women included on Montague’s list. One trans woman has been murdered in NZ in the last decade. Instead of applauding Montague for calling attention to violence against women, Ghahraman publicly chastised yet another lesbian. end quote.
Golriz is a disgrace. As a politician, she should not be treating minority groups like some sort of food pyramid, with the most marginalised at the top and the not-quite-so marginalised at the bottom. She should be representing all New Zealanders equally. She is nothing more than a nutcase activist who rages from one cause to the next, without a clue about what she stands for. All she really stands for is disruption. That is all she knows.
Golriz is not fit to be a politician. Any politician who says ‘no human right is absolute’ should not be representing anyone. When that politician is supposedly a human rights lawyer, the stupidity is breathtaking. Golriz is dangerous. So, by default, is the entire Green party.
