Friday, March 24, 2006

Wishart "a creep"

Helen Clark has called Ian Wishart a "scandal monger" and a "creep." She once called John Campbell, deservedly in my view, a "little creep," so presumably Wishart is less vertically challenged. "Miss Clark went on to say that if you want to meet the Wishart test of public life you had better be one of the vestal virgins."

Is Wishart a scandal monger? No doubt of that. A fundamentalist nutbar? For sure. Conspiracy peddler. Big tick. Creationist and anti-evolutionist? Sure is. Intellectual dwarf? Clearly. A creep? Well, I wouldn't drink with him.

Hard working and energetic for sure, and in New Zealand's lack-lustre (read near non-existent) world of investigative journalism he stands out for both uncovering evidence and, in what I've read, assuming it -- his brain and his magazine remain the toxic dumping ground for everything dreamed up by anyone who ever wore a layer of tin-foil inside their hats. Like many other journalists he is never one to give the whole story when a partial one will sound better, he is Winston Peters with a magazine; Nicky Hager with subscriptions; Dan Brown without the sales; John Grisham with cliches. (This last is irony by the way.) Of Wishart, NBR's Nevil Gibson once said, ""Not one to use a telling phrase where a cliche will do; Mr Wishart's purple prose detracts from an otherwise fascinating account ... a conspiratorial tale of greed and excess ... created in the milieu of the X Files ... "

To call his work yellow journalism would be too kind. The overwhelming majority of what I've read of Wishart's work and of what appears in his magazine takes a breathless join-the-dots approach to a story, but with too few dots to make a full picture -- suggesting what isn't known, and taking denials by protagonists as evidence that they're hiding something. The sad thing is that this muck sells. You lot buy it.

Among some of his gems, if you remember, were the claims that George W Bush was secretly planning to abolish income tax (I wish!); that soy milk causes homosexuality; that condoms don't work and the 'safe-sex' campaign promoting their use is intended only to spread AIDS and increase the power of the "gay lobby"; that Bill Clinton was a cocaine smuggler "in an operation that was turning over billions of dollars a year"; that "ruins" have been found on the moon, "artifacts" on Mars and "lost cities" in Antarctic lakes (and the US Government has presumably been covering up ever since); that the Kyoto Treaty was all the work of "the boys from Enron"; that abortion causes breast cancer; that NZ defence researchers are "helping perfect" US missile systems, nuclear submarines "and even space warfare craft"; that China is about to launch a surprise biological attack on the US...

As proof for most of the stories I've read there is little more than conjecture, imagination, supposition, denials (as proof of veracity) and a demand that you, the reader, prove they're not true. This may be one occasion where I have to agree with the Prime Minister, as I did on her assessment of John Campbell and his 'analysis by ambush. ' Feel free to post below more examples of Wishart's cliche-ridden conspiracy claims over the years.

UPDATE: I'll post more of Investigate's amusing claims over the years as people send them in. These include: African famines caused by "a biotech industry plan to control world food supply"; exposés of "Al Qa'ida's pacific hideaway"; constitutional crises aplenty, including "an income tax revolt by ordinary taxpayers" already under way "with the potential to bring down the current system of government," and a claim that "New Zealand's future as a democracy is in the balance this summer" due to the "uncovering" of a "missing link" Treaty of Waitangi (there's a missing link here allright, but not where Wishart thinks); that the death penalty for treason was dropped so a cabal of political conspirators could "deliberately steal sovereignty from the public"; that people were living in Auckland more than 30,000 years ago...

More to come, I'm sure.

LINKS: PM calls Investigate editor "a creep" - Newstalk ZB
Investigate the editorship - Simon Pound
When partly true is untrue - Not PC

Tags:
Nonsense

Labels: , ,

56 Comments:

Blogger Oswald Bastable said...

It shows the sad state of journalism in NZ, when I find myself cheering Wishart on.

I never have nor likely ever will, spend money to buy his rag, but I will cheer anyone on, when they land a good punch on Lairbour- I don't need to like them, mind!

I'm sure Helen is mostly pissed that they don't have such an effective muck-racking ambulance-chaser on their team...

3/24/2006 03:27:00 pm  
Anonymous B whitehead said...

I think your view of Ian Wishart is a bit harsh, its true that he tends to have some stories that are hard to believe to say the least ,or have have conclusions that I wouldn't agree with.
He also has an obsession with religion & trying to justify it scientifically with the "intellegent design" theory. However , every now & then he gets it right & when he does, it has a huge impact.
eg
-the winebox enquiry
-David parkers prompt resignation (why? , is there more to it ,if it's untrue, why did he resign?)

3/24/2006 05:06:00 pm  
Anonymous michael fasher said...

He seems to have a high nutbar to effective mudracking ratio but he does land the hits quite often.
I just wish peaple would get worked up about the free radical
im sure a copulation of the horror files would be a good idea

3/24/2006 06:30:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a copulation of the horror files"

No thanks, there's enough horror in our lives as it is without encouraging it to breed... :-)

3/24/2006 06:34:00 pm  
Blogger Craig Ranapia said...

Well, I read Investigate in various waiting rooms for entertainment rather than englightenment, but I can't help but make two observations:

1) I defer to Clark's judgement where "scandal mongers" and "little creeps" are concerned - after all, she's handed them enough Ministerial warrants over the years.

2) Does anyone remember when TVNZ and The O'Herald announced they'd set up 'investigative units' that would bring us the in-depth investigations that got behind the headlines and soundbites blah blah blah? No, I didn't think so...

If the MSM think Wishart is so fucking awful, why don't they act like they're in a competitive marketplace and provide a better product?

3/24/2006 07:09:00 pm  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Peter, you claim that Ina Wishart states:

1 that soy milk causes homosexuality
2 that condoms don't work and the 'safe-sex' campaign promoting their use is intended only to spread AIDS and increase the power of the "gay lobby";

Can kindly show us the quote to support your claims?

3/24/2006 08:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Ian Wishart said...

Peter is a little short on hard evidence...he prefers to paraphrase for the most part, summarising 5,000 word articles with 25 word put-downs.

I have posted a rebuttal to much of this over at http://www.tbr.cc

But while you're digging up quotes in context Pete, you might like to give me some examples where I've "manufactured" or "invented" evidence - an extremely serious allegation that professionally I am considering my options on.

3/24/2006 09:22:00 pm  
Anonymous Graham Watson said...

Your ad hominem attack on Ian Wishart is abhorrent Peter. It is redolent of the kiwi cobbering machine.

Clark cannot with any integrity on the one hand claim she would have asked Parker to resign, and on the other hand call Ian Wishart a creep for raising issues that were important enough she would have called for a ministerial resignation.

Your attacks also appear to be factually inaccurate. You complain of Ian's intellectual capacity, yet in my humble academic view your blog has veered between middle class dinner party philosophy and chantings of text book libertarian mantra's. Hardly any enlightening philosophical posts or discussion.

When looking at for specks of evidence for lack of intellectual rigour I suggest you remove the log from your own eye.

Remember, Ian Wishart is providing a great contribution to investigative media, what exactly are you contributing Peter, or do you just want to sit back and bitch?

3/24/2006 10:14:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Deleted at the request of the poster.

3/24/2006 10:22:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

Investigate is tabloid journalism for the religious right - bugger all detailed investigation about serious issues affecting the economy or education or health, because Wishart doesn't have the intellectual grunt to do it, and it isn't half as sexy as scaremongering is.

To Investigate the big problem with the Clark government is that it is some lesbian feminist cabal devoted to destroying the family unit and having everyone living in communes having gay sex and eating organic vegan food while railing against the USA.

3/24/2006 10:53:00 pm  
Anonymous george said...

so far so good

3/24/2006 10:58:00 pm  
Anonymous cybersleuth said...

Yeah, he’s really into scaremongering.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/archives/2005/12/index.html

December 21, 2005
Avoiding Aspartame
Posted by Ian Wishart at 11:01 PM


And so is this guy calling himself Mr Ubiquitous. Coincidence?

http://www.idolblog.com/node/2005399

Is Nutri-sweet bad for you?
By Mr Ubiquitous on 4 October, 2005 - 10:48am.

3/24/2006 11:33:00 pm  
Anonymous Ian Wishart said...

Peter

I'm not sure where you're getting your paraphrased dodgy quotes from..but if you can't provide a taped version of those purportedly made by me on Radio Pacific I'm personally going to sue you...

I know for a fact they're factually inaccurate...someone is doing a cut and paste job and you've swallowed it...

I should advise you that in defamation the onus of proof will be on you to prove the truth of what you have said about me...I don't have to prove anything other than that your comments are offensive.

You have 24 hours to comply, or delete those comments, or I'll see you in court. I'm not going to sit back and watch a half-baked conspiracy theory of yours take wing...

3/24/2006 11:51:00 pm  
Blogger sagenz said...

I think you are way too harsh on wishart because he is religious. He has a bad reputation and thus if forced to back his assertions with far more evidence than is required in msm. I have bought his magazine and would continue to do so in the future. it is certainly more plausible than the clark defence.

In my experience Investigate writes artfully and will attempt to lay more innuendo on than necessary. that does not invalidate his basic points.
Based on the hard evidence I would suggest that Wishart is one of new Zealands best investigative journalists alongside the like of Jenni McManus and her independent colleagues. If that is a harsh indictment of standards elsewhere ni NZ then so be it.

3/25/2006 12:08:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

So are you claiming you or your magazine didn't make those claims, Ian, or are you suggesting we shouldn't be making fun of them? It's a little unclear from your response.

3/25/2006 12:08:00 am  
Anonymous Ian Wishart said...

What I'm telling you Peter is that your anonymous poster has defamed me with a series of comments I never made...can you think for example of a gay Minister of Defence and why a couple of gay flatmates pinching my bum (they didn't) might have a bearing on that?

You also have defamed me with your claim that I manufacture or invent evidence...

Your overall post contains a number of furphies, strawmen claims I am alleged to have made that in fact have been misquoted by either you or others, some of which appear to have emanated from the files of GayNZ.

I notice you also reference Simon Pound, a journalistic gadfly in my opinion with little credibility outside of BFM or Agenda. see Scoop http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00130.htm for an example of Pound being critiqued.

If you rely on idiots for your information, you have only yourself to blame for the consequences...

I have no problem with honest opinion..I have a real problem with people who have no journalistic training or ethics lecturing me about being a journalist and defaming me in the process because they got their facts wrong.

How about, instead of paraphrased half-truth and innuendo, you actually read the articles and thoroughly deconstruct each one, showing me where I made it up or got it wrong?

Read the estradiol story, and show me where it is bad science and bad journalism..

Read the al Qa'ida in the Pacific story, and show me where journalist Matt Thompson got it "wrong".

You are a buffoon, Peter, and I agree with Watson, your blogsite reeks of your lack of intellectual depth and general knowledge. For someone boasting that he is not-PC, you sound incredibly PC on a range of topics.

You want to take me to task on the existence of God? Write an essay and watch me fisk it for you...You want to take me to task on condom efficacy...go right ahead...don't sit there and pout like Pound...actually write something meaningful.

Like that's ever going to happen.

3/25/2006 12:28:00 am  
Blogger libertyscott said...

The estradiol story is bad science - a bunch of seagulls with eggs injected with estradiol are chemically castrated so the use of estradiol in cattle risks making children gay, when in fact the estradiol used in cattle make no discernible difference to hormonal levels in human beings.

read

http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/hormone2.html

3/25/2006 12:55:00 am  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Peter, you claim that Ian Wishart states:

1 that soy milk causes homosexuality
2 that condoms don't work and the 'safe-sex' campaign promoting their use is intended only to spread AIDS and increase the power of the "gay lobby";

3/25/2006 09:22:00 am  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Peter, you claim that Ian Wishart states:

1 that soy milk causes homosexuality
2 that condoms don't work and the 'safe-sex' campaign promoting their use is intended only to spread AIDS and increase the power of the "gay lobby";

3/25/2006 09:27:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter, I’m happy for you to delete those reported quotes, given Ian's denial that he said them.

I invite Ian to put the record straight – does he have a problem with homosexuals having children, and if so, why?

3/25/2006 09:53:00 am  
Anonymous reader said...

The futility of arguing with Ian Wishart about the accuracy of his scientific claims is well illustrated by his dismissive response to this letter by Peter van den Brink, published in the August 2005 issue of Investigate:

“your use of statistics in your article on the “Hubba” campaign is utterly appalling, if not deceptive….

“…you quote research that says that the risk of catching herpes virus is reduced by 40% when using a condom. To say that there is therefore a 60% percent chance of catching it is blatantly erroneous. You would first need to establish what the (absolute) risk of infection is without using a condom. Naturally this will vary significantly depending on the physiology of the individuals involved and the severity (and possible stage) of the infection in the carrier. If, for example, there is only a 50% chance of infection without “protection” then the research suggests that the chances are reduced to 30% - that’s assuming infection in the first place. That indicates a 70% chance of “getting away with it” – a very different statistic to the one your article suggests.

“To reverse the statistic that a 40% reduction in risk is the same as a 60% chance of infection is either ignorant or deceptive.

"Unfortunately, the misinterpretation of data was common throughout the article. While I agree with the basic point of your article, I believe that an apology and correction is due for your misuse of statistics.”

There was no acknowledgement of his error in Ian's reply, which begins:

"I think you're overstressing the point. Statistics was my best mathematical subject, and I am well aware of the point you make, but perhaps my writing needed to be a little tighter..."

It might be fun to see him try to defend his claims in court.

3/25/2006 11:38:00 am  
Anonymous Robert Winefield said...

"It might be fun to see him try to defend his claims in court."

I believe that you'd have to travel to the USA to see that. Ian's first problem in suing Peter (if I read the law right) is that he has to sue him under US law. Why? Because technically the blogging service that Peter publishes his block on is owned by Google and run from servers in the USA. Peter has - in effect - abused Ian from half a world away.

Assuming that my jurisdictional interpretation is correct, Ian now has three more problems.

(1) He has to convince a US jury (probably made of Californians - not known for their religious dogma) that what Peter said is libel. Then he has to convince them that how much his good reputation has suffered because of Peter's attack. Now seeing as Peter has no assets in the USA, I really don't see how Ian is going to get the US government to enforce a US court ruling on a citizen residing in another soveriegn country...

(2) Not only must Ian prove that Peter's statements were untrue - but under US law he must prove that Peter uttered them with malice.

You see, Ian is classed as a public figure in the USA - being a radio-talkback personality and all. The case of NYT v Sullivan set a president that public figures have to prove that a journalist (possibly even a blogger) had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.

Not an easy task to do seeing as Peter has listened to Ian on the radio and pointed to articles written by other journalists.

I believe then that Ian's threat is an utterly empty one. Unless Investigate is making millions of dollars per issue, a law suit against Peter would be a risky gamble that could bankrupt Investigate.

Come to think of it, would that be such a bad thing?

3/25/2006 11:58:00 am  
Anonymous Robert Winefield said...

Apologies for the typos.

Block (1st para, fourth line) should read blog
And Ian has two problems, not three (2nd para, 1st line)

3/25/2006 12:00:00 pm  
Anonymous Robert Winefield said...

And lastly, if Ian manages to get an NZ court to rule he has to run the gauntlet of this provision in the NZ defamation laws:

"That the statement identifies the plaintiff and tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society."

I'm thinking that PC is safe there...

3/25/2006 12:25:00 pm  
Anonymous David said...

Robert:

The issue of jurisdiction in internet defamation cases is a rather thorny one. Courts in the UK and Australia have said that publication takes place where the viewer downloads the material. Courts in the US have said the opposite. (See, for instance, Harrods v Dow Jones (UK), Gutnick v Dow Jones (AU), Young v New Haven Advocate (US).)

In New Zealand, the only case I'm aware of is Newlands v Nationwide News Pty Ltd, in which it was found that the plaintiff could sue in New Zealand for an article published on an Australian newspapers website. (See http://www.ajpark.co.nz/library/2005/03/oseas_website_defamation_laws.php for a summary.)

3/25/2006 12:35:00 pm  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Reader, Peter van den Brink had a valid point. Perhaps next time Ian writes on the effectiveness of condoms he should seek advice from Helen’s husband, Dr Peter Davis who is somewhat of an expert on HIV. He in fact has published a book on the topic with chapters contributed by many of his homosexual friends.

3/25/2006 01:22:00 pm  
Blogger maksimovich said...

uh oh The UK precendent,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1737335,00.html

3/25/2006 05:20:00 pm  
Anonymous Robert Winefield said...

Well with precedents in UK and Australian law there ~may~ be a case to argue that an NZ court has jurisdiction.

However, I seem to recall NZ libel law including a defence of "fair comment" to protect the freedoms of the press. And considering that the PM and several journalists (Simond Pound etc.) have implied that or straight out said that Ian is a muck-raking creep (or similar), I think it'll be hard to prove that PC's comments weren't fair comment.

But you be the judge: Go to
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/nov03paradise.htm
and read Ian's review of Helen Clark.

Pay special attention to the number of times gays and gay-issues are mentioned to the exclusion of things like high taxation, the stifling RMA, lack of an Air Force, high murder rate, low police morale etc.

Indeed the final third of the Helen Clark article in the November 03 edition all but called Clark an assexual lesbian.

Now ask yourself: Does it matter whether Helen is a muff-diver? Being straight didn't stop Muldoon from fucking the country over - his being a statist cunt did.

Similarly Helen's politics stem from her grounding in marxism.

And that's my point. An article on the politics of the PM focuses on rumours about Clark's sexuality. If that isn't muck-raking? Then please tell me what is.

PC remarks are on the money. And as far as Wishart's libel case?

Tough shit Ian. If you are in the public eye you have to be prepared to it as well as give it out and that includes Ian Wishart.

3/25/2006 06:51:00 pm  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Robert Winefield says, “Does it matter whether Helen is a muff-diver?”

I would not put so crudely but yes it does matter if she is a lesbian. It matters even more if between 10 and 20% of the Labour MPs in this current government are homosexuals.

Firstly, there have been a disproportionate numbers of homosexuals appointed to quasi judicial positions. Some have abused their positions to promote their agenda. Bill Hasting video censor is but one example. He used his position to ban two videos one of them about AIDS. The video showed that condoms will not protect promiscuous homosexuals who indulge in anonymous sex in public loos. Someone come to mind. Maybe that could be for a future Investigate. Secondly, we now have record high rates of HIV due to allowing militant homosexuals to set the sexual health of this country. Ian is correct regarding the dishonest safe sex claims about condoms being partly responsible for the increase in HIV. Thirdly, the vast majority of parents know that allowing homosexuals to adopt children is not a good idea. That will not stop this gay friendly government as Carter and Barnett refer to it from putting young children at risk.

I could go on but Robert first tell us if you have any adolescent children or grandchildren.

3/25/2006 08:09:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

Chuck speaking of defamation, you risk it with Bill Hastings, claiming that he has not applied the law in his position, but pushed a personal agenda. To accuse a lawyer and a top ranking civil servant (who frankly knows more than almost everyone in this country about those laws) is outrageous. I disapprove vehemently about the censorship laws, but the videos he banned were, from the detailed decisions (which are subject to several levels of judicial appeal) indicate they were about as accurate as David Irving's pronouncements on the Holocaust. Who frankly gives a damn what adults do with their bodies - unless you're obsessed about it for personal reasons or a control freak.

How are young children at risk from homosexuals Chuck, given that virtually all cases of child abuse in NZ are committed by declared heterosexuals - like Graham Capill.

What do you want to do to gay people Chuck? Gas them or imprison them or just have the state treat them like they are criminals? Would you trust a daughter more with an out gay man than a straight man?

3/26/2006 08:53:00 am  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Libertyscott, have you viewed the videos or read the Court of Appeal judgement? If not, read the decision before you comment. The judgement supports my position.

You ask, “Who frankly gives a damn what adults do with their bodies”.

I know who should care and that is the Ministry of Health. We have a record rate of HIV because of allowing militant homosexuals to determine the sexual health policy of New Zealand. Perhaps you would like to explain why New Zealand born homosexuals have a rate of HIV over a hundred times that of New Zealand born heterosexuals.

You say, “Chuck, given that virtually all cases of child abuse in NZ are committed by declared heterosexuals - like Graham Capill.”

I assume that you are referring to sexual abuse of children. If so, your statement is totally false. Let us see your source to support it.

You ask, “What do you want to do to gay people Chuck?”

Nothing, they do not appeal to me.

I hope this answers your quires. Incidentally why do you hide behind a pseudonym?

3/26/2006 12:51:00 pm  
Anonymous Ian Wishart said...

Peter...thank you.

I don't ask that people like me. I don't ask that they be forced to respect my beliefs.

All I ask is that if I'm being pilloried about getting my facts right and "manufacturing" evidence, that my critics are held to the same standard.

Having been on the receiving end of some media interviews this week, I can see how comments are so often taken out of context by journalists who are not paying attention to the finer detail. I've seen comments attributed to me in papers that bear little resemblance to what was actually said. I would never get away with that in Investigate without being sued.

Peter is welcome to keep criticising me and what I write or say - provided I actually said it - because that kind of scrutiny and debate is important...all I ask of anyone is that they step back for half a moment and appreciate the irony of accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist while using their own conspiracy theories as a weapon of choice.

3/26/2006 03:31:00 pm  
Anonymous Ruth said...

My experience on the internet:

If someone with delusions of grandeur disagrees with your opinions, he will usually threaten you with legal action, or threaten to report you to your ISP. This has happened to me many times.

People to do this in response to someone exposing the truth about them. They believe that they are so important that it is against the law to speak out against them.

The fact is if Wishart was in any way a prime mover, her would not be reading blogs, or take any notice of what some random consciousness on a chair said about him.

You phone my lawyer Mai Chen Wishart (even you must have heard of her)- she will call your bluff.

3/26/2006 04:21:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I meant 'he' - LOL

3/26/2006 04:22:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

Chuck - We have a record rate of HIV because almost every country does - it isn't curable and infections grow faster than death. I wont explain whether the stat you say about homosexuals is true or not - but I don't see why it matters to you. Your risk of contracting HIV is in your hands.

My statement on child abuse is totally false? Well you can go to this http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/sxdb/sxdb.htm and see how often girls and women are raped, compared to boys. Gay men don't tend to molest girls and women, because they have thought far more about sexuality than the average straight. I think you'll find the expert opinion is that child abuse is not a disproportionately gay activity, rather the other way around.

Again, it hardly matters though - it is no different from considering how many Jews commit crimes or Maori - it is no excuse to judge individuals because some others with one characteristic commit crimes.

I use a pseudonym to give myself more identity as my real name is very common - and given you use just a first name, you're hardly a paragon of transparency

3/27/2006 07:28:00 am  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Libertyscott you say, “but the videos he banned were, from the detailed decisions (which are subject to several levels of judicial appeal) indicate they were about as accurate as David Irving's pronouncements on the Holocaust.”

I repeat, have you viewed the videos or read the Court of Appeal judgement? If not, read the decision before you comment. The judgement supports my position.

The reason that the high rate of HIV amongst homosexuals concerns me is because they are determining the sexual health policy for the whole population including heterosexuals. This is like asking a group of paedophiles to determine a policy to minimise the sexual abuse of children. Taxpayers have a right to complain if people use up scarce medical resources because of reckless behaviour. This applies to smokers, drunk drivers or homosexuals who have a very high number of sexual partners.

I asked you to support your outrageous claim, “Chuck, given that virtually all cases of child abuse in NZ are committed by declared heterosexuals - like Graham Capill.” You comeback with a website. The website does not support your claim. Show us the website and cut and paste where it supports your claim. We are talking about sexual abuse of children so do not cloud the issue by bringing adults into the debate.

I have had a quick look at the Safe NZ website. I checked the offenders listed starting with “A” and “B” who were classed a paedophiles. Three did not state the sex of the victim, one offended against both boys and girls, one female offended against a 6 year old girl, five offended just against girls and nine offended just against boys. One that offended against boys had over 30 victims. This was far higher than any that offended against girls.

The website does not support your claim. When one considers that male homosexuals make up about 3% of the population their offending is greatly disproportionate to heterosexuals.

Incidentally, my name is Chuck Bird. Are you prepared to say who you are? It is easy to come out with unsubstantiated claims when hiding behind a pseudonym.

3/27/2006 11:22:00 am  
Blogger Simon Pound said...

To clarify:

My piece was intended as a humourous look at some of the less-than-mainstream articles Investigate has covered.

I have no personal antipathy to Ian Wishart or the magazine.

If Mr. Wishart wishes to personalise this that is his choice, but a path I wish to have nothing to do with.


Sincerely,
Simon Pound

3/27/2006 12:51:00 pm  
Blogger Andrew said...

Chuck,
The reason that the high rate of HIV amongst homosexuals concerns me is because they are determining the sexual health policy for the whole population including heterosexuals.

Huh?

This is like asking a group of paedophiles to determine a policy to minimise the sexual abuse of children.

What?

Taxpayers have a right to complain if people use up scarce medical resources because of reckless behaviour. This applies to smokers, drunk drivers or homosexuals who have a very high number of sexual partners.

... and of course straight people who have a high number of sexual partners, you forgot the straight people.

3/27/2006 06:54:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

"This is like asking a group of paedophiles to determine a policy to minimise the sexual abuse of children. Taxpayers have a right to complain if people use up scarce medical resources because of reckless behaviour. This applies to smokers, drunk drivers or homosexuals who have a very high number of sexual partners. "

Hold on Chuck, how do you know what homosexuals have a very high number of sexual partners and what sexual behaviour they engage in? How do you know how many men Bill Hastings has slept with lately?

Are you going to Police the overeating of saturated fat, refined sugar and sedentary lifestyle of New Zealanders which are the primary causes of the single biggest killer in New Zealand - heart disease?

My solution is simple - privatise health care then you can pay for what you want. I don't particularly want to pay for anyone who injures themselves skydiving or from poor dietary habits.

"When one considers that male homosexuals make up about 3% of the population their offending is greatly disproportionate to heterosexuals."

How do YOU know? Neither you OR I honestly know the sexual identity of any criminals. It isn't declared - funnily enough men sexually abuse children far more than women too - but like Nazis with the Jews, you have decided that since you believe - without any statistics (and I don't really have any at my fingertips either, other than having read reports that I can't recall the name of) - that gay people commit more sex offences against children.

It doesn't matter Chuck - anymore than it matters if Maori commit more than non-Maori.

What's your agenda? Do you want to lock up homosexuals or have the state treat them as having less rights than others? Why judge people on their identity rather than whether they infringe anyone's rights?

I don't give a damn about people's sexuality - I give a damn about whether they commit crimes. I have many gay friends, and funnily enough I am fairly confident they have no interest in children sexually. I still repeat - I'd rather leave a daughter with a stranger who was a gay man or a lesbian than a straight one.

3/27/2006 08:20:00 pm  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Libertyscott you say, “but the videos he banned were, from the detailed decisions (which are subject to several levels of judicial appeal) indicate they were about as accurate as David Irving's pronouncements on the Holocaust.”

I repeat, have you viewed the videos or read the Court of Appeal judgement? If not, read the decision before you comment. The judgement supports my position.

It is interesting how much in common there is between the extreme right and the extreme left. They both do not believe in democracy and think if they could be in charge they could build a utopia.

You solution is not going to happen regarding privatising health. So why do you not accept reality?

Here are some facts.

Smoking causes diseases particularly lung cancer.

Overeating causes diseases particularly diabetes.

Homosexual behaviour causes diseases particularly AIDS.

The first two behaviours we do not ban but try to discourage.

I object to the last behaviour being promoted particularly to young people. Homosexual behaviour is not safe even with condoms. The results speak for themselves. The high AVERAGE number of partners homosexuals have is one reason. Anal intercourse is another. Do you know anus was designed for?

3/27/2006 09:56:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

No I have not read the Court of Appeal judgment.

I don't know what the extreme right or left have to do with me either. Democracy is only valid if it doesn't mean than rights for minorities (individuals) are voted away by majorities.

Homosexual behaviour causes NO diseases Chuck. Smoking in the ingestation of poison, overeating does not cause diabetes, but excessive sugar/saturated fat intake can. Two men wanking each other causes NO disease, two men fellating each other causes NO disease, sodomy doesn't cause disease either, though too much of it too rough can damage tissue.

HIV is transmitted through body fluids, including sexual fluids and blood - it is about the virus entering the bloodstream. Uninfected people do not cause the disease. I know a fair few HIV free gay men - they aren't hurting you.

You object to homosexual behaviour being promoted to young people - well, I think you'll find you either want to be with the same sex intimately or not. You can't convert people into being gay - besides half of the gay population are women, and lesbians have very low rates of HIV. There is homosexual behaviour which is perfectly safe that isn't anal intercourse, but homophobes are obsessed with anal sex.

Anal intercourse is common among straight couples too - You'll find a reasonable minority of straight men and women have experienced it at least once or twice. If you doubt that, then figure out why heterosexual anal sex is so common in pornography. It is a common fantasy, and not uncommon reality.

You'll also find a reasonable number of gay men don't have anal sex because it is not what they prefer.

In other words, you have a preconception of what gay men do, and what straight people do that is a generalisation.

However being gay doesn't cause a disease - if a cure and inoculation against HIV is developed presumably your concerns will have gone?

3/27/2006 11:55:00 pm  
Blogger Andrew said...

Dear Doctor Chuck

I read with interest your scientific findings on the causes of diseases. Man, do you have no idea what you are talking about.

Homosexual behaviour causes diseases particularly AIDS.

That truly is the most incredible load of nonsense I have heard in a very long time.

3/28/2006 10:33:00 am  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Libertyscott, I assume you also have not viewed the videos either. I contributed to the Court of Appeal case to remove the ban on the so called anti-gay videos. The judges support what I said about Bill Hastings. Maybe Mr Hasting should sue them.

If you and Andrew want to be pedantic I will acknowledge that homosexual behaviour does not cause AIDS. However, it does cause the spread of AIDS. Contrary to your opinion two men fellating can spread the HIV virus. It is a lot less likely to spread the virus than sodomy. However, if one partakes in the practice with a lot of partners like San Francisco’s Blow Buddies, a new-style sex club for gay men there is definite risk. Read SEXUAL ECOLOGY by Gabriel Rotello.

Sodomy transmits the virus far more readily that vaginal sex.

You say, “You'll find a reasonable minority of straight men and women have experienced it (sodomy) at least once or twice.” You are probably right. However, while disease can be spread in an isolated incident it is not likely and as you correctly point out the disease cannot be transmitted unless one person is infected.

In regards homosexual behaviour being promoted to young people you say, “I think you'll find you either want to be with the same sex intimately or not. You can't convert people into being gay”. That is your opinion but not born out by the facts. Many people change their sexual preference, sometimes more than once. In any case it is an outrage that homosexual activists come into schools and teach impressionable young people that homosexuality is an equally valid lifestyle when this may be contrary to the belief of the parents.

I assume from what you infer that you are not a homosexual. If so, you are talking theory. One can test condoms for holes in the lab and say if used properly all the time they will be 99% effective in preventing the spread of HIV. However, sex is not preformed in the lab. In the real world condoms are between 80 and 90% effective.

Now let us look at a real world test. I would guess that the majority of heterosexuals in relationships do not use condoms. The homosexual community promotes the use of condoms all the time. If we discount HIV+ migrants and refugees the rate of HIV amongst homosexuals is over a hundred time that of heterosexuals. Please note I am talking about rate not absolute numbers. You can refer to AIDS New Zealand for the figures.

You say, “I don't know what the extreme right or left have to do with me either. Democracy is only valid if it doesn't mean than rights for minorities (individuals) are voted away by majorities.” The extreme left would agree with you but would no doubt have a different idea of minority rights. Democracy is not perfect but it is better than anarchy. How do you think different view on minority rights will be resolved if not by voting?

3/28/2006 11:54:00 am  
Blogger Andrew said...

In any case it is an outrage that homosexual activists come into schools and teach impressionable young people that homosexuality is an equally valid lifestyle when this may be contrary to the belief of the parents.


Chuck, honestly, what planet are you from?

One a saner note, are you aware that approx 50% of the African population are infected with HIV. Guess what, they’re not all gay men. They can't be! Maybe it is an African disease. Having sex like and african must be the cause of AIDS and HIV. I hope you realise how ridiculous that sounds.

It is very likely that HIV and AIDS were initially transmitted by gay men and have slowly entered the rest of the population. A communicable disease often starts in an easily definable population. It stays within that population for a while, and then moves onto another population. Birdflu is an example of this. It started in birds, but if it mutates and starts transmission between people, it will be a human disease. The term birdflu just makes it sound like a bird disease, but that is incorrect.

AIDS and HIV are not gay diseases. They just started in the gay population.

You said:
If we discount HIV+ migrants and refugees the rate of HIV amongst homosexuals is over a hundred time that of heterosexuals.

A quick science lesson - you can't systematically leave out data to support your hypothesis!!! It is often called scientific fraud.

By the way, true democracy and anarchism are not mutually exclusive.

3/28/2006 11:14:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

"How do you think different view on minority rights will be resolved if not by voting?"

I don't believe in minority rights, I believe in individual rights. Germany in the 1930s effectively voted the Jews out of having rights, would you want your religious views voted out so you can't practice them? (your views are the minority - the agenda you are arguing never got at most 5% electoral support in NZ - the National Party is far from homophobic).

"I assume from what you infer that you are not a homosexual. If so, you are talking theory"

Right back at you Chuck - I assume you're not either, and you're talking theory.

By the way the health privatisation argument is about as mainstream in NZ as the anti-homosexual view.

Parents might not lots of things taught to their kids, I want education privatised too - but I agree with you that any theories should not be banned - no matter how wacky and unscientific - which also means you shouldn't ban people promoting being gay.

Did you feel like you could have been gay? What does it matter to you if two men have gay sex - besides your enormous concern for them catching disease (how kind of you) - should they police you for your diet?

3/29/2006 05:02:00 am  
Anonymous chuck said...

Andrew you state, “One a saner note, are you aware that approx 50% of the African population are infected with HIV.”

I will answer the rest of you post when you give a source for the above statement. There is no point trying to have a debate with someone who plucks figures out of the air.

3/29/2006 10:18:00 am  
Anonymous chuck said...

Libertyscott, what agenda do you claim I am arguing?

I think some health privatisation is mainstream. However, I think the vast majority believe that the taxpayer should pay for medical care of people who require it even if is because of their own negligence. If someone has diabetes, HIV or cancer through negligence I believe that the majority of the public support the public health system supporting them.

You stated in a previous post, “My solution is simple - privatise health care then you can pay for what you want. I don't particularly want to pay for anyone who injures themselves skydiving or from poor dietary habits.” I think that view is far from mainstream.

I do not think your analogy with Germany in the 1930s is valid. How democratic were the elections? I must go now as I have to make a submission on the Child Support Amendment Bill. This is about rights – fathers’ right. They are seldom considered. Unfortunately, there is often a conflict on whose rights take priority and in fact who has rights.

Who do you think should have rights adults – children, only NZ citizens, prisoners, the unborn child or foetus if you prefer? Who should decide on such matters an elite few of all the voters?

3/29/2006 10:41:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmm, perhaps nothing "should be banned", but I think that primary school is too impressionable an age to go ahead and dump every little bit of knowledge onto children - especially something as controversial as homosexuality.

I will be interested to see the results of the Census when they come in. I'd be surprised if even 5% of people listed themselves as being in a same-sex relationship.

Also interesting that NZ didn't want to have anything to do with the 'Doha Declaration' which has been ratified by the United Nations and which a great number of countries signed. In part, it says -

“Every individual has the right to life…;” “A family composed of a husband, wife and children is the natural, basic element of a society and should be protected by society and by the State;” “Evaluate and reassess government population policies, particularly in countries with below replacement birthrates;” and, “Reaffirm and respect the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”

Good stuff!

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, as declared in Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

3/29/2006 10:56:00 am  
Blogger Andrew said...

Ooops, quite right Chuck, I meant to say:

"On a saner note, are you aware that approx 50% of the African population infected with HIV are female. Guess what, they’re not all gay men. They can't be! Maybe it is an African disease. Being African must be the cause of AIDS and HIV. I hope you realise how ridiculous that sounds."

Sorry, I was still at work, it was getting late and my mind was getting scambled.

The figures of Southern Africa (from memory, but I will check) are estimated at around 15%, but some have suggested may be as high as 35% in particular regions.

Regardless of my stupid error, the evidence does suggest that this is not a gay men's disease.

The rest of may points still stand. The Spanish flu was not a Spanish disease. It started in Spain and spread. AIDS in not a gay men's disease. It started in the gay men population, but it is spreading to the rest of the population.

3/29/2006 12:54:00 pm  
Anonymous chuck said...

Andrew, let us agree that AIDS in Africa is many times higher than in New Zealand and unlike New Zealand a far higher proportion of heterosexuals are HIV+. So in Africa AIDS is not a homosexual man’s disease. In New Zealand and most other developed countries AIDS is a homosexual man’s disease.

I could explain why but it would be a lengthy explanation and probably would not convince you. Judging by your post you are a homosexual and you have a vested interest in believing what makes you feel comfortable. If you really want to why AIDS is a homosexual man’s disease in New Zealand I recommend reading, Sexual Ecology by Gabriel Rotello. Rotello is a practicing homosexual. He looks at the issue from logical and not a moral viewpoint.

After making my submission to a select committed about the Child Support Amendment Bill I donated blood this afternoon. Before donating blood I filled in a form. I was asked if I had sex with another man even using a condom in the last ten years. If I answered yes they would not have accepted my blood. I was not asked if I used a condom at all. New Zealand Bloods Services puts public safety ahead of political correctness unlike a corrupt Ministry of Health that is subject to political influence from this queer friendly government as Chris Carter and Tim Barnett refer to it.

3/29/2006 05:19:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

Chuck

My point is simple about democracy. If you don't believe in individual rights then everything is up for grabs if it is about number. The smallest minority is the individual, despite the classifications collectivists like to put upon people - no two people are alike, but they should have rights. In New Zealand people vote to deny rights to individuals, and history is peppered with democracy being used to oppress. Minority rights are a nonsense - individual rights are not, and the private sexual behaviour of adults engaging in consensual activity is neither your business nor mine, anymore than is their eating, exercising, bathing, sleeping or reading activities.

Similarly, I believe any adult that wishes to do so can be a parent either biologically or through adoption with willing biological parents - the only case to withdraw that right would be for those convicted of serious violent or sexual offences.

3/29/2006 08:55:00 pm  
Anonymous counter said...

anonymous wrote:

"I will be interested to see the results of the Census when they come in. I'd be surprised if even 5% of people listed themselves as being in a same-sex relationship."

The Census won't show what percentage of people are in same-sex relationships because it didn't ask that. It asked only about the relationships between people who live together. Neither heterosexuals, gays or lesbians who are in relationships but not living with their partner were counted in the census.

3/29/2006 09:37:00 pm  
Blogger Andrew said...

Chuck,

I completely agree that it is more prominent in the gay men population. But that doesn't make it a gay men's disease!!!!! Straight women were at one stage the highest risk group of contraction. I don't know if this is still the case.

I will repeat, the Spanish flu that ripped through the entire world, started in the Spanish population, but that doesn't make it a Spanish disease. The originating population is irrelevant. Isolating the originating the population is certainly a way of controlling the spread, but that is a different issue.


The bloodbank policy is risk minimisation. IV drug users and prostitutes are also excluded (I believe having had a relationship with an IV user also excludes you). They use these policies to minimise the likelihood of getting infected blood. Whether this is a good policy or not, I am unsure about. There are lots of gay men who do not have AIDS or HIV and there are people in the straight population who do have AIDS and HIV. I don't know what the risk ratio is, but that probably determines the policy.

Judging by your post you are a homosexual and you have a vested interest in believing what makes you feel comfortable

Well, that is just stupid, and entirely speculative. I am in fact completely and utterly straight and in a heterosexual relationship. However, if you are going to use that approach, let me try:

Judging by your post you are a Christian and you have a vested interest in believing what makes you feel comfortable.

How does that feel? My sexual orientation and your religion are not the issue here.

To finish, a brief quote from Gabriel Rotello:

If anything, the highly selective spread of HIV around the world shows that AIDS is neither a gay nor a straight epidemic, but an ecological epidemic that exploits certain behaviors, chief among them the practice of having large numbers of partners, straight or gay.

I agree.

3/30/2006 12:40:00 pm  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Andrew, I got your sexual preference wrong. You have also got my religion wrong.

We are arguing semantics but it is important. Homosexual militants have successfully lobbied to stop screening migrants and refugees for HIV. The only reason I can see for this is so that they can claim that HIV in New Zealand is increasing faster amongst homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Rotello is correct to a point in saying, “If anything, the highly selective spread of HIV around the world shows that AIDS is neither a gay nor a straight epidemic, but an ecological epidemic that exploits certain behaviors, chief among them the practice of having large numbers of partners, straight or gay.”

However, he ignores that fact that sodomy transfers the virus much more readily than normal sex.

The AIDS Foundation which is a government funded homosexual lobby group falsely refers to sexual intercourse using a condom even homosexual intercourse using a condom where on person is HgxaqysmIV+ as safe.

I have right to object to these low life putting out misinformation with out being referred to as a homophobe. Name calling is what people resort when they cannot refute an argument using logic.

3/31/2006 09:26:00 am  
Blogger Andrew said...

I don't think I ever called you a homophobe. We have had a rational argument here, which I have enjoyed, because I think we have both stayed within the spirit of the game.

One small point, first you quote Rotello to support your argument, then when I use him to support mine, you tell me that he leaves out important info. You can't have it both ways. Either his book is trustworthy (especially if you are using it to defend a very simple point - that HIV/AIDS is a gay men's disease) or it isn't.

Using a condom minimises risk. In the same way that the bloodbank has their policy. I know that there was a bit of research out there for a while that tried to show that condoms were not effective, but that research has been well and truly discredited.

I’ll leave you to have the last word. Good luck and take care!

3/31/2006 10:44:00 am  
Anonymous chuck said...

Andrew, you are correct. It was Libertyscott who used the term homophobe.

You say. “You can't have it both ways. Either his book is trustworthy (especially if you are using it to defend a very simple point - that HIV/AIDS is a gay men's disease) or it isn't.”

I said that I was not religious. Someone may be right on many issues but wrong on others. In any case you made a small quote from Rotello which is basically correct. However, I doubt if he would disagree with my point that the HIV virus is a lot more contagious with anal intercourse than vaginal intercourse.

You say, “I know that there was a bit of research out there for a while that tried to show that condoms were not effective, but that research has been well and truly discredited.” It is comments like that that made me think that you were a homosexual. Homosexuals frequently use these sorts of statements.

You confuse opinion with fact. Sexual intercourse using a condom particularly homosexual intercourse using a condom where one person is HIV+ is not safe. This is a fact not opinion unless you have funny definition of safe. Condoms are between 80 and 95% effective according to the Ministry of Health. This is far from safe. Semantics are not normally that big a deal in discussion. They may win an argument, however, when it comes to medical advice they are very important

Falsely promoting condoms as safe which implies nearly 100% effective is responsible for the record high rate of HIV. Promoting condoms may encourage some to use condoms who might not. However, it will encourage others to partake in extremely risky sex. Homosexual intercourse where one person is HIV+ is defiantly not safe.

Thanks for the last word. Good luck and take care!

4/01/2006 09:40:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home