Thursday, 20 July 2006

Nats not oustanding over Field

NZ Herald: Call the police - National gets tough on Field
National is considering going to the police about the dealings of Labour MP Phillip Field...

Excuse me, but what the heck? When examples of real corruption over serious constitutional issues arise, the parliamentary opposition is silent. Minor scandals like this however, and they're all over them -- and regardless of your views of the propriety or otherwise of Field's helping would-be immigrants (and I do have mine), it is only a minor quibble. Minor things obsess Her Majesty's Opposition. Sign a painting you didn't do, throw a tennis ball, or have a nose to tail in a ministerial car, and this opposition are all over it like gonorrhea in an STD clinic.

However when serious constitutional issues arise such as taking Helen Clark to court over her misappropriation of public money in order to run for office, and the parliamentary opposition parties have this to say: "

. . . . . . . ." That's right. They're as quiet as a man who's just received a course of treatment at the STD clinic. It's somewhat enlightening about their priorities, wouldn't you say?

And what's this: The Nats don't just want to dob Field into the police for ... um ... well, they're not sure really, but on top of that they say they "might also alert other Government agencies ... to accusations that the MP used 'slave labour'."

Are they kidding? Have they looked at a dictionary? Let's check. Wikipedia defines "slave labour" as:
A condition of control over a person against their will, enforced by
violence or other forms of coercion. Slavery almost always occurs for the
purpose of securing the labor of the person concerned. A specific form, known as
chattel slavery, implies the legal ownership of a person or persons.

Did Field have any ownership at all over the Thai would-be immigrants? No. Did they paint and tile his house against their will? No. Did he coerce them? No -- and no one has adduced any evidence he did.

If there was any coercion of these would-be immigrants -- of the restless refuse of teeming Thai shores who were here and yearning to breathe free -- they found it in our absurdly restrictive immigration laws, which left their lives and families in limbo and gave anyone who chose to use it the whip hand over their lives. Instead of coercing them however, as immigration offficials eventually did, Field helped them. I for one have no problem with that. I do however have a problem with the immigration laws that made such help necessary, and that left them so desperate.

If there is one good thing that could come from all this, it is this: With our immigration laws on the table and presently under review, it might be time to realise that would-be immigrants are not cattle, they are human beings. Let peaceful people pass borders freely. With that policy in place, situations like those under discussion just wouldn't even occur.

LINKS: National gets tough on Field - NZ Herald
Darnton Vs Clark - trial website
Definitions for slave labour on the web - Wikipedia
Phillip Field - Not PC (Peter Cresswell)

TAGS: Immigration, Politics-NZ, Politics-National, Politics-ACT


  1. Yeah, this is an example of the frustration I have with the Nats .. instead of loudly attacking the tyranny constantly dished out by this govt .. RMA horror stories, Sue Bradford's constant interference within the family unit via her crusade to get parental smacking banned, Commerce Commission bullying of private companies, violent crime escalating beyond belief - not to mention how Labour stole the last election (!) ... what do they focus upon? Phillip Field's tiler.

    Jesus. They're not only a bloody disgrace; they're a complete waste of time. You'd never know that evil bitch had a majority of only one.

  2. Field completely selflessly helped a poor Thai, LOL PC, you're making a joke of yourself and the libertarianz on this subject.

  3. Mainstream politicians love muckraking, it means they don't need to explain policy, they are just throwing dirt and saying "look they are dodgy". If you ask what they would do they wring their hands and imply "we're not as bad as them".

    Berend, sorry they are barbarians, they have no rights in our civilisation. PC's point is that in the scheme of things this is no big deal. He used his position to bypass bureaucratic processes and benefited from doing so. MPs help with bypassing processes all the time, the main issue is that he gained some "value" from it. As PC is arguing that the main evil is the process itself, the ends justified the means.

  4. The utter inability of libertarianz to see that government corruption is the main reason for the poor economic situation in the Pacific, South America and Africa and their willingness to defend it as "no big deal" isn't really helping you guys.

    Perhaps you guys can answer a few questions about the ideal libertarian state:

    1. What to do with immigrants who arrive without return ticket.

    2. What to do with immigrants who are found out not to have a return ticket a few years after their arrival.

    3. What to do with government officals who help immigrants who arrive without return ticket to evade detection?

  5. 'Utter inability of libz to see that govt corruption is the main reason for the poor economic performance ...'

    Come on, Berend. Why do you think we call for tiny govt? Sheesh!

    And as for your 3 questions, you'll find the simple answers in PC's references. I've got to go to work. (Not a tiler). :)

  6. sus, no they are not found in the references (I've read the libertarianz cue cards carefully) and they cover exactly this situation.

    And PC is arguing here that corruption isn't a big deal because the cause is good.

  7. In fact I'm arguing that laws that give one man the whip hand over another positively invite corruption, but corruption is hardly what Field can be accused of.

    Get some perspective, man.

    The answer to all three of your questions really, Berend, is 'sponsors.'

    Voluntary sponsors can be found if necessary to vouch and take responsibility for new immigrants.

    If a return ticket or the like is lost or needed then the sponsor can pony up, not you.

  8. PC, you're evading the question. As I thought you would.

    Immmigrant arrives. No return ticket. No sponsor. What happens?


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.