Thursday, 21 September 2006

Cancerous and corrosive and un-democratic and, and, and ...

Labour regards Dr Brash as a corrosive and cancerous person within the New Zealand political system. - Helen Clark, September 20, 2006.

Unbelievable! - Whale Oil, September 20, 2006

When Bernard Darnton first announced his case against Helen Clark and the Labour Party, he said that in knowingly stealing public money to fund their election campaign Labour broke the fundamental rules that separate liberal democracy from dictatorship. As week has followed week ever since, it's become more apparent how accurate that assessment is.

This Labour Government does not understand that there even is a difference betwen liberal democracy and dictatorship.

In fact, they are so convinced that it is only themselves that are the repository of liberal democratic values that as week has followed week since their corruption has been publicly raised, each attack against them has been greeted not with a a defence of their corrupt actions -- which were indefensible -- but to attack the accuser as an affront to democracy:
  • How dare the Exclusive Brethren use their own money to attack the Labour Government.
  • How dare the Electoral Commissioner tell Labour's election organisers that they couldn't spend taxpayers' money the way they did.
  • How dare the Auditor-General point out that the rules on election spending were broken.
  • How dare the Herald expose the Labour Party's spin as a venal attempt both to conceal the theft, and to buy support to retrospectively validate it.
  • How dare the Libertarianz use their own money to take Helen Clark and 40 Labour MPs to court for violating the Bill of Rights and the Constitution Act.
  • How dare 81% of the population demand in a poll that Helen and Labour pay it back.
  • How dare businessmen, accountants and golfers (golofers!) criticise her Government.
  • How dare Her Majesty's Opposition attract and spend voluntary, private donations to attack the Government!
  • How dare the Leader of the Opposition accuse the ruling party of corruption. How dare they!
It seems clear that Helen Clark does not understand the NZ political system. All of these critics, every one, has been attacked for having the effrontery to attack the ruling party. People giving money to opponents of this Government have heard this Government assert they intend to do something about that. Yesterday Pete Hodgson declared that the Labour Party is threatening to bring legislation so people won't be able to criticise the ruling party during elections. Yesterday and this morning the Leader of the Opposition was attacked by Helen Clark and Pete Hodgson for being "corrupt and cancerous" and "divisive" -- it is intolerable they maintained that such a man could be in a position to become the leader of a western democracy -- and they demanded that he go ...

Is this not incredible? It couldn't be more apparent that about democracry and liberal democratic values this Labour Government could not be less representative.

Do they not understand that it is up to the voters , not her or Pete Hodgson, to decide who the leader of this western democracy is?

Do they not understand that people are entitled to spend their own money in pursuit of opposition to her Government and their policies?

Do they even understand the concept of "their own money"?

Do they not understand that as the right to free speech must of necessity include the right to offend, so too in a democracy must the right to freely criticise the Government be protected?

Do they not understand what corruption means according to the Electoral Act -- the Act they knowingly, flagrantly and with aforethought broke.

When accused of leaking last year this Prime Minister asserted, "By definition I cannot leak." Now it seems her attitude when attacked is to assert, "By definition, we are the repository of all democratic values. Anyone attacking us attacks democracy." But as Bernard Robertson points out in the latest Law Journal:
If a government can knowingly and deliberately break the law and then ram through retrospective validating legislation then it can do anything. We have a government composed of people who simply do not recognise the concept of government under law.
That is the issue that all the noisy outbursts are designed to conceal. What they cannot conceal is that if the Prime Minister and her advisors ever understood the line between liberal democracy and dictatorship, then seven years in power have destroyed it.

Pay it back Helen. And then resign. You've had your time.

LINKS: 1688? - Darnton Vs Clark
Talking of Corruption - Kiwiblog (David Farrar)
Labour calling people corrupt- Kiwiblog (David Farrar)
"Unbelievable" - Whale Oil Beef Hooked (You Tube video)

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Politics-Labour, D arnton V Clark

Labels: , ,


Blogger P-Style said...

Agreed. The step towards retrospective legalisation is an extreemly worrying leap.

- oenuqbm

21 Sep 2006, 10:22:00  
Anonymous Julian said...

Well said Peter, very well said.


21 Sep 2006, 11:27:00  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

Very well said Peter. However w.r.t. Robertson's comment:

"If a government can knowingly and deliberately break the law and then ram through retrospective validating legislation then it can do anything."

The Government can do anything it pleases, for it has the power to do so.

Courtesy a large standing army (rather than a militia), it wields more power than the (largely disarmed and apathetic) citizenry put together.

Courtesy Prussian-style indoctrination camps - sorry, public schoools - it controls the moral development of the youth of the country, and in consequence most of the adult population as well.

Clark and Co. have only scratched the surface of their real powers, mark my words. Look to Cuba, North Korea, and Iran for examples of the path they're starting off on.

Ultimately, constitutions and laws provide the rulebook - but if a Government wants to break the rules, and it has more physical power than the citizenry, then there's nothing that can be done to stop them.

21 Sep 2006, 12:54:00  
Blogger P-Style said...

Ultimately, constitutions and laws provide the rulebook - but if a Government wants to break the rules, and it has more physical power than the citizenry, then there's nothing that can be done to stop them.

The last resort ? ? ? :


21 Sep 2006, 13:15:00  
Blogger KG said...

Amen! great post. I'd love to see that run on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

21 Sep 2006, 18:32:00  
Blogger Oswald Bastable said...

What's next?

Helen running about yelling 'Off with their heads!'

21 Sep 2006, 19:53:00  

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.)

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home