Skip to Content »

Yellow Stars for the EBs after the EFB?

  • September 23rd, 2007

Congratulations Matthew Hooton for today’s Sunday Star Times piece, and David Farrar for the quality of his blog on it, and its comment string.

They’re the first concentration of commentators I’ve noticed willing to risk the accusation of standing beside the Exclusive Brethren.

For months the PM and her lackeys have silenced criticism by branding it as support of the EB. As well as the insults and threats mentioned by Matthew Hooton, Hansard shows Minister Mallard repeatedly referring to them as “chinless scarfwearers”.  Minister Dyson threatened to end their ability to claim benefit of a longstanding employment law exemption for conscientious objectors.

Imagine if an opponent had denigrated a viewpoint of Ms Clark’s Islamist friends by calling them “towelheads”, and suggesting that they lose their right to welfare until they denounce Mahomet’s polygamy. What would be the left’s reaction to an MP insulting Tim Barnett as a ’shirtlifter’ instead of dealing with Tim’s arguments.

Any substance in the debate would have been media buried for days in outraged howls for apologies, and the insulter would have lost from the moment of opening his mouth.

Instead most media have treated the ad hominem attacks and threats to abuse administrative and lawmaking power as to be expected, just Labour giving the EB as good as they deserve. Commentators have not wheeled out even their usual justifications for condemning salty political comment on non-politicians (imbalance of power, breach of privacy). To be fair the Herald and Audrey Young have frowned (though usually with obligatory distancing from the EBs).

 The threat to confiscate the EB’s free speech rights should have had every sanctimonoius clergyperson scrambling to his or her pulpit to ask just what that leaves of the Human Rights Act promise of freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religion.

I watched a number of submissions to the Select Committee around mine (for Sensible Sentencing Trust). On the pro-bill side, the Green MP was absent and Labour and NZ First members affected a bored indifference, confining themselves to taking turns (Benson Pope then Doug Woolerton) with variants on the question “So you support the EB right to rort our system”.
It worked on some submitters. They were reduced to confused mumbling along the lines that they “supported the objectives, just not how ‘extreme’ the bill is”. To his credit, the Forest Owners Association’s Roger Dickie did not fall into that shameful category.
This is our generation’s fight to preserve freedom.
All the anti-discrimination rhetoric and legislation of the past 20 years has been hypocrisy. Terrorised by a farcical expression of EB views, the left Establishment have shed their sheeps’ clothing of pretended tolerance (expressed mainly in law ordering ordinary people to pretend tolerance).

The long term worry is not now the current generation of politicians. They’ve been exposed.  The question is  whether the media’s crusading sensitivity on free speech issues (or even to hypocrisy) can be re-created. Intolerance has masqueraded as “human rights activism” for years. That brainwashing seems to have worked on the youngsters now holding the media reins.

Few journalists who should have been sceptical have blown the whistle with more than the most feeble of breaths.

The kiwiblog commentators have grabbed that whistle.

PS A belated commendation of the Human Rights Commission stand on the Bill. I’ve long deplored their conflation of positive rights (unequal privilege for minority groups) with the civil rights that were so hard won a couple of centuries ago. I’ve yet to read their submission  but I should have contacted them before now to congratulate them on their unequivocal public position .

Comments

Gravatar
  • Scott
  • September 24th, 2007
  • 10:41 am

I agree — the comments against the exclusive brethren appear to be exclusively based on the claim that they did not disclose they were exclusive brethren. The seven businessmen involved themselves say they were acting as private businessmen rather than representatives of the exclusive Brethren Church. We don’t know! But surely it is possible that they were acting as they say they were? Therefore the information they gave in the anti-green pamphlet was correct and lawful. Unless someone can prove that the seven businessmen were acting as agents of the exclusive Brethren Church then the critics should be silent.

It appears to me that the substance of the Labor Party’s case against exclusive brethren is that they are fundamentalist Christians. Therefore the Labour Party appears to me to be relying on prejudice to smear the exclusive brethren. It reminds me of Rob Muldoon’s campaign against communists. When you are under pressure invoke reds under the bed.

The Labor Party’s playbook is similar. When pressured find a Christian group to vilify. The exclusive brethren, the destiny church — any conservative Christian group will do.

Gravatar
  • Beam me up Scotty
  • September 24th, 2007
  • 1:08 pm

From this blog quote :This is our generation’s fight to preserve freedom.

Yes unless ! you are born to “chinless scarfwearers” because then if you choose freedom you just might pay for it by being excomunicated resulting in the loss of (all) contact with your family,spouse and children and be treated as a leper and as if you are dead .And even court orders made in you favour by judges for the right of access to your own children , often are totally disregarded by these “chinless scarfwearers” . Yes i see !! its the freedom of “chinless scarfwearers” thats most important isnt it !! ?? .

From this blog quote :All the anti-discrimination rhetoric and legislation of the past 20 years has been hypocrisy. Terrorised by a farcical expression of EB views, the left Establishment have shed their sheeps’ clothing of pretended tolerance (expressed mainly in law ordering ordinary people to pretend tolerance).

Pardon ?? isnt this what this is all about ? That no group should be allowed to discriminate and to do it with large ammounts of money and whats worse ! deceitfully !! as a wolf hidden beneath a lambskin .These “chinless scarfwearers ” know how to be terrorists and nothing about tolerance ??.And you talk about hypocrisy !! the pot calling the kettle black i suggest .

Scott says quote :The seven businessmen involved themselves say they were acting as private businessmen rather than representatives of the exclusive Brethren Church. We don’t know! But surely it is possible that they were acting as they say they were?

Yes we dont know Scott! we might have found out if a through investigation was (quickly) done, but we are so fooled by them being just wonderful christians there would be a outrage if we were to do that! hmmm??.What we do know though is these “chinless scarfwearers ” are not afraid of being very deceitful !no question there huh? .We also know that in Australia where strangly enough another simular if not identical !! campaine was mounted with the same type of deceitful tactics from the same exclusive fellowship know as the exclusive brethren .A $10 company named Willmac Enterprises was set up that all of a sudden had $370,000 to spend on a anti green campaine , only to be closed soon after as quickly as possible . And false addresses were common on both sides of the ditch .Ect ect ect !!…

Yes we dont know for sure Scott , and if it wasnt supposidly wonderful christians we were dealing with we might have had a better chance of knowing being that then a through investigation would be more likely to take place ….But what we do know unless we are (totally blind) is that something is very fishy and very deceitful … Yet people want to give them the benifit of doubt ?? . Hell anybody else and everyone would be screaming send them to jail and throw away the key .

So much for so called “human rights”, its being overidden by “christian rights ” and they include blatant deceit !! .

Gravatar
  • Lindsay
  • September 24th, 2007
  • 5:55 pm

I’ve watched and listened to EBs submit at select committee and read their pamphlets at the last election. Never thought there was anything particularly extreme in their policy positions (not that I would wholesale endorse them).

Gravatar
  • David Baigent
  • September 24th, 2007
  • 6:59 pm

Steven have you sighted the Crown Law Opinion on the Electoral Finance Bill.
Their Ref: ATT395/15 dated 26 June 2007

This is the one that Helen Clark say shows no conflict with the NZ Bill of Rights 1990 ??

Gravatar
  • Michael
  • September 25th, 2007
  • 12:26 am

EB’s, AB’s the issue isn’t Christians but control.
The Labour caucus railing against supposed Christian sects is just the same as other blaming the Jews for everything.

We have as much freedom as we are prepared to defend.

That means not voting Aunty Helen and her mob in again and making sure Key toes the line.

Vigalence isn’t Kiwis hallmark any more weve become inured to having someone else give us handouts and do the hard thinking for us.

The risk is the lot after Helen if we don’t stand up and surround parliament.

Gravatar

At last, someone standing up for principle. The truly despicable thing about this government is their enthusiasm for vilification, and there is no better illustration of this than their pursuit of those poor misguided EBs. Nasty, as we have come to expect from Helen Clark and her minions.

Is this really New Labour? I think that I liked the old one better. One might have disagreed with them, but they were honourable men and women. No one could accuse the present lot of that!

Robin S

Gravatar

David
I have read the Crown Law opinion. In my view it is contemptible – no attempt to look for evidence of the reality of the mischiefs alleged, no citation of McLachlan’s important dissent in the Canadian Supreme Court case relied upon. It is the sort of advocacy lawyering one does to establish a credible defence to a rort, where the client says “I know the risks of being wrong, and being found out, and I’ll take them, just give me something I can wave to deflect liability for bad faith”.

Leave your comments:

* Required fields. Your e-mail address will not be published on this site

You can use the following HTML tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>