I didn't see the bloodyidiot.co.nz website that everyone seems to be ranting about. But I have seen the calls over in the right-wing echo-chamber (and its adjacent sewer) for the company that hosted it - Boost Media - to resign its government contracts, or even be stripped of them, both outright or if National wins power.
Think about that for a moment. What our local right-wingers are advocating is that the government - or rather, the public service - should ensure that its contracts only go to those who support the appropriate party, and that those who do not or who dare to work for other parties be excluded and punished. Cronyism and outright political persecution, in other words, aimed at stifling opposition and enforcing political conformity. But of course they are the first to complain if there is the merest hint of the above from the present government... (so we get to add hypocrisy to the list as well - now there's a surprise).
Cronyism has no place in government, and government business should not be used as a carrot or stick depending on political opinion. As I said, I have not seen the website in question (and I understand that it has now been taken down), but if people have a problem with what it said, then they should fight speech with more speech, rather than seeking to revive the persecution and corruption we have spent centuries struggling against.
19 comments:
IS - cronyism should be stopped. So should anonymous smear attacks. Just think, if the people who are now kvetching about freedom of speech simply posted their names on the website, then none of the speculation would have happened.
As it is, the mere fact that people responsible for this nasty smear attack on Don Brash and National are trying to keep their identities concealed is surely a concern for open democratic processes.
I have no problem with people seeking political or govt contracts - that's legitimate business as long as its open and transparent. But should a company involved in anonymous political smear attacks be considered for state contracts? Over to you.
Posted by Aaron Bhatnagar : 8/01/2005 03:13:00 PM
what is the line AB?
for example, a number of the political bloggers use pseudonyms, myself and IS included. is the fact that we don't use our real names and are sometimes critical or write something with poor judgement (perhaps, i didn't have time to do more than have a quick look at the site before it was taken down) (and also speaking more for myself than accusing IS of the same) a problem?
i hope that makes sense. that second sentence is awfully long..
my point is that a smear attack is in the eye of the beholder. for example much of what is on Sir Humphrey's could be taken as a smear attack by the subjects of their venom. And they are all (or nearly all, I don't know if Adolf is using his real name) anon. What's the difference?
Posted by Span : 8/01/2005 03:36:00 PM
The website is question was a dedicated website designed to smear Don Brash and National. To compare it to a critical or aggressive blogger with a pseudonym is drawing a very long bow.
Posted by Aaron Bhatnagar : 8/01/2005 03:50:00 PM
Span, I think it's fairly clear - it's only a smear attack when it's carried out by someone else. For example, if I said that I believed that Helen Clark was secretly a spy for Chinese Communism, that would be legitimate political commentary, but if you said that you believed that Don Brash had been replaced with a killer robot with lasers for eyes (under the control of the evil US Government), then that would be a smear attack.
Does that clear everything up?
Posted by Jarrod : 8/01/2005 05:26:00 PM
Google's still got a cache of the site.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/01/2005 05:49:00 PM
Jarrod, you are perhaps being a trifle unfair. I'm sure that if Aaron were aware of this tissue of anonymous political smear attacks, he would be denouncing it with equal fervour.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/01/2005 06:53:00 PM
Jarrod
You're so right pop over to helenclarkisanevilbarrencommiedyke.com and all will be revealed. And remind me who's been running around accusing Labour of having their policy written in Beijing, while mysterious Chinese bagmen are funding their campaigns?
Call me old fashioned, but if you're going to accuse a politician of being under the sway of a foreign government (treason if you want to be a bit precious about it) in return for campaign money, I'd like to see some evidence.
Posted by Craig Ranapia : 8/01/2005 06:58:00 PM
Anon,
I have had a glance through that site, and while RedBaiter is not my cup of tea, nothing on that site that I saw (and it was a quick glance) could even compare to the nasty smear attacks on the bloodyidiot site.
In cat, much of the commentary is not from Redbaiter, but attributed to opinion makers around the globe.
As for Redbaiters own comments, yes, I would agree that much of it is OTT. However, he or she is not running a hate campaign against a party, nor does Redbaiter have links to the National Party (as far as I know)
Posted by Aaron Bhatnagar : 8/01/2005 07:14:00 PM
So AB, I presume you and the other anti-smear-tactic-right-wingers can assure me that you believe that the people behind the company that hosts the site that annomously smears the prime minister here:
http://popularandcompetent.blognz.com/
Should similarly be denied any government contracts even if National wins?
You agree of course? I mean it'd be hypocritical not to right? There's absolutely nothing on that site to say who owns it, although just like bloodyidiot.co.nz you can figure out who's hosting it easily enough if you've got half a clue.
For that matter I think it's obvious that anyone who currently hosts with blognz should be disowning that hosting company due to their (long term) involvement with such blatant anonymous smear tactics. A quick google tells me that includes:
kiwiblog.co.nz
nzpundit.com
runningblogcapitalist.blognz.com
kiwipete.blognz.com
right-prescription.blognz.com
circlingapollo.blognz.com
stardust.blognz.com
PS: Anyone who wants to issue this challenge elsewhere, feel free, I'm away on business this week and won't have time to follow up myself.
Posted by Anonymous : 8/01/2005 08:06:00 PM
Craig,
I tried to visit the URL you suggested, but it doesn't seem to resolve - what gives?
Helen's Chinese handlers have clearly been hard at work erasing all evidence of this scandal. As a precaution, I've set up a series of elaborate traps around my cave dwelling in case they come after me next.
Incidentally - just to make myself clear - it's me that's been accusing Labour of having their policy written in Beijing. I did it just before, in the comments to this post. You can read it above. Just scroll up.
Posted by Jarrod : 8/01/2005 08:19:00 PM
Anonymous, (now theres an irony)
P&C is not anonymously run. In fact, the lead blogger of that site publicly called for guest commentary. This was mentioned on Kiwiblog today.
But more importantly, the people who host the site are not a) supplying services to a political party or b) touting for state contracts c) are a lot more upfront that those behind the bloodyidiot site.
Posted by Aaron Bhatnagar : 8/01/2005 08:58:00 PM
That's right, "Anonymous" (if indeed that is your real name) - people who tout for public sector work aren't allowed political opinions. All reputable public sector workers and contractors have theirs surgically removed.
Posted by Jarrod : 8/01/2005 09:18:00 PM
Jarrod, political opinions are fine, but most people who tout for work in Wgtn tend to keep them to themselves (for obvious reasons). The smart ones certainly dont get involved in anonymous smear campaigns.
Posted by Aaron Bhatnagar : 8/01/2005 09:26:00 PM
Aaron, you're absolutely right. People should keep their opinions to themselves, and if they don't they get what they deserve. And what they deserve is clearly hounding, persecution and discrimination.
After all, it's impossible that a filthy partisan could do a professional job for a paying client. That would just be unthinkable. Any work they did would be infected with their poisonous opinion - and they'd probably deliberately do a shitty job, out of spite, like the conniving commie bastards they are.
Posted by Jarrod : 8/01/2005 09:42:00 PM
Well said Jarrod. Now lie down and apply a cold cloth to your head.
Posted by Aaron Bhatnagar : 8/01/2005 09:49:00 PM
Aaron,
Unfortunately there is no running water in my cave so a cold cloth is out of the question. I've tried resting my forehead on the cool stone of the cave wall - but the best thing seems to be going to your blog and staring longingly at your picture. It calms the head and stirs the loins.
Posted by Jarrod : 8/01/2005 09:57:00 PM
Would it be obtuse to suggest that I do the same? :-) After a hard days blogging it feels good to be able to laugh at the end of it.
Posted by Aaron Bhatnagar : 8/01/2005 10:10:00 PM
Permission granted. Please feel free to administer moist fabric to your temples at your leisure.
Laughter, however, will not be tolerated (the sound of it sends Robo-Brash into a furious violent rage).
Posted by Jarrod : 8/01/2005 10:15:00 PM
Perhaps the sterilising light of public exposure should be turned on who exactly is funding the National Party campaign then? After all, if National wishes to hide its American millions in blind trusts...
Posted by Anonymous : 8/02/2005 10:31:00 AM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).