Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Shameless hypocrisy

Parliament is often a venue for shameless hypocrisy, but yesterday saw one of the worst examples I've seen for a long time. During Question Time, Dr Lockwood Smith attempted to quiz the Prime Minister about Taito Phillip Field's loyalty to the Labour party. Growing frustrated with the fact that his questions were obviously and clearly outside the Standing Orders, he then asked whether she had discussed with Field "the reasons that the Asian crime unit may have been investigating his activities". In response to this Winston Peters, in full outrage, asked

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have just heard a most serious allegation made against a member of this House. I would have assumed that such a serious allegation would be backed up with some proof or documentary evidence, or with something to verify the reason that that question was asked. The question was not asked accidentally; it was planned. I do not know whether there is such evidence, but Dr Lockwood Smith owed it to this Parliament to provide some evidence before he asked a question in such a cavalier fashion, implicating a member of Parliament in a possible crime. I ask him to give us that evidence.

This, remember, is the same Winston Peters who has shown absolutely no qualms about defaming members of the public under the cover of Parliamentary Privilege, based solely on their national origins - and then refused to provide any evidence or apologise to his victims. But I guess the rules are different when the slanderer isn't Winston, and the victim isn't a refugee...


I think someone should ask Helen Clark this question:

"When you neutered the Minister of Foreign Affairs, did you have his balls made into a pair of earrings or is Peter getting a set of organic cufflinks for his brithday?"

Once upon a time, he'd spout crap like this with a bit of style. Now, he's just looking more and more pathetic every time he plays the patsy.

Posted by Craig Ranapia : 6/14/2006 03:51:00 PM

"A bit of style", is that like speculating on the genitalia of the PM's husband?

Posted by backin15 : 6/14/2006 04:20:00 PM


Well, unless you know something I don't, Helen Clark is not married to Winston Peters but Peter Davis (whose gentials are mercifully terra incognita to me).

Do try and keep up.

Posted by Craig Ranapia : 6/14/2006 05:01:00 PM

Misread, thought you meant Winston's balls would be used for Peter.

Posted by backin15 : 6/14/2006 06:14:00 PM

Winston was classic in the House yesterday (Tuesday). When Rodney stood up to ask a question, Winston got out a piece of paper, drew a stickman on it, and made it dance. Sheer genius.

And his comments about Brownlee were also great.

Posted by Frederick Aloysius Weld : 6/14/2006 10:41:00 PM

Winston isn't that te name of Helen's lap dog? As for Peter's genitalia, I think both the MHR and Mr(s)Davis have been seperated from their testicles for quite some time. Helen keeps both in a draw along with everyone else in cabinets, including Annettes.

Posted by Anonymous : 6/16/2006 10:16:00 AM