Archive
Some troubling questions about the Ross Affair
.
.
Jami Lee Ross vs Simon Bridges
Whatever drama is taking place before our eyes, one certainty should be borne in mind: this is not a story of Good vs Evil; Light vs Darkness; a lone battler for justice vs corruption in our highest political places. What we are seeing are two faces of the same coin at war with each other.
One is motivated by revenge – for ambitions thwarted.
The other is motivated by desperation – for pure political survival.
Jami Lee Ross has been associated with a small cabal of far-right political activists; Simon Lusk, David Farrar, Judith Collins, Aaron Bhatnagar, and Cameron Slater. (There are others, but they are bit-players.) More on this shortly.
Ross was better known for his Employment Relations Amendment Bill in 2013 which would allow businesses to break strikes by employing temporary scab labour during industrial action. Ross’s undisguised hatred for unions was apparent when, in June 2012, he released a vicious attack public attack on the Maritime Union (involved in a bitter dispute at the time with the Ports of Auckland management);
This is in fact a story of the Maritime Union biting the hand that feeds them. It is a story of industrial action that, if left to go on much longer, could have disastrous consequences for the Ports of Auckland.
For commercial users, it is a simple matter of certainty and continuity Union action, and the threat of further strikes, have put a serious dent in the Ports of Auckland’s ability to provide their bread and butter services Customers are now voting with their feet. The value of Ports of Auckland and the value of the investment that every Aucklander has in the company will continue to suffer if resolution to this matter is not swift.
Aucklanders can rightly be concerned at the increasingly rogue nature of the Maritime Union. However there are 500 men and women that work at the Port with even more skin in the game and a lot more to lose. The trade union movement evolved through a desire for workers to band together to protect their common interests. This is not a dishonourable goal. But when a union loses sight of its members long term interests and cavalier negotiating tactics start to backfire, the union itself begins putting its own member’s livelihoods at risk.
Unions still occupy a privileged position in New Zealand’s employment law; a relic of the last Labour administration which has not seen significant overhaul for some years. Few non-government organisations can boast clauses in legislation specifically designed for their benefit. Despite only 18 percent of the nation’s workforce being unionised, trade unions can look to whole sections of the Employment Relations Act written exclusively to aid union survival through legislative advantage.
Up until recently, cool heads and rational people sitting around negotiating tables have meant that little focus has been placed on the role that unions play in society. However, with the bare-faced mockery that the Maritime Union is making of civilised negotiations New Zealanders will soon begin to question what position unions should hold in the modern Kiwi workplace.
As the fight for Auckland’s waterfront reaches the tipping point, for ratepayers and workers alike this present stand off must come to an end. The city’s $600 million port investment and worker’s jobs are now on the line. Also on the line is the country’s acceptance of the role of trade unions. It can not be tolerable or acceptable for a union to demonstrate continued disregard for the economic consequences of their actions.
For Simon Bridges, he is better known for enabling legislation criminalising/banning protest action against deep-sea oil exploration;
The government is set to crack down on environmental protesters with fines of up to $100,000 or a year in jail for those who target offshore oil and gas operations.
Energy minister Simon Bridges today announced “stronger measures to protect offshore petroleum and minerals activity from unlawful interference”.
Individuals who intentionally damage or interfere with mining structures, like rigs, or vessels face a 12-month prison sentence or a $50,000 fine. Organisations face a penalty of up to $100,000.
Activists who break a 500-metre “no-go” zone around structures would be liable for a $10,000 fine.
A year later, and National continued to curtail public rights to protest oil and gas exploration in our waters;
The public will lose their right to formally oppose deep-sea oil and gas exploration from tomorrow.
A law change will see applications by oil giants go through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They will now be “non-notified” preventing members of the public lodging a formal protest.
Environment Minister Amy Adams said the new classification was the “pragmatic option” for exploratory drilling. She believed it provided regulation “proportionate to its effects”.
Neither men fit any notion of being “Champions” for public scrutiny and openess when it comes to political matters. Both are on record willing and able to curtail workers’ rights for collective bargaining, and public rights to oppose environmentally damaging fossil fuel exploration.
Furthermore, if we disregard the (now admitted) sexual shenanigans and the controversial (though not illegal) tape recordings by Jamie Lee Ross, there remain several questions that deserve far greater scrutiny.
The $100,000 Donation (the real one, not the fabricated Donghua Liu/NZHerald version)
Was a donation of $100,000 made by Chinese businessman, Zhang Yikun?
According to Southland mayor, Gary Tong, who was on a recent business trip to China with the businessman, Mr Zhang denies ever making such a donation.
Assuming that a donation was made, where was the $100K deposited? In his now infamous recorded conversation with National Parliamentary leader, Simon Bridges, Jami-Lee Ross pointed to the amount being deposited into a “Botany electorate account”.
“What would you like done with it? It’s currently sitting in a Botany electorate account.”
In a follow-up text message to National Party president, Peter Goodfellow, Ross said;
.
.
In what form was it deposited – one lump sum, or in smaller amounts?
According to Ross – in the same text message – they were “all under $15,000”.
The following conversation between Bridges and Ross is suggestive that there is a question how the donation should be disclosed to Peter Goodfellow;
.
Bridges: The money’s fine sitting there in the Botany account. I don’t know what your arrangement is with Goodfellow or not, that’s all. I need to talk to him. I’m actually seeing him tonight, I wonder if I should.
Ross: I don’t think we can.
Bridges: I should wait and get the right words.
Ross: I don’t think we can raise tens of thousands and completely keep him out of the loop.
Bridges: No, no we can’t.
Ross: Maybe if you’re just honest with him about it.
Bridges: I think that’s right. I’ll raise it with him but we should probably just think it through. I mean, it can be in the Party but I do just want to make sure we’ve got that money to do those things. Don’t you think?
Ross: Donations can only be raised two ways: Party donation or candidate donation.
Party donation has a different disclosure which is fine, and the way they’ve done it meets the disclosure requirements…it meets the requirements where it’s under the particular disclosure level because they’re a big association and there’s multiple people and multiple people make donations, so that’s all fine. But if it was a candidate donation that’d be different. So making them party donations is the way to do it. Legally though if they’re party donations they’re kind of under Greg’s name as the party secretary.
Bridges: We need to tell them, I get that. I get that. I’m going to tell him…I think he’ll accept it I just need to explain to him what it is I want it for. Unless I get him to…leave it with me. I might talk to McClay as well; see what he’s got up his sleeve. Because Peter is going to be with me at this meeting in Wellington, is all. If I then brought him after that…good work though man, that’s a lot of money.
.
In the last highlighted extract Ross practically spells out to Bridges that the donation was made by “multiple people and multiple people mak[ing] donations“.
Tellingly, Bridges accepts Ross’s statement without question. He reconfirmed his acceptance of multiple donations/donors on Radio NZ’s Morning Report on 24 October. When asked by Suzie Ferguson if he had “found the $100,000 donation yet“, Bridges replied;
“We’ve established that the position is , it was some seven donations from eight people. I didn’t know that at the time – [inaudible].”
Ms Ferguson pressed the point by asking if it added up to $100,000. Bridges replied;
“Look, I think it’s something very much like that, yeah.”
Bridges’ claim he was unaware of multiple donors is at variance with what Jami Lee Ross told him during their recorded conversation;
“Party donation has a different disclosure which is fine, and the way they’ve done it meets the disclosure requirements…it meets the requirements where it’s under the particular disclosure level because they’re a big association and there’s multiple people and multiple people make donations, so that’s all fine.”
National Party President, Peter Goodfellow confirmed unequivocally that no “$100K” donation had been received by the National Party office;
“There was no such donation. The Botany Electorate of the National Party received eight donations, and Mr Ross declared eight donations to us.”
It will be a simple matter for Police to conduct a forensic accounting investigation. Once deposited into the Botany-National account the electronic money trail will be relatively straight forward to follow.
If – as Peter Goodfellow claims, and Ross outlined in his recorded conversation with Bridges – it was deposited in smaller amounts, again it would be straight forward to trace the source(s) and donor (s).
If dodgy dealings were involved and the $100k was split into “eight donations“, an electronic trail will reveal the donor(s). The Police probably have those details by now.
Furthermore, if seven of those “eight donations” were individuals who happened to receive an identical sum of, say, $12,500 from Zhang Yikun; and those seven individuals then donated precisely the same sum of, say, $12,500 to Botany National – then a prima facie case exists that an attempt was made to circumvent the Electoral Act 1993.
If it became known that Mr Zhang received that $100,000 from a foreign government – or state-sanctioned entity controlled by a foreign government – that would be explosive! It would cripple the National Party for years to come.
The bottom line is that a donation was made. The question is: how was it made? Both claims of a single $100k donation and “eight donations” cannot be reconciled.
Someone is lying. By now the Police probably have a good idea who.
Perhaps not quite so “insignificant?
All of which makes Bryce Edwards recent remarks questionable;
“The extraordinary National Party scandal currently unfolding before our eyes is undoubtedly high drama. It has it all – leaks, anonymous texts, threats, secret recordings and explosive allegations… At its heart, however, the scandal is empty. It contains nothing of significance for democracy and society.”
As a series of stories on Radio NZ’s Morning Report began to explore – whilst the prurient side-show of sex, tapes, and personality-plays dominated media headlines last week (15- 19 October) – the real issues of campaign donations is yet to play out.
Ross’s allegations may be the critically-needed spark that reviews our party donation rules by casting the glare of public scrutiny over ways the Electoral Act has been, and is, being rorted.
The Four Anonymous Women, What The Nats Knew, And When They Knew It
The issue raised by the story of four women allegedly harassed by Jami-Lee Ross was raised by independent media, Newsroom, on 18 October – three days after National party leader Simon Bridges held his press conference identifying Ross as the leaker of his travel expenses.
The story was written by Newsroom veteran journalist Melanie Reid and Cass Mason.
Initially, all four complainants were anonymous. Which made any similarities to the revelations by three women against US Supreme Court (then-)nominee, Brett Kavanaugh questionable. Those three women – Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, Julie Swetnick – came forward and made their identities public.
One, Christine Blasey Ford, appeared before a Senate Judiciary committee where she was subjected to intense scrutiny and questioning. Her demeanour and testimony was composed, compelling, and credible.
One day prior to the Newsroom story being published, National’s deputy leader, Paula Bennett accused Ross of unspecific “inappropriate behaviour”;
“He had gone out there and said we had been accusing him of sexual harassment of women and that’s not true, and we haven’t done that and he likened himself to Brett Kavanaugh, which was quite extraordinary in his hour-long stand-up, so I continued to be asked about sexual harassment and we hadn’t put sexual harassment to him, but we had put inappropriate behaviour to him.”
It was also in this story that Ross’s allegation that Simon Bridges had met with businessman Zhang Yikun was first confirmed by the National Party. Until this point, Bridges had been evasive in answering media questions on any donations.
All four women are apparently connected to the National Party. One has come forward – former National Party Candidate for Manurewa, Katrina Bungard;
.
.
Ms Bungard’s conflict with Ross began in 2016/17. Ross was campaigning vigorously to have his wife, Lucy Schwaner, appointed to the Howick Local Board.
This was National Party intra-politics with Ross allegedly threatening Ms Bungard for not supporting his wife onto the Howick Local Board. At one point, Ross had served a trespass order against Ms Bungard, to prevent her attending a National Party event. Far-right political operative, Simon Lusk, became involved on behalf of Jami Lee Ross.
Ms Bungard complained to the National Party hierarchy. Apparently, Ms Bungard was satisfied at the time with the National Party’s action addressing Ross’s alleged bullying;
“They helped me at a really stressful time and I am thankful for their assistance.”
Ms Bungard has stated that if Ross resigned , she would run for his Botany seat in the by-election.
As our American cuzzies put it, Ms Bungard “has skin in the game” – she would stand to benefit materially and politically if Jami Lee Ross resigned.
The other three alleged complainants remain anonymous and their stories cannot be scrutinised or verified.
Other Complainants come forward
David Collings, chair of the Howick Local Board, alleges that he also had a confrontation with Ross. On TV3’s The Nation, Mr Collings painted a grim picture of Jami Lee Ross;
“It got very nasty. He actually threatened, attacked my members, for support. For example, my deputy chair [Katrina Bungard] has aspirations – she’d be a great National MP… he’s used that over her to try and get his way. Threatening her – ‘you’re political career will go nowhere’ – other members of the board, even a sworn police officer, veiled threats about your employment.
[…]
Oh, it got very nasty.
[…]
I wasn’t even contacted. But obviously, I knew exactly what was going on, even was privy to… I think it was on the actual day of our meeting when we elected the chair. He called through – and I’ve said it before – in, like, a Darth Vader voice, ‘I can’t believe you’re willing to give up your political career.’ Sorry, I can do a better Darth Vader voice than that, but that’s what it was like. But like Freddy Krueger or something.
[…] I’m not sure if he said it was him, because I was actually going to try and get my phone to try and record it, so I missed the end of it. But it was on – what do you call it – a cell phone that was untraceable, sort of thing – no number.
We complained to the National Party, and Greg Hamilton – who was the manager at the time – was quite helpful. He said, ‘What you’re telling us is not right. An MP shouldn’t’ be getting involved in something in local government, particularly when his wife is involved.’ Greg was quite helpful, but it didn’t stop.”
Mr Collings went on to describe Ross as;
“Look, this guy – we’ve got a guy in our area that makes Todd Barclay look like an angel.”
National Party member, Katrina Bungard is Deputy Chair of the Howick Local Board.
TV3’s The Nation co-host, Simon Shepherd introduced David Collings as the chairperson of the Howick Local Board.
.
.
What wasn’t disclosed is that Mr Collings was elected on the right-wing ‘Vision and Voice‘ ticket; a local grouping of members that appears to be National Party-aligned;
David Collings
Bob Wichman
Garry Boles
John Spiller (formerly member of National-aligned )
Peter Young
Katrina Bungard (former National candidate)
Adele White (supported by Jami Lee Ross in a petition, 2013)
Lucy Schwaner (Jami Lee Ross’s wife).
As described in a Newsroom story;
Many on the Howick board are National Party types but the party doesn’t stand candidates directly.
It would appear that David Collings also “has skin in the game”.
Obvious questions should be raised as to why the complainants have only now made their stories about alleged harassment public. As Tim Macindoe, MP for Hamilton West, pointed out to Newshub;
“You’re jumping to a whole lot of assumptions about behaviour you don’t know about and I don’t know about.
There are allegations that have been made, but I think given the situation we’re now in, the best thing is for us all to just step back, allow authorities do the jobs they’re needing to do, and I don’t think it’s helpful for us to be involved in public speculation.
As I say we have some allegations that have been made, they may be wildly at variance from the facts.”
The conclusion that this is a “pile on” by National Party members and supporters cannot be easily ignored. Alleged bad behaviour is apparently tolerated by National as long as everyone ‘tows the party line’ and remains loyal.
National Party action over past harassment charges
Justifying Ross’s expulsion, an un-named National Party spokesperson said;
“What Jami-Lee has done and continues to do is unacceptable and the more that comes to light the more we know we made the right decision to expel him from the Caucus.
We are supporting those women who came to us as a result of Jami-Lee’s behaviour.”
However, many of the allegations made against Ross appear to have been recent-historical and have only now surfaced.
Whilst National was “supporting those women who came to us as a result of Jami-Lee’s behaviour” one complainant was encouraged (?) to sign a NDA (non-disclosure agreement). Signed two years ago, National Party president, Peter Goodfellow, denies it was a NDA;
“We haven’t used any NDAs. That matter was a private matter and they wanted confidentiality, so they both agreed that it would be kept confidential.
That’s the only instance that I’m aware of in my time as president that we’ve had an issue like that and it’s certainly the only time that the parties have requested confidentiality.
It was a matter that was raised by a couple of people and was dealt with – and actually to the satisfaction of the parties.
We acted quickly and helped them to resolve the differences and move on.”
According to Peter Goodfellow, the document was not a NDA but rather a “gentlemen’s agreement”. Which is a quaintly odd euphemism, as one of the signatories was a woman.
Despite the agreement; despite the complaints made over his alleged behaviour, Ross’s career continued to rise within the National Party. He rose to become National’s Senior Whip.
Though the National hierarchy had been aware of complaints about Ross’s alleged behaviour, at least one woman who complained was silenced through a non-disclosure agreement – and in the meantime Jami Lee Ross continued his rise through the National hierarchy. He was rewarded, whilst complainants were silenced.
His promotion makes a mockery of the sanctimonious utterances of both Simon Bridges and his deputy, Paula Bennett;
“I am in admiration of the courage of these women for what had happened. As soon as I was aware of inappropriate conduct, I acted immediately I knew nothing before the leak investigation about any of these sorts of things … within a day of knowing about them I confronted Jami-Lee Ross about this.” – Simon Bridges
“I think there are bound to be other women, at various degrees, he was grooming. I feel a sense that people deserve to feel safe and particularly from someone in power. I think those women are incredibly courageous and strong to have spoken out. I’m sure when you are dealing with that potentially narcissistic personality, then any kind of position of power would feed into that.” – Paula Bennett
Simon Bridges denies any knowledge of Ross’s alleged bad behaviour. This seems unlikely in a ‘pressure-cooker’ political environment where people talk to each other and gossip runs rampant. Bridges’ claim of not knowing is simply not credible.
In Parliament, people talk. Especially staff. And often that chit-chat gets back to politician’s ears.
The culture of the National Party seems geared toward rewarding brutal politics and hiding away the victims of those who wield the power. This fact has been made abundantly clear to the public.
Sectioned into care?
On Sunday 21 October, the media reported that Ross had been taken into “mental health care“.
There were suggestions he had been “sectioned” – admitted under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. This usually involves psychiatrist reports and a decision before a sitting judge. A Court Order is made for compulsory treatment. It takes time to be “sectioned” and is not an easy process;
For the first month, the patient must accept treatment. From the second month onwards, the patient is not required to accept treatment unless they give informed consent, or treatment is considered in the interests of the patient by an independent psychiatrist (not being the responsible clinician), or the patient needs emergency treatment and it is not possible to get their consent.
Two days later, on Tuesday 23 October, Ross was discharged from care.
Two days.
According to David Fisher at the NZ Herald, the “friend” assisting Ross after his “discharge was none other than – Cameron Slater;
It is believed Slater has been personally supporting Ross since the weekend and his assistance extended to helping the MP in his release from Middlemore Hospital’s mental health facilities yesterday.
In the two days that Ross was in “mental health care”, the media spotlight went from the beleaguered rogue MP facing numerous allegations of “bad behaviour”, harrassment, extra-marital affairs – to National Leader Simon Bridges.
Radio NZ’s ‘Morning Report‘ on Tuesday 23 October focused on interviews and hard questions put to Bridges, the National Party, campaign donations,mental health, and workplace harassment. Anything but Jami Lee Ross;
- 6:37 Mental Health Foundation warns over Jami-Lee Ross coverage
- 7:10 Parliament after Ross saga – political analysis
- 7:27 Jacinda Ardern defends political donations system
- 7:40 Mental Health Foundation urges greater care over Jami-Lee Ross
- 7:52 Sectioned MP Jami-Lee Ross uncharted territory for Parliament
- 8:10 National Party president could go following Ross saga – Edwards
And more the following day on ‘Morning Report‘;
- 6:40 Parties wouldn’t need to fundraise in ideal world – Ardern
- 7:10 National slips behind Labour in latest political poll
- 7:14 National slips, Bridges drops in poll – political analysis
- 7:40 National Party inquiry to ensure staff ‘feeling safe’ – Bridges
- 8:10 National Party culture review – political analysis
- 8:23 Greens urge political donation reform
All of a sudden, the blow-torch of media attention was off Ross and on Simon Bridges and the National party in most instances.
If Ross really was admitted into “mental health care” – it was a timely coincidence.
If not, it was a strategic master-stroke – whoever planned it would fit the role of a Bond villain with perfection.
Which leads us to…
The Dirty Politics Cabal
Conspiracy of cock-up? Jamie Lee Ross’s recording of conversation(s) with Simon Bridges was either a shrewd decision to cover his back-side as he fell from grace with his Leader – or something far more calculating and sinister.
Bridges claims that he believes Ross have may been planning and executing his strategy for a considerable period of time;
“I think he has been recording me, and potentially many other members of Parliament, for a very long time.”
So obviously not a spur-of-the-moment, rash-impulse kind, of thing by Ross.
As the Ross/Bridges crisis unfolded since 15 October, several names began to show up – names which feature prominently in Nicky Hager’s expose, Dirty Politics:
- Simon Lusk – currently advising Jami Lee Ross. Don Rowe wrote an insightful backgrounder on this right-wing operative for The Spinoff.
- Cameron Slater – running a series of articles deriding Simon Bridges’ leadership as “weak” and expressing subtle sympathy for Ross. In one piece, Slater calls into question and rubbishes assertions made by Bridges and Paula Bennett. Slater reportedly assisted Ross after his ‘discharge’ from mental health care.
- Aaron Bhatnagar – the person behind the so-called “Cathedral Club” which was listed in National Party election finance returns as donating $10,000. Ross claimed “that Bridges signed off an election return which included a $10,000 donation from the “Cathedral Club” even though he knew the identity of the donor”. Was this a set-up to ‘prove’ the National Party leader to be “corrupt”, as Ross alleged?
Assuming – for a moment – that the most machiavellian planning has gone into destroying Simon Bridges as the leader of the National;
- Who would benefit?
- What would be the likely outcome for the Party?
In answer to question one, the likely successor to Bridges being deposed would be Judith Collins. Ms Collins featured recently in the TVNZ-Colmar Brunton polls, just marginally behind Simon Bridges;
.
.
Jami Lee Ross’s full scale assault has inarguably destroyed his political career. He may even be unemployable in the private sector, as Kiwiblogger David Farrar, and former MP, Tau Henare, pointed out recently.
But his attacks on Simon Bridges has also undermined his leadership – perhaps beyond repair.
If National falls any further in polling; and Bridges’ popularity drops further; and Collins’ popularity rises – the inevitable would happen. Bridges would be rolled and Judith Collins installed as the new leader.
In answer to question 2: National would lurch hard-right. New Zealand politics would suddenly become more partisan; more divisive – in short, more like Australia. The hard-right warriors Simon Lusk, Cameron Slater, Aaron Bhatnagar, Jami Lee Ross, et al, would have their new leader and National would become the vehicle for their political agenda and aspirations.
Jamie Lee Ross would eventually be “rehabilitated” politically and would be appointed to various SOE boards as Collins’ ‘head kicker’.
Far-fetched conspiracy la-la stuff? Perhaps… though even David Fisher seemed compelled to write in the NZ Herald;
“It’s impossible to know exactly when Ross took a step down what he sees as a righteous – and what Bridges calls treacherous – path. It’s also difficult to know where it ends. Ross’ actions have shown clear signs of strategy.”
.
.
.
References
NBR: Ports behind strike-breaking bill – Ross
Scoop media: Jami Lee Ross – Union biting the hand that feeds
Newstalk ZB: Ross saga – Businessman denies making $100k donation
Fairfax media: Environmental protesters’ Govt crack down
Fairfax media: Law will hit deep-sea drilling protesters
Fairfax media: Jami-Lee Ross admits affair with MP, pledges to stay on in Parliament
NZ Herald: Full transcript – The Jami-Lee Ross tape of Simon Bridges
Mediaworks: As it happened – Jami-Lee Ross vs Simon Bridges saga reaches new heights
Mediaworks: Read Jami-Lee Ross’ texts to Greg Hamilton about $100,000 donation
Radio NZ: National’s hollow political scandal entertaining but insignificant
Radio NZ: Morning Report – National Party inquiry to ensure staff ‘feeling safe’ – Bridges (alt-link)
Legislation: Electoral Act 1993
Radio NZ: Morning Report for Tuesday 23 October 2018
Newsroom: Jami-Lee Ross: – Four women speak out
Radio NZ: Jami-Lee Ross identified as National Party leaker
New York Times: The Women Who Have Accused Brett Kavanaugh
NPR: Kavanaugh And Christine Blasey Ford Testify Before Senate Judiciary Committee
Radio NZ: Bridges did talk to businessman at centre of donation claim – Bennett
NZ Herald: Simon Bridges continues to stonewall questions about donations and sexual harassment claims
Fairfax media: National party candidate allegedly harassed by Jami-Lee Ross speaks out
NZ Herald: National candidate speaks out over harassment by rogue MP Jami-Lee Ross
Auckland Council: Contact Howick Local Board
Scoop media: C&R Howick Announce Local Board Team
Talking Southern Auckland: Honesty and Integrity Part Two
Newsroom: Nats have a long Jami-Lee agenda
Mediaworks: Jami-Lee Ross’ behaviour allegations might not be accurate – National MP Tim Macindoe
Interest.co.nz: Jami-Lee Ross to remain in Parliament as an independent MP for Botany
Scoop media: TV3 The Nation – Chris Simpson and David Collings
Fairfax media: Vision and Voice dominate Howick Local Board
Radio NZ: National defends handling of woman’s complaint against Jami-Lee Ross
Radio NZ: National aware of Jami-Lee Ross grievances for years
Fairfax media: Toxic relationships with Jami-Lee Ross reported
The Spinoff: ‘I am just motivated to cut throats’: meet Jami Lee-Ross’s political mastermind
NZ Herald: Jami-Lee Ross saga – Identity of ‘Cathedral Club’ donor revealed
TVNZ: After horror week, Simon Bridges takes a hit in latest 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton poll
Radio NZ: Tau Henare – ‘NZ has never seen anything like this’
NZ Herald: MP Jami-Lee Ross admitted to mental health care
Mediaworks: Jami-Lee Ross has been ‘sectioned’ – but what does that actually mean?
ODT: Jami-Lee Ross out of hospital, ‘not focusing on politics’
NZ Herald: National’s leader Simon Bridges rings Dirty Politics blogger to talk Jami-Lee Ross
Radio NZ: Morning Report – 23 October 2018
Radio NZ: Morning Report – 24 October 2018
Additional
Newsroom: Jami-Lee Ross and the shadow of Dirty Politics
Twitter: Jami-Lee Ross – 15 August 2018
Sharechat: Bridges denies Ross allegations, welcomes police inquiry
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon Political Panel (alt-link)
Other Blogs
Whaleoil: Despicable text sent to Jami-Lee Ross by female MP
Kiwiblog: The terrible personal cost
Chris Trotter: Questions, Questions, Questions
Martyn Bradbury: Could the Spinoff be possibly wrong about JLR? Maybe?
The Standard: Bridges loses connection with reality
The Standard: Nothing to worry about
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu Affair: One Year On
National MP admits collusion with bosses to set up strike-breaking law!!
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 October 2018.
.
.
= fs =
Israel and Saudi Arabia: the rise of rogue states
.
.
Israel
.
On 10 July 1985, the bombing, sinking, and fatality aboard the Greenpeace ship, ‘Rainbow Warrior‘, taught New Zealand that as a small country we could be vulnerable to the perniciousness of foreign powers.
Despite being supposed allies; despite the blood of our soldiers shed for their liberation in two World Wars, faraway France sent a team of DGSE secret agents to our shores and committed what could only be described as an act of state-sponsored terrorism.
As a nation, we did not take kindly to being bullied by a foreign power. The NZ History website pointedly observed that;
This incident did much to promote what has been described as New Zealand’s ‘silent war of independence’ and was central to an upsurge in New Zealand nationalism. There was a sense of having to ‘go it alone’ because traditional allies such as the United States and Britain sat on their hands while France worked to block New Zealand exports. The failure of Britain and the United States to condemn this act of terrorism hardened support for a more independent foreign policy line.
Thirty three years later, and another nuclear-armed, aggressive nation is arrogantly throwing it’s weight around and trying to “have a go” at us – Israel.
NZ-Israel relations took a nose-dive last year when singer-entertainer Lorde decided to cancel her planned tour of Israel;
.
.
The bitter reaction from Zionist individuals and organisations could only be described as – at times – reaching levels of insane hysteria. A full page advertisement in The Washington Times by fanatic Rabbi Shmuley Boteach showed the intolerance to dissenting views by hardline Zionists;
.
.
Obviously, Rabbi Boteach’s call to “support our campaign to defend Israel and promote human rights” (bottom of advert) didn’t extend to people having the right to make a decision on whether or not to tour the country he was “defending”.
Two young women who last year called on Lorde not to tour Israel have found themselves on the sharp, pointy-end of Israel’s hard-line extremism when it comes to criticising that country;
.
Justine Sachs and Nadia Abu-Shanab had appealed to Lorde in an open letter to join the cultural boycott of Israel.
.
Ms Sachs and Ms Abu-Shanab wrote;
Since 1967, Israel has militarily occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza strip. The occupation is considered an affront to international law and Israeli settlements in the area explicitly violate the Geneva Convention. The military occupation of Palestinian territories has resulted in an apartheid state. Palestinians living in the occupied territories do not enjoy the same rights Israeli citizens enjoy, they are denied freedom of movement and often basic services and necessities.
Today, millions of people stand opposed to the Israeli government’s policies of oppression, ethnic cleansing, human rights violations, occupation and apartheid. As part of this struggle, we believe that an economic, intellectual and artistic boycott is an effective way of speaking out against these crimes. This worked very effectively against apartheid in South Africa, and we hope it can work again.
Israel’s violations are so brutal, Nelson Mandela’s own grandson, Mandla Mandela, said: “The settlements I saw here [in the West Bank] reminded me of what we had suffered in South Africa because we also were surrounded by many settlements and were not allowed to move from one place to another freely. Palestinians are being subjected to the worst version of apartheid.” He added, “Israel is the worst apartheid regime” and called for the continued support of the boycott movement.
They called on Lorde to follow in our country’s tradition of standing up to injustice;
Israel might seem like a world away from New Zealand but that shouldn’t stop us from speaking out and being on the right side of history. In 1981 New Zealanders took to the streets to protest the Springbok tour and South African apartheid. It’s remembered proudly now, so it’s easy to forget that at the time this stuff was seriously fraught. Many argued the politics of apartheid shouldn’t be brought into sport. People will say the same about music.
We’re not just writing to appeal to the past. We’re writing this because we know you agree that our part in movements for justice and equality shouldn’t just be a memory that gathers dust. We can play an important role in challenging injustice today. We urge you to act in the spirit of progressive New Zealanders who came before you and continue their legacy. In 2017, Lorde, reignite the spirit of 1981 and show the world that New Zealanders are the progressive forward-thinking people we say we are. Please join the artistic boycott of Israel, cancel your Israeli tour dates and make a stand. Your voice will join many others and together we can and will make a difference.
I am in awe of the courage of these two young women.
In the interests of fair, free speech, The Spinoff also published a counter-opinion, by Dane Giraud from the NZ Jewish community.
For their actions, a pro-Zionist group in Israel called “Shurat Hadin” has sued – and ‘won’ a legal case in an Israeli Court – seeking ‘damages against Ms Sachs and Ms Abu-Shanab. The award was for 45,000 Israeli New Shekel ($NZ18,976).
According to a Jerusalem Post report;
In January, Shurat HaDin filed a lawsuit on behalf of Shoshana Steinbach, Ayelet Wertzel and Ahuva Frogel. The three all purchased tickets to see Lorde, and were refunded when the show was canceled. The suit demanded NIS 15,000 in damages for each of the teenagers, claiming that their “artistic welfare” was harmed as was their leisure time, “and above all damage to their good name as Israelis and Jews.” The lawsuit said that Lorde’s response on Twitter to the letter Sachs and Abu-Shanab penned showed a direct connection to the concert cancellation.
[…]
“This is a precedent-setting ruling according to the Boycott Law,” [Shurat HaDin lawyer] Darshan-Leitner said Thursday. “This decision makes it clear that anyone who calls for a boycott against the State of Israel could find themselves liable for damages and need to pay compensation to those hurt by the boycott call, if they’re in Israel or outside it.”
“Shurat Hadin” makes no secret of their hard-line Zionism and willingness to exploit “legal avenues” to further their cause;
.
.
As their website clearly states;
Shurat HaDin is at the forefront of fighting terrorism and safeguarding Jewish rights worldwide. We are dedicated to taking action to protect the State of Israel and its citizens. By putting terrorists and their supporters on trial to compensate victims and block funding of terror, by fighting to end the use of social media for inciting violence and promoting terror, by defending Israel, its leaders, and soldiers against claims of war crimes, and by battling lawfare, BDS and other efforts to delegitimize the Jewish State, Shurat HaDin is using court systems around the world to go on the legal offensive against Israel’s enemies.
Former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer, Philip Giraldi, has accused ShuratHaDin as engaging in lawfare;
Lawfare, as the name suggests, is the concept of using the law itself as a weapon of war. What it has meant in practice is turning American courtrooms into battlegrounds between private actors and foreign litigants seeking leverage in international political disputes. As a court case just concluded this week [February, 2015] in New York against the Palestinian Authority highlights, the increasing abuse of Lawfare litigation in the U.S. courts may soon have dangerous and irreparable implications for American foreign policy interests in the Middle East.
Israel’s Shurat HaDin Law Center has featured in much of the Lawfare litigation, seeking to harass groups and individuals that it regards as hostile, tying them up with litigation so they become ineffectual or even bankrupting them when a friendly judge rules its way. Shurat HaDin is headed by Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and her husband Avi, who have described their organization as a means of “fighting back,” particularly appropriate for Israel because “the Jews invented law.”
He pointed out;
More recently Shurat HaDin has been threatening to use litigation on American university campuses where it perceives that there is toleration of “an environment of intimidation and hostility” that fails to protect Jewish and Israeli students against alleged anti-Semitic harassment, by which it means demonstrations by Palestinian supporters and calls for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel.
Shurat HaDin have links to Israel’s security agency, Mossad.
Clearly, Ms Sachs and Ms Abu-Shanab are the latest victims of Shurat HaDin’s ‘lawfare’ strategy to coerce critics of Israel into silence.
Philip Giraldi‘s analysis is backed up by Waikato University law professor, Alexander Gillespie, who said this was an attempt to quell free speech;
“This is political theatre. This is not really a legal issue, this is about a court in Israel trying to create a precedent and it will have quite a large global impact.
A lot of people will start watching this because the fear will be that if you’re critical of Israel, no matter where you are in the world, you could be sued.”
However, Professor Gillespie said it would be difficult for Israel to enforce their Court decision to demand payment from the two women;
“In theory they can apply to the courts here to enforce their judgement, but it’s very unlikely that the judgement will be enforced because it’s completely contrary to our own laws.”
To their credit, Ms Sachs and Ms Abu-Shanab have bravely refused to cave to Israel’s abuse of legal process and have set up a ‘Givealittle’ page where donations toward their ‘fine’ will be forwarded to the Gaza Mental Health Foundation.
Hopefully the New Zealand government will act decisively to defend two of it’s citizens from the brazen bullying by a foreign power. If our government fails to act to defend it’s citizen on our own soil, then it has become a weak vassal-state of a foreign regime.
.
Saudia Arabia
.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia – another “ally” of the West – has taken it’s war from the bombing of Yemen to it’s Consulate in Istanbul where apparently it has murdered Washington Post columnist, and critic of the Saudi regime, Jamal Khashoggi.
Not content with bombing and mass-killing in Yemen that has resulted in at least ten thousand killed and tens of thousands more dead from starvation, the Saudi regime has adopted Mossad-style techniques of using execution teams to kill critics. The weapons used to kill innocent men, women, and children in Yemen – such as forty children in a school bus – are American-made;
.
Munitions experts said the numbers on this piece of shrapnel confirmed that Lockheed Martin was the maker of the bomb. – CNN
.
Sensitive to ongoing reports of mass deaths of Yemeni civilians, Secretary of State, Michael R. Pompeo, tried to “make good” on assurances that Saudi Arabian warplanes would take better aim in attacks on so-called rebel targets;
Pursuant to Section 1290 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA), I certified to Congress yesterday that the governments of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are undertaking demonstrable actions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure resulting from military operations of these governments.
In the same statement, Pompeo also said how much the US government wanted peace in Yemen;
The Trump Administration has been clear that ending the conflict in Yemen is a national security priority. We will continue to work closely with the Saudi-led coalition to ensure Saudi Arabia and the UAE maintain support for UN-led efforts to end the civil war in Yemen, allow unimpeded access for the delivery of commercial and humanitarian support through as many avenues as possible, and undertake actions that mitigate the impact of the conflict on civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Oxfam America’s Scott Paul responded the only way possible to US support of Saudi bombing of Yemen;
“Today, the Trump administration once put its Gulf allies ahead of Yemeni families who are struggling to survive. With Secretary Pompeo’s certification, the State Department demonstrated that it is blindly supporting military operations in Yemen without any allegiance to facts, moral code or humanitarian law.”
Many of the horror-weapons used in Yemen were banned from sale to the Saudis by the previous Obama administration. Trump reversed that ban in March 2017.
Trump has promised a controversial US$110 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia will proceed – regardless of the current storm of international condemnation over the mysterious disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi; regardlss of the fact that the Saudi regime may be engaging in extra-judicial killings; regardless of the the alleged murder taking place within the borders of another country.
In a statement that shows – yet again – the utter moral bankruptcy of the man, Trump explained;
“I know they’re talking about different kinds of sanctions, but they’re spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs, like jobs and others, for this country. I don’t like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States. Because you know what they’re going to do? They’re going to take that money and spend it in Russia or China, or someplace else.”
And Americans wonder why they are hated throughout much of the Middle East?
Israel and Saudi Arabia – two regimes that brook no dissent. Both thumb their noses at free expression; democracy; and respect for human life. Neither are hesitant at using lethal violence to pursue their aims.
We certainly have no moral grounds to complain when Russia supports one of their own allies in the region. Russia has Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. The US has Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi ‘Crown Prince’ Mohammed bin Salman.
Russia’s RT News may be a government mouthpiece, but on the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, Yemen, and continuing arming of the Saudi regime, they make a valid point;
.
.
The West should choose it’s friends in the Middle East more carefully.
And New Zealand should have as little as possible to do with Israel and Saudi Arabia as possible. They are both rogue states.
.
.
.
References
NZ History: Nuclear-free New Zealand – Sinking the Rainbow Warrior
Rolling Stone: Lorde Cancels Tel Aviv Concert After Calls to Boycott Israel
Radio NZ: Rabbi continues criticism of Lorde
The Spinoff: Dear Lorde, here’s why we’re urging you not to play Israel
Shurat HaDin: Main Page
Jerusalem Post: New Zealand BDS activists ordered to pay damages over Lorde Israel boycott
The Hill: U.S. legislation abused by foreign entities
Radio NZ: NZ activist being sued in Israel calls it ‘publicity stunt’
Givealittle: Help Justine and Nadia raise money for Mental Health in Gaza
Jerusalem Post: Op. Harpoon – How the Mossad and an Israeli NGO destroyed terrorist money networks
Chicago Tribune: 50,000 children in Yemen have died of starvation and disease so far this year, monitoring group says
The Telegraph: Dubai Hamas assassination – how it was planned
CNN: Bomb that killed 40 children in Yemen was supplied by the US
US Department of State: Certification to Congress on Actions of Saudi Arabia and UAE in Yemen Under the NDAA
NPR: U.S. Stands By Saudi Arabia, Despite Criticism Over Civilian Casualties In Yemen
NY Times: Why Are U.S. Bombs Killing Civilians in Yemen?
CNN: Trump’s $110 billion Saudi arms deal has only earned $14.5 billion so far
Twitter: RT News – Yemen, Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia
Additional
The Electronic Intifada: Israeli lawfare “backfires” in New Zealand
NZ Herald: Israeli court – NZ activists must pay for Lorde cancellation
Other Blogs
The Standard: Concert Woes
Previous related blogposts
Exclusive: Provocateurs attempt to disrupt March for Palestine, in Wellington!
New Zealand’s OTHER secret shame
To any Israeli solidiers reading this
Wellingtonians say ‘No!’ to Israeli aggression
What to do with the Israeli Ambassador?
Do our bit: boycott Israeli goods and commercial interests!
Trumpwatch: One minute closer to midnight on the Doomsday Clock
Syria: the mendacities of the mainstream media (part rua)
.
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 14 October 2018.
.
.
= fs =
That was Then, This is Now #29 – Joyce’s $11.7 billion hole – goneburger!
.
.
“Billions of dollars extra cash that are there that they could dip into“, eh?
It would appear that Ms Kaye has inadvertently ‘sunk’ Steven Joyce’s claims of Labour’s $11.7 billion “hole” made during last year’s election campaign.
.
.
.
References
National Party: Labour must explain where the money is (alt-link: Scoop media)
Radio NZ: Govt’s tertiary fees free policy wrong priority – Nikki Kaye (alt-link)
Previous related blogposts
That was Then, This is Now #28 – John Key on transparency
Dollars and sense – Joyce’s hypocrisy
St. Steven and the Holy Grail of Fiscal Responsibility
National’s $11.7 billion hole is right where they left it
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 4 October 2018.
.
.
= fs =
A funny thing happened at the Mall…
.
.
The other day I was at Johnsonville Mall, one of Wellington’s northern suburbs. Michael Wolff’s exposé, Fire and Fury was available at the mall’s Whitcoull’s at a discount, and I was keen to read for myself what was happening on the other side of the planet. The lunatic asylum currently inhabiting the White House held a fascination much like driving past a train-wreck and trying to make sense of the tangled, smoking carnage.
Approaching the counter, with one customer in front of me, we suddenly heard several loud *pops*, slowly spaced out, emanating from the same direction.
We looked out into the mall…
.
.
We saw a worker from the pharmacy across the way climb back onto a ladder. She affixed balloons to the shop frontage, and as she did so, several burst…
.
.
I looked at my companion and remarked;
“You know, if this mall were in the United States, we all would’ve been diving for cover by now.”
We approached the counter and the Whitcoulls counter-attendant, having overheard my comment, remarked;
“That’s exactly what I said to the customer before you!”
What does it say about two predominantly anglo-saxon societies – both settled from Europe, where English is predominantly the lingua franca – but which over two centuries have diverged in such a radical fashion? Where bursting balloons would raise curiosity in one society – and abject mortal fear in another?
And how lucky we are to be living in the former and not the latter.
If ever New Zealand draws up a constitution, our Second Amendment should guarantee the right to bear balloons. And that’s it: balloons.
.
.
.
Previous related blogposts
NRA response; more guns. Common sense sez otherwise.
How many more? For god’s sakes, how many more?!
Why arming our Police is not such a flash idea
Michael Moore on yet more shootings in the USA
Copyright (c) Notice
All images stamped ‘thedailyblog.co.nz – fmacskasy.wordpress.com’ are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
» Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
» Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
» At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
» Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 October 2018
.
.
= fs =
War – the line between rememberance and glorification
.
.
Without doubt or argument, the World War 1 exhibitions at the former Dominion Museum and Te Papa museum were feats of outstanding technical achievement. The abilities of creators Peter Jackson and Weta Workshop’s Richard Taylor are a stunning mix of technology, artistry, and the manipulation of human emotion to tell a story.
The sophistication of their visual story-telling of one of our nation’s bloodiest moments in history is laid out for all to see. The duel exhibitions opened in April 2015 and will soon be coming to an end after a four year “run“.
In the first year alone, 402,896 visitors attended Te Papa’s ‘Gallipoli: The scale of our war’ exhibition.
.
.
When first revealed to the public, Peter Jackson made great effort to ensure that the dual exhibitions were not to be perceived as a “glorification of war”;
“It’s not an anti-war museum, it’s certainly not a glorifying war museum. It is just showing the reality.”
Te Papa’s CEO, Rick Ellis, repeated the official ‘line’ that it was not a glorification;
It did not glorify war or shy away from questions around war.
But the depictions of the 2.4 times human scale figures of soldiers in various poses – from tragic weariness to stoic determination – raises questions surrounding those assertions. One particular aspect of the Te Papa display is deeply troubling when it’s implications are carefully considered.
For example, the “machine gunner” figure set in the diorama with a machine gun is depicted with a square-jawed, heroic pose;
.
.
.
Jacqueline Makkee of Weta Workship, works on the model of Gallipoli soldier Spencer Westmacott.
.
They bear an uncanny resemblance to the gallant, valiant, clean-cut, stylised quasi-propaganda, shown in old ‘Commando‘ comics;
.
.
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Te Papa is an interactive feature which invites members of the public to treat the roll of the sniper as a ‘game’. A precursor depiction to the ‘game’ revealed how some viewed sniping, contemporaneously;
.
.
To soldiers at the time, that may well have been a common attitude. If anything, the displays reinforces our notions of war as a bloody kill-or-be-killed conflict. There was no time to consider the ‘niceties’ of polite society.
But the next feature of the sniping display cannot be justified or explained away so easily.
Citizens of early 21st Century society were invited to “Have a Shot”;
“Periscope rifles let you shoot without sticking your head above the trench.”
.
.
The following three “bullet points” were iconised with images of actual bullet cartridges;
— Look through the periscope to your right.
— Press the button when you see movement – any sign of the enemy behind his sandbags.
— Miss him and he’ll shoot back.
The little red button glowed invitingly;
.
.
.
And perhaps unfortunately, there was no end to a line of members of the public who seemed to hold no qualms in treating the killing of another human being as a ‘game’;
.
.
.
.
.
The creators of the exhibition have taken the mock-killings of internet/electronic gaming and applied it to the legitimacy of a museum setting. Mock killing has become mainstream courtesy of our local museum.
Which would seem to make a sham of exhibition creative director and Weta Workshop co-founder, Richard Taylor’s noble-sounding words when the exhibition was first opened to the masses;
“[We wanted to] give respect to memories on the scale that they deserve.
We hope when visitors leave this experience that they carry more wisdom so that the spirit and the sacrifices of these young men and women are never forgotten.”
Little wonder that there was criticism of the dual exhibitions, pointing out the subtle apparent-glorification of our ‘Great War’ dead. Writing for the World Socialist website, John Braddock and Tom Peters said;
As a junior partner of British imperialism, New Zealand’s ruling class joined WWI to expand its wealth and seize more Pacific island colonies. The invasion of German Samoa, which was New Zealand’s first action in WWI, is not mentioned in either of the Wellington exhibitions. In the course of the war, 18,500 New Zealanders died and 40,000 were injured, out of a population of about one million.
Both exhibitions are virtually silent on the widespread opposition to WWI internationally. The exception is a reference in the Great War Exhibition to opposition among the American working class, which delayed Washington’s entry into the war. The wall text then quotes US President Woodrow Wilson’s cynical declaration in April 1917 that “America would ‘make the world safe for democracy’ by joining ‘the war to end all wars.’”
There is no reference to the class struggles against conscription and war, including protests and mass strikes throughout the world. The upsurge prompted the 1916 founding of the NZ Labour Party by the trade unions, which aimed to divert the anti-war movement into safe parliamentary channels.
The Great War Exhibition makes no mention of the Russian Revolution. The overthrow of capitalism by the Russian working class, led by the Bolsheviks, inspired workers internationally and forced the warring powers to agree to an armistice to prevent the revolution from spreading. The display falsely presents the armistice as simply a military victory by the Allied powers.
They make a chilling observation;
The pro-war carnival taking place across Australia and New Zealand must be taken as a sharp warning. The contradictions of capitalism that caused WWI are once again intensifying. Successive New Zealand governments have strengthened the country’s alliance with US imperialism, which is stampeding from one bloody intervention to the next in the Middle East, while building up its military forces against Russia and China.
Messrs Braddock and Peters point out that “there is cursory acknowledgement of the Ottoman death toll—which numbered 86,692, more than 30 times New Zealand’s 2,779“.
Mr Jackson’s comments – reported above – take on a new ambivalence as to the meaning of the exhibitions;
“It’s not an anti-war museum, it’s certainly not a glorifying war museum. It is just showing the reality.”
Meanwhile, the exhibition makes a fleeting gesture to the magnanimity shown by the Ottoman/Turks toward an implacable foe invading their territory;
.
.
“Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives… are now lying in the soil of a friendly country… and are in peace…
They have become our sons as well.” – Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, commander of the Turkish 19th Division at Gallipoli and founder of the Turkish Republic, 1934
No mention of a Turkish museum-game to kill ANZAC soldiers.
In a 2016 thesis by Elizabeth Anne du Chateau Blackwell also pointed out;
Perhaps, when foot traffic counts, controversy is not welcome: war as a back-drop for noble action and attitude is likely more appealing to a wide audience than war as waste, war as hate, war as frustration and fear and anguish. Certainly, Gallipoli sets the ‘ordinariness’ of the national character against a view of war designed to arouse pride rather than highlighting its brutality and devastation or the changes it caused in Aotearoa-New Zealand.
The war is not a ninth character in Gallipoli, and it might have been. I called this section National pride and the glorification of war, but in fact, the exhibition does not glorify war so much as make it as ‘ordinary’ as the New Zealanders who fought there. It is not sanitised: it is simply accepted as taking place, and this is presents a disjoin for modern sensibilities. Setting aside the sentimental and cultural ties to Britain, a war in Europe, arguably, had little relevance to Aotearoa-New Zealand on the opposite side of the world, but it is in fact the sentimental and cultural ties that are elevated in Gallipoli.
Aotearoa-New Zealand, it seems, did a ‘right’ thing by sending troops and medical personnel to the war effort. Suffering is certainly presented, but it is objectified and put out for the wondering gaze of the visitors. Against the real stories of the eight real, but ‘ordinary’ New Zealanders, the exhibition offers no critique of the catalogue of escalating stupidity and unwise decisions made in relation to the campaign to take Gallipoli.
At a time when the current Labour-NZ First coalition government has voted to extend New Zealand’s military “mission” in Iraq,
.
.
– such questions of doing the “‘right’ thing by sending troops and medical personnel to the war effort” becomes even more critical.
If the exhibitions at Te Papa and the former Dominion Museum have made people think twice about the use of war as a political tool, then it may have served a purpose. Of all the things governments have the power to do – and must always be unrelentingly questioned – is their policy to engage in war.
If, as Ms Blackwell suggested, the exhibitions present war as “ordinary” and “simply accepted as taking place”, then it has become a form of desensitising propaganda. This may never have been the intentions of messrs Jackson, Taylor, and Ellis – but inviting members of the public to take a shot at a faceless enemy through a ‘game’ suggests otherwise.
At the very least it was unhelpful.
It was certainly disrespectful.
.
Note:
It will be interesting if the response from certain individuals associated with Te Papa will be as defensive and hostile as they were in a previous museum-related story.
.
.
.
References
Ministry of Culture and Heritage: Dominion Museuem
Fairfax media: Jackson’s Great War Exhibition unveiled in Wellington
NZ Herald: Gallipoli exhibition shows soldiers frozen in time
Fairfax media: Te Papa brings epic scale of World War I to life
Te Papa: Te Papa celebrates a record-breaking year
Fairfax: Sir Peter Jackson shows off his Great War Exhibition in Wellington
World Socialist Web Site: New Zealand’s WWI exhibitions falsify history and glorify war for a new generation
AUT: Gallipoli as Edutainment? Constructing national identity in a “new” museum
Newsroom: NZ’s ‘mission creep’ in Iraq creeps on
Other Blogs
World Socialist Web Site: New Zealand’s WWI exhibitions falsify history and glorify war for a new generation
Previous related blogposts
Copyright (c) Notice
All images stamped ‘thedailyblog.co.nz – fmacskasy.wordpress.com’ are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
» Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
» Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
» At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
» Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 October 2018.
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 