< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: International Green Conspiracy

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

International Green Conspiracy

The funny thing about politics is that two near identical events can occur and yet they be entirely different.

For example, the Greens are doing their best to promote the Exclusive Brethren leaflets as part of a sinister International Anti-Green Movement.

How do they know this is an International Anti-Green movement? Well, luckily the Greens are part of a sinister International Pro-Green Movement. They maintain contacts with other Green parties and Pro-Green Organisations, so they know what's going on.

They recently used international connections to bring out Australian Green Senator Bob Brown.

They recently used international connections to bring out Andrew Wilkie to speak out against the War on Iraq.

(Andrew Wilkie was a Senior Intelligence Officer working for the Australian Office of National Assessment, who quit shortly before the Iraq war. He also happens to be a Green Party Candidate, but did not win his seat in the last election.)

Sinister International Pro-Green vs Sinister International Anti-Green.

Big bloody deal. A couple of internet searches, or a phone call to friends I have made in Australia, Canada and Singapore (all places I have lived) and I'm now running an international conspiracy. With Chefen based in Sweden, Sir Humphrey's is obviously an International Movement. Wow.

Back to the story. Some gentle readers might be wondering why any-one would want to combat the international Green Movement. After all, every-one loves the environment, right?

Well, some people believe the Greens are actually Watermelons. Green on the outside, and red in the middle. Supposedly, amongst all of the genuine pro-environment members there exists a hard core group of people with another agenda to push. An agenda that seeks to upset our traditional social structure to make way for a more communistic version of socialism. What do I think? Hell, I don't know every-thing. You decide. To get the conversation going, here are just a few of the policies advanced by our Green environmentalists:

* Legalise cannabis
* Legalise prostitution
* Legalise adoption by same sex couples
* Pro Civil Union
* Criminalise smacking by repealing s59
* Reject enshrining property rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights
(right to own, and the right to be compensated for, loss of property. Note: Property includes your possessions, tools of trade, your vehicle, land)

Now, I am not passing judgement on these policies. It just may be surprising to some readers the Greens want a lot more than just saving the environment. That's good news for the folks that like the total package.

But some folks do not like the total package. I guess they are mistrustful of the Greens because their name says one thing, but their policies say something completely different. That's obviously a big deal to some.

So when the MSM stir things up in the next few days as the election reaches fever pitch, you need to ignore the conspiracy rants and focus on one thing:

In a democracy, are people entitled to promote their opinions on the effects of policies, and are they entitled to free association with others?

Of course the answer is supposed to be "yes". The stir is that every-one against you are either liars or using dirty tricks. Hitting back with harder accusations seems to be the general fare in politics. And the general fare is generally unfair.

I think I've shown that the EB pamphlets raise "fair concerns" over the Greens non-environmental issues. They seem (to me) to be milder than the "Eviction Notices" Labour feel are necessary to get their democratic rights exercised.

I therefore urge all readers to take each new item case by case. Try to work out what the actual issue is, rather than the smoke and mirrors that surround most controversy. Get the source material if possible, so YOU get to make a better judgement, just in case the only evidence you have is a rehash from a press release from the offended party.

This goes for all parties.

And I think the Greens need to lighten up on their international conspiracy theories, and focus on debating the content. It's the content that generated this in the first place. The rest doesn't fucking matter. Their policy should withstand scrutiny, irrespective from an Australian, American, Samoan, or Tibetan (should they be so interested)

Side Topic: Exclusive Brethren vs The Greens

Posted by ZenTiger | 9/11/2005 10:20:00 pm

7 Comments:

Blogger Tane said...

The problem with the Brethren pamphlets is that they didn't declare themselves. They went about it furtively, secretly and in the end incompetently. If those pamphlets had a little Font 8 message at the back saying "Endorsed by John Doe, 1313 Mockingbird Lane" and that name had tied to a real person at a real address, then this storm would have stayed in a teacup. They didn't and they deserve some measure of acrimony for their actions. The pamphlets are fine, not declaring themselves is not.

As for the "Green package", well what else do you expect with Party politics. I hate it too, but we are all forced to choose the party that has the broadest range of policies we agree with, while accepting the crappy ones too. Can you truly and honestly say that you fully and totally endorse all ACT policies? If so, I envy you, finding a party that accords so fully with your own beliefs.

Sadly we do not have a perfect democracy, and we never will. Party politics, for all it's many warts, is about as good as it's going to get. And if that means I have to swallow a few crappy policies to get the important things I want, then so be it.

9/12/2005 09:38:00 am  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Tane, I agree, the non-disclosure is one issue that created deserved criticism.

However, the media storm has made it much more than that. Much much more, and for reasons not good for a healthy democracy.

From the bigoted slurs against them from some Greenies on Frog Blog, I can understand why they normally try to be secretive. Unless you are a gay cross dressing transsexual, the Greens can come across very intolerant (present company excluded).

Maybe they are more mainstream than they realise ?

9/12/2005 09:45:00 am  
Blogger Tane said...

Well I guess everyone loves the moral high ground, the view from up there is so very lovely. It's also very easy to fall into the trap of moral and righteous indignation verging on hysteria, something that is not limited by political belief. I've seen it on Frogblog too much for comfort, and have even detected a trace or two of it on Sir Humphreys (imagine my shock!!).

As for the party politics "take the good with the bad", are there any parties out there that fully accord with your own views? I've outlined some Green policies that I'm unhappy with. Do you have that problem with any parties you support?

9/12/2005 10:11:00 am  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

I've mentioned I'd like to see a "right wing" environmental party, as most right parties fail to articulate detailed environmental policy (at least to the detail I like).

ACT are reasonable for me on several issues, but they are light on detail on some areas, and the mix of right wing liberal and right wing conservative in the party can make conscience votes go in other directions...

I root for National over Labour, but I'm worried about a few of their policies, and I often wonder if the reasons for putting forward the policy are sound...I'd be pushing for the company tax rate to drop sooner than later, and that position makes me wonder if they really do have the policies to generate economic growth.

If they get in, then I'll still be here at SH trying to keep them on the straight and narrow, whenever required. I am expecting a lighter workload than Labour at least...

9/12/2005 10:23:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

but..zen..if you are claiming environmental credentials/sympathies....how do you marry them with national and acts' support for knobbling the resources managment act...and by doing so, saying 'giddy-up' to the cowboy developers..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

9/12/2005 11:13:00 am  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Simple, I'd never vote for the Greens because of their stance on s59 and the attitudes they indicate around that (as one example).

I'd rather convince my preferred parties to take good account for the environment as we continue building, farming and living.

No-one wants a decimated environment, in spite of what you believe. It hasn't been just Green parties that have established heritage forest areas, set fishing quotas, capped CFC emissions, brought in energy saving technology etc.

9/12/2005 11:25:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

zen you may be amused/bemused to hear i was talking to an alliance person today..and he told me that many/most of the former aliances will be voting green this time out...(which is a good omen for my forecast 10%+ for them ..eh..?)

but get this..he also said many in the alliance/left look at the likes of sue kedgley and conclude that the greens are nearer national than labour...that they are a conservative party..

i was surprised to hear that...

now zen, i know you think anyone to the left of genghis khan is a raging commie...but it's all a matter of perspectives..eh..?

and sorry...in your previous answer i didn't quite catch the environmental benefits to be accrued from supporting national/act...could you spell them out for us..?
it shouldn't take too long ..eh...?..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

9/12/2005 05:57:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home