Michael Lhaws has done more to worsen ethnic relations in this country than, arguably, anyone else in the past decade. He chose the most racially divided city in the land and cynically exploited those divisions to get the attention his pathetic ego craves. Now, one of his greatest ‘achievements’ has been ruled illegal.
The Gang Patch Law was always a fraud. It didn’t accurately target people wearing patches and it didn’t do anything to discourage people being gang members. But those were never Lhaws’ real objectives. He was only after creating more racial division by dog-whistling (gang members = ‘bloody Maoris’). Same with his campaign over child abuse. More racial division means more votes for the head white racist and more media attention for an empty little man.
Lhaws was truly a terrible mayor. He failed to achieve anything but dragging Whanganui’s name down to his level in the eyes of the rest of the country (honestly, ask someone about Whanganui and ‘racist’ will be one of the first words out of their mouths). The people were getting sick of him and, according to rumour, polling was showing he could lose last year’s mayoral race. Hence, his decision not to run.
Now, the High Court has found that Lhaws’ Gang Patch Law is illegal.
Nice work, Lhaws, you wasted everyone’s time and who knows how much money on a law that didn’t even do what it purported to do, and now judicial resources have had to be wasted getting it overturned. So, you’re having a cry about the courts getting it wrong. Because it’s always someone else at fault when you fuck up, eh Lhaws?
Honestly, what a dick.
10/10 for style, +3million for a good title.
postscript: ’tis better to be mayor of WHanganui than be MP of wherever?
But at no stage throughout any one of Laws crusades did the MSM call him on being a racist PR seeking media whore in his role as mayor rather than being a constructive civic leader……..which just egged him on. I recall his reaction to being pinged for not having a child restrained being particularly enlightening as to the mans character.
His response was an official complaint about the Police releasing his name.
In many ways hes our own little tinpot Gaddafi
As Rex Widestrom pointed out in a comment here a while ago (yes I was paying attention Rex).. one of the most fatal political mistakes made in a generation was when Winston Peters chose Lhaws as his closest advisor.
Many bad things flowed out from that decision.
Have an internet gold star, RL 😀
I think because it heralded the end of my political career, when I talk about the implications people tend to think “oh yeah… for him“. But the way in which Lhaws distorted not only NZF (by loading it with Deborah “The Spy who Hated Me” Morris, Robyn “Which Way’s Paris?” McDonald et al, but by ridding Winston of a whole group of people, of which I was but one, who grounded him and negated his hubris.
Lhaws, OTOH, gave Winston free rein to covet baubles and arrange dubious donations through secret trusts, because he knew where the real power lay. When he too was removed, Winston was like an over-inflated hot air balloon that lost its final tether.
A NZF Cabinet consisting of the pre-1996 spokespeople – including Brian Donnelly but also Ross Gluer, Terry Heffernan, myself and others but minus Morris, McDonald, Neil Kirton etc – would most likely have opted for a coalition with Labour, but with a set of demands very different from those of Lhaws and Winston.
Then there’s the possibility that successfully securing a coalition deal would have seen Mike Moore remain Labour Leader, at least for a few years; history would indeed have changed hugely had Winston not handed Lhaws the entire party and campaign structure prior to the 96 election.
Whether for the better I have no way of knowing (but instinct tells me yes). But certainly the outcome could not have been worse…
The saddest thing is, Lhaws will be happy with the carnage he caused. His only desire is to make an impact and thus feed his ego, and it’s easier to destroy than to build.
“successfully securing a coalition deal would have seen Mike Moore remain Labour Leader, at least for a few years; history would indeed have changed hugely…”.
Don’t quite get this, Rex. Didn’t Helen Clark topple Moore immediately after the 1993 General Election, in which case a Labour-NZ First Coalition deal in 1996 would have been a little too late for Moore’s leadership ?
Or have I missed something, here ?
Incidently, 30th anniversary of the 1981 Springbok Tour coming up in July. 30 years since Laws led Otago Uni students in SUPPORT of apartheid. Wonder if he’ll be celebrating ?
Gak! Where TF was my brain at when I wrote that? Yes, swordfish, you spotted that *cough* deliberate mistake, cunningly dropped in an otherwise erudite comment in order to check everyone was paying attention 😛
Moore led the coalition negotiations (along with the late, and much missed, Michael Hirschfeld), and it was these two to whom I provided strategic advice, which was why my fantasising ran off track.
But if you want to see fantasy in action (he says, desperately deflecting) his Wikipedia entry mentions his WTO Director-Generalship and adds “Constituency Eden, Christchurch North”. I’m sure the residents that borough, especially at this time, will be impressed to know they had their very own representative at the WTO 🙂
You couldn’t gift us with a couple of speculative “for instance”s could you Rex? You know just as a bit of wistful political porn?
I try to avoid wallowing in the dregs of my political career unless there’s whisky involved. Or at least Pinot. Are you buying, CV? 😛
I know Brian Donnelly had some incredibly good, and genuinely unique, ideas about poverty in the far north (from whence he came) and in particularly about raising educational outcomes but because he was more than capable of devising and expressing these I wasn’t involved at a level of detail that enable me to recall them now. I was particularly surprised to see none of that made it through into the coalition agreement, though that is testament to Lhaws’ influence since Winston genuinely admired and respected Brian.
The ones in which I was involved and thus have a murky recollection, were:
– Binding Citizens Initiated Referenda (in accordance with the NZ First Fundamental Principle that “All policies not contained in the party manifesto, where no national emergency clearly exists, will first be referred to the electorate for a mandate”).
– Parliamentary Reform, including the establishment of an independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards based, at least initially, on the UK model at the time. (I say “at the time” because it’s since had its teeth extracted).
– An increase in the number of refugees accepted and a raising of the bar for migrants in the “business” category to ensure they were intending to genuinely make a life in NZ and not use it simply as a means to a passport and a home in the Grammar zone for their children.
– An independent anticorruption commission to regulate other aspects of society, including business and government departments.
– Measures around real programs to get people off welfare and into work, with a focus on individual tailoring of solutions and not some “one size fits all” “work test”. That would include measures to promote entrepreneurship not just “getting a job”, including adult education and some sort of microfinance.
– Insisting on processing NZ’s raw materials onshore, and adding maximum value to anything exported before it left NZ.
– Much greater involvement, and partnership, with Pacific nations.
There was heaps more, but I’ve had only one coffee so far so that’s about as much as I can wring out of a caffeine deprived brain.
To quote the Bard..“Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!”
There was never much real to say about this vapid non entity.
His company offices are in an understrength old building on soft ground right by the river bank……..
Don’t even go there ghostwhowalksnz; I get where you are coming from, but one thing that Wanganui does NOT need is an earthquake!
Reminds me. I eventually got around to doing a read of your site this week and saw this post. and meant to point the following out.
Oh you of little faith. We tend to give people time to learn, get upset at being told to learn and leave on their own, or to eventually get the chop. He’d already been warned several times for various infractions but didn’t seem to learn. He eventually ran out of our tolerance. See this and then this
In this case he probably got more rope than usual because I do the bulk of the moderation and was somewhat more reluctant to warn or sanction because my circumstances made my judgement a bit suspect. I was even being pretty damn slow moderating because of a quite different sleep pattern. Which is why moderation was delayed as you pointed out in your post. Even at the best of time it can be several hours between sweeps by someone
But eventually Irish got a wee bit pissed off and handed out several educational experiences after constraining himself for some time.
Moderating on a site with as many comments as this one gets is more of deliberate process rather than the type of knee-jerk reaction you seem to prefer. Of course we could allow more of the knee jerk reaction, but I seem to remember that you didn’t like it when it happened to you.
Appreciate your comments Lprent; hope too that you are on the mend
Been back at work for several weeks. In fact after just a few days out of hospital. I was pretty useless for the first week or so. But programming is not a high risk occupation for a newly embedded stent. Being around people has stopped Lyn from worrying about leaving me at home alone (and organizing innumerable visitors). She literally stopped me from dying within the few minutes that I had left amongst the living and has been somewhat shocked ever since.
Lynn,
Sorry I missed all this. Oddly enough I was in Auckland Hospital at that period looking after my own father.
Folk who want to grumble about moderation really need to dismount high horse. There really are only three or four of us doing it at any one time, there is no ‘roster’ so our presence or not is entirely random.
It’s a tricky business getting the tone and balance right between under and over moderation. If left to my own devices I’d probably over-moderate, so I tend to compensate by being conciously light-handed. (This may cause some folks a mild snorting moment….). And while I try to keep the site policy uppermost in mind, lots of things come down to a personal call.
But without doubt the leadership … and the vast bulk of the work… has fallen on Lynn’s already burdened shoulders. The Standard is what it is because of him.
Hear, hear.
When he was hit by his heart problems I suggested, only partly in jest, he needed to “Tron” himself so he could roam within the circuitry of The Standard’s servers, fighting trolls.
With due respect to everyone else, who provide the icing on the cake, there wouldn’t be a cake without him.
The court decision wasn’t quite that emphatic. From the judge:
“However, he said a bylaw which more closely defined specified places could well be legal.”
the by-law is illegal. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to write a legal one, of course not. But I bet the new council doesn’t.
If you read the judgment, it appears (at para 160) that Lhaws misled the Council into the misunderstanding that it did not have to take the provisions of the NZ Bill of Rights Act into account in enacting the bylaw.
“could well be legal” is different from “would be legal” will the judges apparent prompt be followed up by the new council?
Congrats to the Angels member and lawyer for now then. The mascaraed mayor was always way out of order on this one.
You make a good point, TS. Funnily enough, the council where told at the time that a sweeping ban would not be legal and that specific exclusions should be used. That is, defined streets, parks and public places. That good advice was ignored.
For what it’s worth, the photo on the post makes Laws look far too chipper. I was shopping in a Whangaz supermarket earlier this week and saw him pushing a trolley about. He looked ten years older than the photo suggests. White straggly hair and unhealthily thin. Nobody bothered to say gidday or even make eye contact with him in the ten minutes or so we were in the same aisles. I probably should have felt sorry for him, but fuck it, the man’s a fucken disgrace and who am I to get in the way of karma?
“I probably should have felt sorry for him”, see just that little flash of humanity marks out a leftie.
I still have an email from Mr Laws with mayoral banner and all. I wrote a serious piece to him about the spelling of the city and his succinct reply was “go back to smoking your weed loser” signed M. Laws. Sure I put my Far North address on the message and cannabis is not unknown in these parts, but I don’t use it, so his reply was not appreciated. He was rather rude to a bunch of school kids that wrote to him too I recall.
Another angry, lonely, hollow man.
Title and photo of the year!
Lhaws truely is a whanker.
My experience of Laws led me to the conclusion he is a psychotic sociopath.
Wanganui was terrible before he was mayor, and hasn’t changed.
“it didn’t do anything to discourage people being gang members.”
Laws was on National Radio this morning saying that actually it has reduced gang membership by 15% because there is much less impetus to join the gang.
Do you have any actual proof that it hasn’t affected gang membership?
surely you’re not asking for someone to prove a negative. You’re meant to be the most logical person here but next you’ll be demanding proof there isn’t a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars.
Hows about Lhaws present the evidence that he is basing his positive assertion on and we can then either accpe that evidence as valid or not.
No, it’s not asking to prove a negative. Clearly if there are 85 gang members now, when there used to be 100, then the gang membership rate has dropped by 15% as claimed.
And yes, I would like Laws to present his evidence, but as I don’t have direct access to ask him to do so, I’d like to see what evidence Eddie used to declare that it has made no impact on gang membership. It certainly seems plausible that such a law could impact on gang membership, so to just rule it out as impossible on your own assumptions (when you’re already shown as biased against the messenger) doesn’t really seem fair.
Also, I don’t claim myself to be the most logical person here.
Finally, the term “can’t prove a negative” doesn’t actually mean much:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html
Just results from a quick google query. You’re probably already generally aware of the meaning of this (we could actually examine every instance of space in the orbits between Earth and Mars and therefore determine that there is no teapot, it’s just expensive and time consuming so we don’t do it), but using that phrase doesn’t really help the debate.
http://www.police.govt.nz/wanganui-district-council-prohibition-gang-insignia-act-2009
From the report:
“Between March 2009 and March 2010 there has been an estimated 15% fall in the number of gang members in Wanganui. This may be due to the bylaw, but strong anti-gang operations by Police have also contributed to gang members moving out of the Wanganui area or receiving custodial sentences.”
Most likely a combination of both, but probably more a direct result of the police crackdown.
Thanks.
next you’ll be demanding proof there isn’t a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars
But there is!
Flying teapot flown by the pixies from the planet Gong, mate. Jeez. Where you been?
I heard that, too, Lanth. What made me laugh was him claiming he had empirical, not anecdotal, evidence and then said it came from a Police report on changes since the law came in. Now, unless the Mob are regularly handing over their membership lists to Inspector Knacker, that report would be based on anecdotal evidence, surely?
I was half asleep at the time so don’t really remember much from it, but he gave a list of 4 things that had been a result of the law, and that’s the only one I can remember at the time. Didn’t recall that he said he had seen a police report on it.
You are of course correct, the police report will most likely be based on anecdote, and the plural of anecdote is not data.
Gang patch does not = “bloody maoris” in the slightest.
Gangs are scum, regardless of their race.
I support banning them in every shape and form. But hey, if you are happy having them in your main street stand back and do nothing. oh wait – you are.
“if you are happy having them in your main street stand back and do nothing. oh wait – you are.”
It’s not a matter of ‘doing nothing’. You’re falling into the trap of thinking that doing ‘something’ is always better than doing ‘nothing’. Lhaws did ‘something’ but it acheived nothing, which is worse than simply doing nothing because it’s a waste of recourses.
“Gang patch does not = “bloody maoris” in the slightest.”
yes, it does. It’s called dogwhistling and we all know it.
Personally, I would rather see them patched up so I know who it is I am dealing with.
As for “scum”, I would put Lhaws in that category. A nasty self-opiniated little bigot who thinks he has the right to say whatever derogatory things he likes about groups or individuals, however unsupported by the evidence, while at the same time advocating removing others’ freedom of expression.
Sorry to see you are so upset, Chris. Like you, I’d like to see an end to gangs, but this stupid law did nothing to bring that about. As Laws said this morning it made ‘Wanganui people feel safer’. Feel safer, not actually be safer.
It was just populist grandstanding, though given his shellacking at the last election, it turned out to be not so popular anyway.
Given that feeling in danger is hyped up by the media and often imaginary and that feeling in danger can actually have negative psychological impacts on a person (in general society it can even have wide economic and social effects – people choosing not to live in “the bad area of town” etc), actually improving people’s perception of safety without actually improving their safety isn’t something to write off as being a waste of time.
given he had done so much to worsen people’s perception of their safety, at best you would call it a draw.
In reality, I think the gang patch law would have worsened perceptions of safety. I think Whanganui and, because of the the song and dnace Lhaws made over this law, I think gangs and crime, and fuckwit former mayors.
True, a lot of the perception could’ve be a result of his hype.
There’s also a matter of local perception here, though. People in the town might consider it safer, whereas people outside of the town (like yourself, presumably) might now think the town really had a massive gang problem and is only barely under control thanks to the draconian law.
I see it the same way as Toad; if the gangs are wearing patches they are visable, we know where they are and who they are.
But there are gangsters who don’t wear patches, no they wear grey suites with a little masquara and seek to deny citizens (including gangs) freedom of speech , freedom of movement and freedom of association that is a contradiction to the NZ Bill of Rights.
When that by-law was passed by the whanganui council everyone should have worn a patch in protest.
I was a bit saddened by the apathy there!
@Drakula 18:43 pm
Yep, the uniform of the enemy, Drak!
Gangs are scum, regardless of their race.
Rubbish.
Some gang members are scum, but so are some, say, police officers. Doesn’t mean we should ban the police.
A higher proportion of gang members are ‘scum’ than members of almost any other organisation you can think of.
Depends on your definition of ‘scum’, but I’d also suggest the average level of ‘scumminess’ of gang members is higher than other organisations, too.
Wow…didn’t know that you had to perpetrate an act of extreme violence against a random innocent individual to earn your badge in the police, Richard.
But it’s the criminal acts that are the problem, not being a member of a gang as such.
Wearing a silly vest is not a crime.
And the 40% of those in prison who are gang members or gang associates?
Sure, if you ignore the psychosocial drivers for crime you might think that way.
A higher proportion of gang members are ‘scum’ than members of almost any other organisation
Let’s also outlaw freemasons, Jews, gypsies and homosexuals.
They are also scummy deviants who are responsible for a high proportion of social problems.
“Let’s also outlaw freemasons, Jews, gypsies and homosexuals.
They are also scummy deviants who are responsible for a high proportion of social problems.”
WTF – plus have you got any links to support your bigotry ?
[lprent: Umm. Some of the comments in these threads are getting a bit turgid. I’ll let it ride for the moment as being relevant to the Lhaws debate. But if it goes too far….
Note that this is not addressed at toad or HS. ]
Richard – you are an ignorant, disgusting Nazi bigot! People like you would have collaborated with the Gestapo!
I thought you might like to know that around 22% of all Nobel Prize winners (1901-2010) are Jewish individuals. The facts speak for themselves. Jews more than punch above their weight in almost all educational, cultural and scientific endeavours.
Here is some bedtime reading for you: http://www.jinfo.org/
Why the hell are you so threatened by people who have no interest in your preferred lifestyle whatsoever? Judging by your comments, that probably involves reading Aryan literature and masturbating over your own reflection.
i reckon a wunch of bankers could give them a run for their money
Ahhhh to reside in Lhaws world where, with a single wave of his spindly little wrist, our hero can “ban” something which offends him.
If there was a switch I could pull that would cause gangs to cease to exist I would pull it. But of course there isn’t, and actually dealing with the problem requires some thought and effort and even research, none of which goes down well on talkback radio.
Some research has looked at the concept of “resilience” in illegal organisations. We’re familiar with the idea that legitimate organisation don’t simply fold up their tent and cease to exist at the first sign of trouble but we forget that there are, for these purposes, no differences between a legal and an illegal organisation.
The researchers concluded that:
If an underground world of more serious crime than was evident pre-patch ban is unearthed in Wanganui in a few years, where will Lhaws be then? Manning up to take the blame? Or safely barricaded in his talback studio shrieking about how he’s warned us of the danger of these “bloody
Maorisgangs”…?Did I not get the memo?
Obviously there is secret knowledge that “Laws is a Racist” that I have not been privy to.
While I do not agree with all that he has said over the years, I have always found that he made his case in a reasoned way without the invective you would expect from a racist. Then again, maybe he is more clever and duplicitous than I thought.
To oppose his ideas is one thing to assume the darkest of motives is another.
What evidence is there that he is motivated by race hatred?
I’d say referring to the recently deceased King of Tonga as a ‘fat, brown slug’ counts as evidence, William.
Wasn’t that in the wake of Paul Henry’s breakdown? Given the timing, it seemed like laws was doing it deliberately to get attention and say “hey, I’m racist too!”
captcha: warning
No, that was these comments:
The King of Tonga one was earlier.
Both were racist.
Abusive, rude, fatist, trying to appear funny by running down someone else, being vile and a total git – yes.
But you still have not given me evidence of racism.
Again, you are inferring motivation without giving the evidence.
It is a specific charge that requires a specific example of misconduct.
Did you miss my comment, Wiiliam?
“Fat, brown slug”
Racist.
No – I got it. It just lacks evidence.
I could say Brownlee is a fat, white slug. It’s descriptive but not racist?
No, that would be racist, too, William. If you identify someone by their skin colour in a perjorative way, that is indeed racist.
…”white motherfuckers” okay too by you William?
Somehow, I suspect not.
[lprent: Umm. Some of the comments in these threads are getting a bit turgid. I’ll let it ride for the moment as being relevant to the Lhaws debate. But if it goes too far….
Note that this is not addressed at toad or HS. ]
The white mo-fo comment was intended to infer something disparaging about a people group.
Also context lends weight to meaning.
You would have to show that Laws was suggesting something
– to be intrinsic to Tongans as a people group (ie. determined by race)
– that his race was therefore superior to Tongans
– that the King, because he was Tongan, was therefore racially determined to be inferior as a person.
None of those things happened.
He made insulting comments about a person who just happened to be Tongan. He didn’t insult someone because he was Tongan. A subtle but important difference.
No difference at all, William, because he didn’t say fat Tongan slug, he said fat brown slug. The comment was racist. Laws is a racist. You can dissemble all you want, but nothing can change the facts.
Obviously reiteration by either of us is pointless – it’s not going to lead to agreement.
Next subject 🙂
Or walking into the NZ First Parliamentary office after Winston had ceded him total control and saying there were “too many brown faces” to be seen (by the public), relegating the Maori admin / reception person to a back room and insisting a Pakeha Senior Private Secretary sit at reception, thus violating both their terms of employment and insulting their dignity.
I’d say that’s pretty much racist.
Seems like you are well out of the loop, Joyce.
That Laws is a racist is not “secret knowledge”. Did you not listen to him during the first few days of 2009, when he devoted his show to cheering on the Israeli massacre in Gaza? Day after day, he sneered at the idea that anyone should have any concern for the women and children and elderly of Gaza, and he claimed, in apparent high seriousness, that “the Palestinians deserve everything they get, and they are all terrorists.”
His comments were the verbal equivalent of the white phosphorus bombs the Israelis dropped on the captive civilians. Laws displayed not the slightest ability to make his case “in a reasoned way without the invective you would expect from a racist”.
If cheering on the mass killing of captive civilians is not “race hatred”, then that term has no meaning.
Pointing to him supporting the bombing of civilians tells me nothing about his concepts of race. It tells me he supports the murder of the innocent people in a certain geographically determined nation/state/province as a valid means of retaliation.
The fact that could be of the same race/people group seems incidental.
This quote tells me nothing about his views on race.
Does he hate Arabs? Does he hate people with dark skins? Is he opposed all heathens in hit countries? Does he stand in the bath waving the union flag singing Jerusalem?
He may well hold those views but you haven’t proved it.
Educate me.
I love how you want documentary proof of shit that is virtually impossible to prove. Just to slow down the discussion.
You might as well ask us to provide evidence that Lhaws really likes chocolate sundaes, and not just appreciates them.
Daft.
Only one way to find out this level of detail, and that’s to ask him. Of course, he’ll lie (or obfuscate) whichever way so again, what’s the point?
….because of the soft ground of evidence you speak of, people need to tread carefully and speak less emphatically. The tone of the original article was quite scathing and nobody was stumping up with the goods. The term racist is so loaded and so often used lazily by people who want to label someone and then engage in knee jerk reactions.
You do raise a good point about the quality of evidence that can be expected but it would be good if people spent more time in analysis rather than reaction.
Now you’re positioning yourself as the voice of moderation, and editorial fairness?
Oh frak off before I choke.
I have never tried to be otherwise. Rather, I have spent more time trying to correct the knee-jerk reactions and assumptions made by others who assumed a range of things that weren’t true or relevant.
Are you wanting this to be a forum where people can make assertions without evidence and when someone comes into a particular debate, ignorant of the background as I was, and wants to know why people hold that attitude you treat it like “It’s open season folks – the anti-christ with the unfortunate name has entered the debate!”
Yikes!
“Oh frak off before I choke.” – really? Must be a overly sensitive gag response – I’d get that looked at. One day it could lead you to choking on your own words.
Oh, William, it was really nothing …
It’s not ‘an unfortunate name’ dude, it took thought and action. You deliberately chose it using your own free will then you typed it into the little box. And you only use the handle “William Joyce” here at the Standard, which shows further deliberation. You’ve been called on it and, frankly, I think you should retire it and just use what ever name you use when you post on Whale or Stormfront or where ever it you usually go to get your jollies.
[lprent: getting close to speculating on identities. ]
Obviously your handle has an equal amount of energy, “thought and action” put into it and like mine, you obviously intended The Voice of Reason to be ironic.
Oh, as for posting under another name elsewhere – fair cop, you got me, I’m a cleverly disguised member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
Be careful tonight – I may be hiding under you bed.
For fraks sake get off it.
It’s not a “conspiracy”, and I will tell you why. Because the vast Right Wing plan is bloody obvious and well known, it has been consistent in it’s objectives for decades even as its operational emphasis has adapted over time.
Transfer societal wealth upwards and secure the privilege of an elite aristocratic class at any cost to the common good.
Sheeeesh its not rocket science
In his anxiety to support the vicious radio bully Michael Laws, our friend Lord Haw Haw has made some disturbing statements…
1.) “…supporting the bombing of civilians tells me nothing about his concepts of race”
Well, yes it does, when this support is expressed in the same kind of hate-filled racially charged rhetoric that Alan Jones and John Laws inflict on their listeners in Australia.
2.) “…the murder of the innocent people…as a valid means of retaliation”
By the way you’ve written this, it seems you agree with those crimes. Please say it ain’t so, Joyce.
3.)“Does he hate Arabs?”
Judging by his violent, race-baiting rhetoric, both on air and in his ghastly Sunday Star-Times column, yes, Michael Laws hates Arabs. Your strategy of demanding proof of the blindingly obvious raises an obvious question: how many examples of a radio broadcaster exhorting a foreign power to destroy a captive Arab population would you need before you were convinced that he hated Arabs?
4.) “Does he hate people with dark skins?”
He hates people with white skins too. The people of Gaza look just like their Israeli oppressors. It’s not “race” per se that motivates the hatred of people like Michael Laws, it’s politics, viz. the politics of the extreme right.
5.) He may well hold those views but you haven’t proved it.
I think it’s obvious to anyone who cares to look at the facts that I have indeed proved Michael Laws is a brutal and unabashed supporter of the cruelest and most inhuman treatment of innocent people. Does that make him a “racist”? Well, that’s debatable, I guess, but one thing is almost certain: he’s a hateful, condescending, and poorly informed broadcaster, and what he says should be scrutinized and contested.
Do you have a reference for the “the Palestinians deserve everything they get, and they are all terrorists.” quote?
Morrissey – do you have a reference for the “the Palestinians deserve everything they get, and they are all terrorists.” quote?
[lprent: normally I’d be watching with interest to see the link appear. But radio talkback doesn’t usually archive anything on the net. I’ll not going to insist on substantiation for that one. ]
He said those very words, and variations thereof, every day during January 2009. He was not the only one on Radio Live to speak like that, of course: James Coleman was equally vicious, and just as lamentably ignorant.
I’ll take your word for it. Not having heard it I am in no place to judge but it would have been nice to have a quote.
1.) “I’ll take your word for it.” Thanks for the vote of confidence. I assure you that is a precise transcript of what Laws said on one occasion. I wrote it down. He repeated the message, in pretty much the same words, every day he was on air in January 2009.
2.) “…it would have been nice to have a quote.”
That is the quote. Verbatim.
Mr. Joyce,
What else is markedly different about the parallel universe you come from?
““Gang patch does not = “bloody maoris” in the slightest.”
yes, it does. It’s called dogwhistling and we all know it.”
if you have that racist view then that’s up to you – bit dont go putting your slant on me because we dont “all know it” – I know I dont have that view. Plenty of scum who are white gang members also.
Laws claimed that his bylaw reduced gang numbers.Now that his bylaw has been turfed out, will those numbers return to what they were – rocket up even?
Mr Laws?
(anti-spam word: possible)
hey what about the dialectic dudes.
you know.
thesis.antithesis.synthesis.
and I dont like sweepeing things under the carpet.
its better to lance a boil than to see it fester.
especially under a large weight of denial.
“This quote tells me nothing about his views on race.
Does he hate Arabs? Does he hate people with dark skins? Is he opposed all heathens in hit countries? Does he stand in the bath waving the union flag singing Jerusalem?”
What about your own views on race, Mr Joyce? Did you adopt the nom de plume “William Joyce” out of admiration for the WW2 fascist propagandist know as Lord Haw Haw, or is that a coincidence?
Tom, Tom, Tom *sigh*
Play the ball, not the player.
What have my racial views got anything to do with it?
My arguments should stand or fall on how sound they are. Not on any guesses you make about my attitude based upon such flimsy evidence as my supposed non de plume.
What if William Joyce was a name given to me at birth? Are you therefore saying that the circumstances of my birth are an indicator of what views I hold?
Seems I have heard that sort of argument before – oh that’s right….from racists.
If you have a counter argument that can withstand scrutiny then put it up.
I suspect your racial views are why you are defending Laws, William. Why else would you be so exercised about it? Certainly, it’s not because your argument stands up to any scrutiny.
How about you confirm or deny Tom’s suggestion? Is William Joyce your name because of the fascist connection or not?
To the Voice of Reason et al
You said “suspect your racial views are why you are defending Laws”. When two people can’t reach an agreement it must be because the other person is evil?
It takes imagination to allow for other possibilities. (and there are!)
Could it be that I just wanted people to elaborate on why they thought Laws was racist and was not satisfied with the level of evidence presented.
Isn’t not an unreasonable expectation.
Or, god forbid, this becomes a forum of like minded people who all pat themselves on the back for holding the same views, maintaining the group-thought and assume evil of anyone who disagrees with them.
As for answering the William Joyce question – that would be too easy. Labels can be useful short cuts to identification but they can also be excuses to get involved in knee-jerk reactions instead of engaging in some real thinking and dialogue.
As for being “so exercised about it” – did you ever think that it might be that it’s just a slow day at my end and I am engaged about a dialogue on this. Hence the frequency and number of posts. Eventually, once everyone will have staked out their positions and there will either be synthesis or agreement or we will all move on to more important things.
I apologise if the tone of my posts has anyone all “riled-up” – I have tried to be as fair as possible.
captcha : campaigns – not really, just a bit of two an fro
Lolz.
Can you really not see why something like “the Palestinians deserve everything they get, and they are all terrorists.” might be regarded as racist?
Yes, I think I got too engaged in challenging the other, poor, evidence presented that I missed this detail. Thanks, mcflock and the original poster. This is a smoking gun.
He is, as you point out, attributing pejorative qualities to a people group and generalising the wrongdoing of some into an intrinsic racial quality and then advocating the eradication of that group.
I apologise for not seeing it earlier and now accept he is not above making racist comments.
I would like to see a trend of comments before I go as far labelling him racist.
The attitude that to be Indian and overweight is “incongruous” seems to me to also be a a racially-based attitude.
That’s 2. I also think the “bloated, brown slug” comment was a bit off.
How many do you want before you declare a trend??
Ironically Joyce, racism is all about playing the player, as I’m sure you know.
I wouldn’t worry about Joyce and his LuvaLaws carry on…….some people are so intellectually dishonest that they need DNA proof that Laws is a racist before they’ll acknowledge.
Which means they probably actually support his vile racism.
In an interview with the current mayor i heard on the radio today she reckoned the public supported it and that the police believed it had contributed to lower crime rates
And does that give reason to deny the basic human right of freedom of expression?
Like the homophobic bigots who protest against gays at military funerals in Kansas, and like the arch-bigot Lhaws himself, who uses hate-speech all the time – the law should not interfere. Let the people deal with those issues through democratic debate.
That right should be denied by the law only in the most extreme of circumstances (such as incitement to genocide or violence against a particular group).
Ban Lhaws?
He is shown to exercise hate speech against minorities. Maybe he needs to be legislated against personally? “As per subsection 3.1, if your name is Michael Laws you may not attempt to publish or broadcast any opinion you hold as it has preemptively been determined as full of shit”
^_^