April 28, 2008...12:03 am

Review: Absolute Power, by Ian Wishart — Innuendo, smut and conspiracy, but bestseller material nonetheless

This is another typical Ian Wishart book written in the breathless style of a 1950s American detective novel, but about current New Zealand events.

Wishart is a journalist who cut his teeth in the 1990s exposing the Winebox affair when he worked for TVNZ before setting up his own publishing house, Howling at the Moon, which published his first and most famous book, The Paradise Conspiracy, as well as many subsequent books by himself and others.

The basic hypothesis of Absolute Power will be well known to anyone who reads Wishart’s Investigate magazine. Prime Minister Helen Clark is, he claims, corrupt and is in a marriage of convenience. Many of the details he gives to support his thesis are unsubstantiated baloney and say far more about his own obsession with Helen Clark than about her.

There is a market for this kind of trash and Wishart mines it well.

Many sleazy people move through the pages of Absolute Power, but mostly they are his shadowy “informants,” not those his book sets out to destroy, who include not just Helen Clark, but also senior police officers such as commissioner Howard Broad and his offsider Rob Pope.

This is nonetheless a readable book despite the Mickey Spillane-style purple prose the author writes in. The target audience of anti-Labour diehards will enjoy it immensely, though the cast of characters in some chapters is so vast, and the detail so intricate, that it often becomes hard to keep track of who is allegedly doing what to whom.

Three whole chapters are devoted to Wishart’s obsession with the private lives of the prime minister and her husband. Other chapters are equally obsessed with attempting to destroy police commissioner Howard Broad, another Wishart target for some time now.

For some reason of Wishart’s mindset, it was allegedly disgraceful and also Clark’s fault that former commissioner Peter Doone lost his job when the car his partner was driving was stopped by a police patrol for having its lights off on election night in 1999, but Broad did not lose his job when he allegedly went through a police roadblock in 1992. Whether or not the Broad allegation happened, Labour was not the government in 1992, something Wishart overlooks. As he overlooks, exaggerates or fantasises about many things in this book’s 336 pages and 18 chapters.

Helen Clark is an elected politician and so has to live with a book like this. Wishart is on rather shakier ground in his pursuit of the personal lives of people like the police commissioner.

While Nicky Hager’s turgid, almost-as-conspiratorial Hollow Men helped to bring about the downfall of National leader Don Brash, Absolute Power is unlikely to cause similar problems for Helen Clark. Unless I missed it somewhere, it contains no smoking gun, just a restating at great length of material Wishart has canvassed before. The mainstream media’s only interest in it to date was over the 1992 claims about Howard Broad.

It is good that we live in a democracy where someone like Ian Wishart can write such conspiratorial innuendo and smut. If we lived in the kind of country Ian seems to believe we do live in, Ian would be the first in front of the firing squad. But we don’t.

Wishart has a naïveness which is somehow appealing in a journalist, all too many of whom are bitter and cynical. This doesn’t mean I believe every word he says, or even many of them. I think he lives in Fantasyland. The X Files was and may still be his favourite TV show. But this will have no effect on his blogosphere and talkbackland fans who want to believe his every conspiratorial word, and have already made Absolute Power a bestseller.

Absolute Power, The Helen Clark Years, by Ian Wishart, Howling At The Moon, $34.99. At all bookshops. **

160 Comments

  • Poneke it is you who live in “Fantasyland”. Helen Clark and her husband are both homosexuals and the New Zealand police are rotten to the core. When are deluded pious creeps going to accept NZ is bad need of cleansing and the disinfectant rays of sunlight?

    According to the latest Police statistics violent crime has increased by 43.6 percent since Labour has been in office, rising from 39,688 recorded cases in 1999 to 56,983 last year.

    We have a society blighted by inequality ONLY because we allow a self-appointed political and legal elite to undermine our seriously flawed democracy. Why does the media that promotes this flawed democracy and concentrate their time almost entirely on the limited group who get selected for political positions, also concentrate their venom on those at the bottom of the inequality ladder while allowing the massive disparities in wealth. Oh that’s right, Miss Clark said poverty in NZ is just”extrapolated from an anecdote” and the media stool pigeons never challenge her on anything as they’re gutless wind bags.

  • “Helen Clark and her husband are both homosexuals…”

    So what?

  • dad4justice

    Even if they are, what actually is wrong with being homosexual? Is it your bigotry that prevetns you from maintaining a rational view of the world you live in?

    Please elaborate on how democracy is seriously flawed in NZ (emphasis on the “seriously” here). Considering NZ is consistently rated as one of the most democratic countries globally, what does that then say for the rest of the world? Or does your strongly negative attitude imply that the concept of democracy is to be decried? Your blantant homophobia would indeed be in keeping with this, so perhaps you are just sore that you don’t live in a country where only people who share your bigotries have respect?

    Oh, and thanks for the review, Poneke. I respect and appreciate what you have to say on your blog and your typically clear and informative blog prose makes it easy to put your review into context. Hence it has just reinforced my opinion that this really is a book I do not need to spend any time on. At all.

  • By all accounts of those who know & knew Mr. Wishart he was a hard living investigative journalist who had a Damascean conversion to fervent and militant Christian evangelicism. His journalism style remains; But he is now an unshakeable religious fanatic who sees it as his Godly mission to bring down those who he imagines as opposing his version of the truth.

  • Toward the end of last year I wrote a research paper (I work in the media analysis industry and I’m doing postgrad research in symbolic politics at VUW) on the attack discourse against Helen Clark in The First Edition, the now-defunct Radio Pacific’s breakfast talkback show, hosted by John Banks and Lindsay Perigo. Most of the same discursive matter is par for the course in that anti-Labour die-hard end of the blogosphere from which dad4justice and his ilk occasionally emerge.

    The discourse explicitly characterises Helen Clark as a communist lesbian dictator, and deploys all manner of symbolic hyperbole in support of this position, though precious little of it actually stands up to scrutiny in the cold light of day. The discourse is misogynistic and homophobic, deeply ethnocentric and essentially uses personal attacks to attack Clark’s political career, role and policies. In the absence of any genuine political basis from which to criticise Clark and by extension the government, her enemies dredge up whatever saucy matter they can, and pad it out with dodgy speculation and chicken licken warnings about the end of the world as we know it. The trouble is, people aren’t really listening. I wonder how many of John Key’s well-targeted professional female demographic would vote for him if they knew that he thinks the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is run by `man-hating lesbians’; yes, he said it on nationwide radio.

    Ultimately, Poneke, the finding of your pre-review look at Absolute Power (which as far as I can tell without reading it, traverses almost identical ground) matches my analysis of The First Edition: that despite the howling about totalitarian control from the attack dogs of the political-media complex, democracy is alive and well in New Zealand in 2008.

    L

  • A couple of points that I can’t leave unchallenged:

    1: The reason for pursuing Broad and Pope is because they and Labour dug their heels in against the need for a Commission of Inquiry into the Police. Far from “shadowy” sources, I have affidavits, statements and witnesses prepared to stand up in an inquiry – serving and former officers – who will testify to widespread police corruption. The Prime Minister and King were both placed on notice about Broad last year, but chose to roll with a cover-up.

    The PM and King also chose to defame me and others speaking up about police corruption, by using testimony of a corrupt former cop against us, a person recommended to King by Howard Broad.

    The thesis of Absolute Power is that our system has become corrupted. In a functioning democracy law enforcement agencies work without fear or favour to uphold the law. There are a number of examples in the book (and in our files) where they do not. Exposing police corruption that this Government has failed to move against, and which it has been on notice about for up to eight years in some cases, is part of the role of the Fourth Estate.

    When the same law enforcement agencies go soft on the Government, even when acknowledging they believe the Prime Minister and MP Chris Carter lied to to them during the official investigation, raises serious questions that, sadly, the rest of the media are either too dimwitted or too in thrall to acknowledge.

    THAT is the reason for the inclusion, and the link between Broad and the Labour administration.

    You write, “Whether or not the Broad allegation happened…” as if this was some kind of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. It happened. The SSC has confirmed it. Broad admits driving drunk, admits swerving across a lane, admits being forbidden to drive further, and admits he and a senior officer spoke to the junior cop who then “independently” exercised his “discretion” not to breath test a self-admitted drinking driver who happened to be one of his bosses.

    What planet are you on? Which part of inappropriate behaviour by a senior officer escapes you? Which part of continuing relevance escapes you? Broad is now the most senior road traffic safety official in the country.

    2. Secondly, this continuing liberal obsession with denying the flaming obvious. That Clark is in a “marriage of convenience” is not “unsubstantiated” as you suggest – she admits the point herself.

    The issue is not her sexual orientation per se, which neither I nor you probably give a hoot about. The issue is about hypocrisy and dishonesty in an elected public figure who happens to be the country’s most powerful individual.

    If Clark has lied to the public about her private life, this is not something “private” to her or Davis – it is directly relevant to the electorate as well. They married purely for political reasons, and have admitted this. However, in the mid-90s makeover of Clark at the hands of Edwards and co, the mythology was twisted to portray the relationship as “just like everyone else’s”. Yet in the book I have, in the words of one review over at No Minister, “eviscerated” some of these carefully crafted claims about Clark. They just are not true.

    If you wish to challenge me on this then mount a coherent argument as to why the public have no right to know, rather than smearing it as innuendo.

    BTW, it isn’t “innuendo”. Unlike the tone of your review, which doesn’t actually deal with a single factual problem in the book at all. Instead, you chastise me for daring to look into these areas, but offer no examples of any serious issue in there that is “unsubstantiated”.

    Clark destroyed Doone by DELIBERATELY leaking FALSE information to the news media. Her own affidavit concedes the words used, and the public record shows those words and claims did not appear in either official report on her desk at the time.

    Are you excusing this behaviour in a Prime Minister?

    Get me on the facts, not on my opinions. Show me where a substantial error in the book exists, instead of whingeing.

    The book professes to be a biography of the Helen Clark years and the political machine she built. By definition, coverage of Clark’s personal life was unavoidable, especially given that Clark had raised the issues herself in both the Myers and Edwards books. What kind of “biography” avoids biographical scrutiny? You might be on solid ground had this been unique coverage, but it wasn’t.

    You don’t like my approach. Fine, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. But don’t leap from that to discrediting the book, unless you have some specific examples. Bear in mind the book is 150,000 words long…so taking a paragraph out of context is not a valid way of pinging me either.

    I have yet to see a substantive review from my critics that actually deals with the facts, rather than simply trying to spin it.

  • Ian Wishart:

    I think you have overestimated how much New Zealanders care for Clinton-type exposure of private sex lives. I don’t care if Helen Clark spun her marriage with Peter Davis, I really think that has nothing to do with her job as prime minister. I don’t care if she married for political reasons. I just do not care.

    And I’m a traditional Roman Catholic Ian… I don’t even agree with homosexual relationships or even chosen childless marriages. But each individual must deal with their private life themselves and you have no right to go writing about Helen Clark’s or anyone else’s.

    This isn’t America.

  • There are serious allegations hanging over senior police, that will not go away until appropriate inquiries are formed.

    (1) Howard Broad
    Refer http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0604/S00041.htm 5 April 2006
    Dr Lynley Hood writes: “Howard Broad’s press conference in October 1992 destroyed the careers and previously unblemished reputations of four well-qualified, experienced and dedicated child care workers” “With Howard Broad’s appointment as the country’s top police officer, there is a real risk that ongoing damage caused to the fabric of New Zealand society by sex abuse hysteria and false allegations will continue unabated.”

    An inquiry into all aspects of the Peter Ellis case, as called for by over one hundred prominent New Zealanders is important for many reasons. Having our most senior police officer involved in this case is cause for concern, and is possibly one reason why justice is being delayed for Ellis..

    (2) Rob Pope
    http://www.hunterproductions.co.nz/ and the book “Trial by Trickery”
    Keith Hunter has established a solid case of professional misconduct against our second most senior police officer, Rob Pope, with regards to the Scott Watson case. Such serious allegations against any police officer, and especially a police officer who is now a Deputy Commissioner, cannot be swept under the carpet.

    Restoring confidence in the police should be a priority. The police have shown a ready willingness to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct within their ranks. They have shown much less willingness to openly investigate allegations of professional incompetence or professional misconduct that do not involve issues of sex.

    I do not see a conspiracy. I see possible human failing in some particular cases.

  • Muerk, I appreciate your honesty in making your point. We just happen to disagree on the relevance.

    Nor is the approach you disagree with confined to US politics. As those who read Absolute Power will confirm, I draw a lot on an ethics paper produced by a British law professor, who argues very stridently that these are matters that MUST be covered by the media in order to properly inform voters.

    Sure, a large chunk of voters like yourself might say “so what?”. That’s fine and good. Another chunk might say, “we don’t like Politician X because of this”. That too is just as legitimate.

    You cannot subdivide political coverage according to “right-think” and say that because we intellectuals find something about an elected official to be private, that therefore no-one else is entitled to the information. That is imposing YOUR moral perspective on the political process.

    Clearly you speak for many on this thread who would agree with you – but the existence of disagreement on other blogs points to the fact that many others do find this information relevant. Who are you, or for that matter Poneke, to rule something out of bounds merely because it offends your own sensibilities.

    Facts are facts are facts. Opinions on the other hand are diverse and freely held.

    A small minority of the NZ public might decide that Clark’s orientation makes her unsuitable to be PM in their eyes. A much larger chunk, I suspect, might be more disturbed about the overall pattern of dishonesty. Either way, it is information voters are entitled to know.

  • If Clark has lied to the public about her private life, this is not something “private” to her or Davis – it is directly relevant to the electorate as well. They married purely for political reasons, and have admitted this. However, in the mid-90s makeover of Clark at the hands of Edwards and co, the mythology was twisted to portray the relationship as “just like everyone else’s”. Yet in the book I have, in the words of one review over at No Minister, “eviscerated” some of these carefully crafted claims about Clark. They just are not true.

    And yet oddly Ian, there they are, 27 years on, apparently perfectly comfortable with each other. It’s hardly unusual for senior politicians to get divorced now; you’ve done so yourself. And yet these two people have been together more than a quarter of a century. It seems a long time to carry on a fraud, doesn’t it?

  • > Helen Clark is an elected politician and so has to live with a book like this.

    What exactly does that mean? Howard Broad and Rob Pope are not elected politicians, so are you saying they don’t have to live with the book? The fact that Ms Clark is an MP seems to me to be irrelevant. What’s relevant is that she is in the public arena and is not averse to criticising others, sometimes unfairly. She therefore cannot expect to be free from criticism herself.

  • Thank you for your reply Ian. I think it’s positive that you wrote your book because I think free speech is important. But you know my personal opinion and it’s the reason why I won’t be reading your book.

    I realise that you and many others will disagree with my position that it’s not my business to delve into politician’s sexual business, but I think it’s important for both voices to be heard.

    It’s not that coverage of private lives offends my sensibilities per se, it’s that I think every person is entitled to privacy provided they aren’t a moral example. Thus if a Catholic priest was having a sexual affair I think that would need to be dealt with by the Church. Likewise if an evangelical pastor was having an affair, that’s an issue.

    But we didn’t elect Helen Clark to teach us about moral behavior. We elected her to be a politician. How can her legal sexual behavior in private matter to public policy?

  • Danyl Mclauchlan

    A small minority of the NZ public might decide that Clark’s orientation makes her unsuitable to be PM in their eyes. A much larger chunk, I suspect, might be more disturbed about the overall pattern of dishonesty. Either way, it is information voters are entitled to know.

    One of the uncommented but creepiest aspects of Ian’s behaviour is his continued public hounding of Clark’s husband. You can I suppose, make the argument that anything can be revealed about public figures so long as someone might be interested.

    Of course, this argument could be used to justify publishing pictures of John Key’s dick on the grounds that ‘a small minority’ might be influenced by information about the size of the leader’s genitals and thus ‘it is information voters are entitled to know’.

    No doubt Ian justifies his fascination with the personal life of Peter Davis – a private citizen unaccountable to the public and media – by convincing himself that relation about Davis is directly related to Clark. Once again, however, this identical argument can be used to target the family member of any political or public figure imaginable.

    You have to wonder about the caliber of people we’re going to get in New Zealand political life if people like Ian Wishart feel free to target not only them but their friends and family members.

  • Muerk…if my book was complaining about her sexual behaviour, you would be correct in your analysis.

    It is my critics who continually paint the straw man argument that I’m somehow obsessed with sexuality. As I point out in the book, I’ve lived in a gay household, worked alongside gay colleagues and for gay bosses, socialised with gay colleagues etc blah blah…IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PRIVATE SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. IT IS ABOUT WHETHER THE POLITICIAN HAS MANIPULATED THE PUBLIC VIA DISHONESTY.

    It would equally apply to a National politician. Any politician who lies to the electorate in order to gain votes deserves, at the very least, to have the lie examined and exposed. If voters decide to forgive because of other character strengths in the politician, then that’s their choice and good on them.

    If Clark had lied about her private educational attainments, this would be relevant for discussion, even if she had an unblemished record actually performing the job as Prime Minister. Why should a lie about other aspects of your personal life be magically out of bounds?

    I’m not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs, but it needs to be remembered that elected public figures are different from Joe Bloggs being hired by a private company.

    Politicians are seeking public office and a public mandate. They are seeking to be paid a salary by taxpayers, and even more significantly seeking control of your taxes and the power to make laws over you. Voters have a right (and according to the international ethicists an obligation) to dig deeper into the character of a politician than an ordinary person.

    Professor Frederick Schauer, at Harvard, argues it this way in regard to your specific point about the Prime Minister’s job description:

    “The claim that marital infidelity is irrelevant to the office of President of the United States presupposes that the role of President should not include the role of being an exemplar of marital fidelity. For many people it should not, but for many others it should, and debates about relevance to the job are commonly smokescreens for debates about just what it is that the job really entails.

    “It is widely known that President Clinton cheats at golf. Although it is clear that playing golf is not part of the job description of President…many people believe that maintaining certain high standards of veracity are indeed part of that job description. And if that is the case, then the empirical question is presented whether evidence of cheating at golf is some evidence of (or relevant to) a likely failure to maintain high standards of veracity in public pronouncements.”

    This of course, (I wrote in Absolute Power) “is precisely the credibility problem Helen Clark has during this election year: does she have a flawed character that, while it might be forgiven once, is now showing a clear pattern of behavior?”

    Russell: if you had read Absolute Power you would know I address the precise point you make. The longevity of a marriage of convenience does not change its inherent nature. In fact, many couples who married out of a genuine love and romantic passion for each other would probably find it offensive that a marriage of political convenience is held up as an example. Friends can be friends for life. If there is no sexual tension and passion then the strains on the relationship are far lower than those on an ordinary marriage.

    This is precisely one of the reasons that it is valid to examine. You are not the first to boast about how long the PM’s marriage has lasted – she herself has. She’s put this particular ball in play.

    And Danyl…once again you manage to miss the point.

    By her own admission, Clark “married” Davis for political reasons.

    From Nov 6, 1981, Davis became a political pawn in his wife’s career. BY HER OWN ADMISSION.

    He was wheeled out for photo opportunities, and woven into mythologies created by Clark’s spinmeisters.

    His private life (some of it) was carefully laid out in Helen Clark’s official biography.

    Since when does that qualify him to be some ingenue private citizen in your eyes?

    Get some substance to your arguments, man!

  • If Helen Clark was so scheming in regards to her personal life, why would she have made the public admissions that she did? It makes no sense.

    I do admit that my criticism is based on what others have stated about your book, but I just don’t think I’m interested in knowing about either Helen Clark’s or Peter Davis’ private life.

  • Yeah, Muerk…I’m not here to force anyone to change their mind…and it is entirely valid for you as a voter to determine that private lives are irrelevant to public duty as far as your vote is concerned.

    As you’ve probably now guessed, the context of all of this, including Clark’s public statements and where they fit, is much more fully and carefully explored in the book.

    Have a good afternoon.

  • > The issue is not her sexual orientation per se, which neither I nor you probably give a hoot about.

    Au contraire, you quite clearly give rather more than a hoot about it, to the point of obsession.

    And for somebody who keeps talking about individuals’ “private lives”, you seem to invest an inordinate amount of effort into making them “public”.

  • *Sigh*.

    Trevor. Firstly, have you actually read the book or is your bald statement based on third-hand hearsay?

    Secondly, assuming you have read it, where in the book am I obssessed with orientation of Clark and Davis per se, as opposed to presenting evidence that the public have been misled? Specific examples in context please.

  • Andrew Bannister

    Ian, people get married for many reasons. Love may be one of many. However, there are many, many, many people who have entered into marriage for reasons other than love. Historically marriage was a matter of mutual benefit, where love was often not the motivating factor for marriage. Marriage motivated by love is a relatively new (and European) phenomenon. What makes you so arrogant to assume that a “marriage” is only a “marriage” when defined by your small-minded world view.

    As for this:
    …so taking a paragraph out of context is not a valid way of pinging me either

    That is rich coming from you. Let’s take a look at “Eve’s Bite” (another Wishart spin-piece) in which you quote Karl Marx:
    When Engels and I first joined the secret Communist Society we made it a condition that everything tending to encourage superstitious belief in authority was to be removed from the statutes. Law, morality, religion are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

    Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality.

    But the full quote is actually:
    “Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

    “There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

    What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

    Hang your head in shame, Ian.

  • No, I haven’t read the book. I’m sure you’re surprised :-)

    However I have seen your magazine so I’m not completely in the dark when I speculate firstly that, in your opinion, the decision on whether subject matter qualifies as public or private is one which you believe is entirely up to you, and, secondly, that the basis of your decision is not objective but driven by your own “private” (sic) fundamentalist agenda.

    [Poneke says: Trevor, I have read the book (and unlike the bloggers who bat for Ian, I actually bought my copy). I assure you that page after page after page after page obsesses in tendentious and intricate detail over what Ian is convinced are the sexual orientations of the prime minister and her husband.]

  • Outstanding book Ian. I preordered my copy.

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the who cares attitude of NZ’ers to this. Also, I find it extraordinary given the official documents you list that people still go on about anonymous sources.

    I suspect that our media, who deliberately covered up such important issues as Doongate (BTW Poneke, this is NOT unsubstantiated. Fran O’Sullivan has admitted in print she had that story but did not have the “cajones to print it prior to the last election) will now face some rather pointed questions re what they have been doing for the last 8 years.

    I still remember hearing Debra Hill Cone and the Herald report on Larry Williams when the media was getting stuck into Labour for stealing the 800K (forgot the Herald reporters name sorry). Debra said how surprised she was as she claimed the media was normally so complacent and in some instances had covered up problems with Labour.

    What intrigued me was the Herald report, and Williams did not contradict her.

    So Ian, you have done a great job. Unfortunately all voices that stand against the status quo however have to be shot at.

    How far have we fallen. No wonder 1 in 10 families are thinking about going to Aus. You guys that think nothing of this corruption make me sick.

  • Ian, you may say that you are not obsessed with sexual orientation or give two hoots about it, given you believe the PM has has manipulated the public via her dishonesty.

    But, say she is gay. Why do you care so much she has hidden that? Aren’t other lies and manipulations a lot worse. Stuff you havent put in your book, particularly arould welfare – in that unemployment is lower than it has been since 1999 because one in five are on training benefits and a good majority of the rest are on other benfits or studying in lieu of being on a benefit.

  • Andrew…I seem to recall having this debate on Ryan’s blog…and it was an error on my part in not delineating the quotes…the thrust of the argument remained valid however…I waded through Marx’s material to ensure I understood his argument.

    Regardless, the point which you also glaringly avoid is that Clark’s was a “political” marriage. That’s all it was, right from day one, in her own words.

    As a political marriage, for political vote-catching purposes, it is by definition within the purview of a political biography.

    Dave…good points, but I’m not sure I can directly ping Clark for every trick Labour pulls. The book details a range of “hoist on your petard” topics like those you mention – some of which involved Clark directly.

    Lying about your personal background goes to personal character, and thus is relevant to voters. And as I have said elsewhere, Clark was the first to raise it. All subsequent biographies, including mine, are forced to deal with it whether we like it or not.

    Poneke…I’m glad you raised your interjection because it proves you were so blinkered in going after me that you didn’t see the wood for the trees.

    If I make a statement: “I think the Prime Minister’s marriage is a political sham”, I actually have to back it up with reason and evidence. That is the ‘tendentious’ detail you complain of.

    I’m not interested in her sexuality per se, but I’m very interested in public statements that don’t stack up. Exploring those areas takes space, and an attention to detail.

  • This is precisely one of the reasons that it is valid to examine. You are not the first to boast about how long the PM’s marriage has lasted – she herself has.

    I’m not “boasting” on someone else’s behalf, although I do find enduring relationships admirable. My partner and I have been together for nearly as long as Clark and Davis, and have known each other for longer. It’s entirely possible that, had I wanted to stand for Parliament in that era (or even get a mortgage from a bank) we’d have had to get married to meet the prevailing social norms.

    I fail to see how such a circumstance justifies your panty-sniffing obsession.

    She’s put this particular ball in play.

    Just like her mentioning in a biography that “lesbian” was one of the names she’d been called justified your unending public obsession with the idea? Didn’t Danyl completely take you to the cleaners on your own blog about that one?

  • Danyl Mclauchlan

    Regardless, the point which you also glaringly avoid is that Clark’s was a “political” marriage. That’s all it was, right from day one, in her own words.

    I’m curious to know how you think Clark has been deceiving us all this time about her marriage being a political sham if – as you say – she has said in her own words that her marriage is a political sham.

    The reality is that Clark and Davis were in a relationship and had been living together for several years and prior to the 1981 election Clark was told that she’d be more electable if she was married, and that was that. She’s said in retrospect that if she’d had the option she’d have had a civil union.

    The only question here is whether Ian is so blinded by his hatred of Clark that he’s sold himself his own horseshit or if he’s aware of how dishonest his version of history is? I’m tending towards the latter.

  • If I make a statement: “I think the Prime Minister’s marriage is a political sham”, I actually have to back it up with reason and evidence. That is the ‘tendentious’ detail you complain of.

    Ian you misrepresent much about Clark and her marriage. In 1981, Clark was a political studies lecturer at Auckland University. She lived with Peter Davis. They were an item. “Living in sin” was not as acceptable then as it is today. In 1972, only nine years before, Brian Edwards failed to win the eminently winnable Miramar seat because, a week before the election, Truth ran a story saying he was living with a woman to whom he was not married. It scandalised enough people to cost Edwards the seat. Jim Anderton, who was Labour Party president in 1981, recalled this vividly when Clark was selected as candidate for Mt Albert, and he more or less ordered Clark to marry the man with whom she lived and with whom she openly stated she intended to spend the rest of her life.

    It was as simple as that.

    While some might could argue they were married for a “political convenience,” it was not a “marriage of convenience” in the sense you paint it. To this day they are a close couple who spend their weekends together despite working in different cities and who holiday together privately and undertake many other private activities together.

    This is so far from how you paint their marriage, you are the one on a different planet.

  • Andrew Bannister

    it was an error on my part
    Yes, and I think it is important to point that out again, as it seriously questions your credibility. The error was a big error. So big in fact, that it might even be perceived by some as calculated. You rely heavily on misrepresentations and poorly presented (or poorly understood) science and statistics to push your case. I admit, I’ve only read Eve’s Bite (and the occasional snippet from that ironically titled rag of yours), which was just appalling and it convinces me that I should not take anything you write, seriously. Of course, you are fortunate that your writing does not have to pass the peer-review process, so your rancid tripe will make it to the shelves.

    Regardless, the point which you also glaringly avoid is that Clark’s was a “political” marriage … for political vote-catching purposes

    Ian, that is one hell of a stretch and really illustrates how you spin things. I doubt anyone gains votes because they are married. However, narrow-minded people might not vote for someone because they are not married (especially a woman 20-30 years ago). Ultimately it says more about the intolerances of society than about the ability of the person. Given that being married, or not married, is irrelevant to the ability of being an MP, it shouldn’t even be a factor. However, some thought it might be and Clark chose to nullify that (irrelevant) factor.

    Interesting that Clark and Davis are still together though. Brash (for example) already has 2 failed marriages behind him. Which is the sham marriage?

    ps, I also don’t think divorces are relevant to being an able MP or PM either.

  • During the debate on civil unions Clark at one point admitted that she had had boyfriends (plural) before meeting Davis.

  • Ian,

    I don’t care much for politics. (Although policy is another matter.)

    Helen and Peter’s marriage may have been brought forward in time or taken in a form that in hindsight they might not have chosen (marriage rather than civil union), but neither make the marriage a sham. A sham is when the event itself is false, this is clearly not the case here. No Las Vegas certificates here… ;-)

    You talk about dishonesty in others. Do you mind while I hold a up mirror to see your face in while you say that?

  • Russell…the day Danyl succeeds in taking me to “the cleaners” over anything is the day it’s my shout for drinks.

    As a lowly Labour pamphlet boy, I’m not sure Russell how close you were to the centres of power in Labour. From my own discussions with people in Labour who are household names, and from those who have personally known and worked alongside Peter Davis in the distant past, long before his involvement with Clark, I have a pretty good picture of the two protagonists that is dissonant from the official version.

    Again, do I care if they’re gay? No. Do I care if Clark has manipulated the public? Absolutely.

  • Ian. The ad hominems are never far away, are they?

    > As a lowly Labour pamphlet boy, *I’m* not sure..

    But for a professional writer, your writing sure sucks!

  • “…Russell…the day Danyl succeeds in taking me to “the cleaners” over anything is the day it’s my shout for drinks.”

    Cheers. I’ll have a lemonade, thanks.

  • Cute, Noelene…but Danyl failed. Just as he has on this thread. To marry for political reasons automatically puts your relationship in the justifiable public interest category.

    If it is good enough to cynically sell out your principles to present a false picture to the electorate so they’ll vote for you, and then good enough to boast about it, then it is also good enough for the media to scrutinise.

    Trevor: as for ad hominems, I’ve suffered plenty on this blog and Public Address. I’ll give as good as I get.

    And here’s the ultimate irony. I’m being savaged for the most part by a bunch of people hiding behind pseudonyms…

    Where’s the honesty in that?

  • I’ll give as good as I get.

    But admitting to being a lowly pamphlet boy is a bit much, even for you, surely :-)

  • Danyl Mclauchlan

    It’s also worth mentioning that the ‘official’ version of Clark’s marriage with Davis – that she was bullied into it, loathed the institution, kept the ceremony a secret, cried on the day but went through with it in order to further her own political career – is not very complimentary to Clark but is certainly very weird, dramatic and interesting and sheds a lot more light on her personality than Ian’s torrid gibberish.

  • In a week or so- when “Absolute Power” has ceased to’ve been bought by faithful Talkbacklanders- and no amount of self-promotion-via-attack-views has added to sales- Wishart will retire to the strange exclusive compound populated by fellow-xtianfundies and plot another *devastating* attack on – o heck, just about anything his USA fundamentalist xtian rightwing
    bosses dictate.

    Sad.

  • None of you can refute Ians points without resorting to the squalid personal attacks you accuse him of using …..how about trying to debate the issues he raises guys?….they are damming.

  • Give Ian a break and tell the truth for once. New Zealand deserves better than Clark’s regime of deception, lies and corruption. Kiwi’s shouldn’t have to be slaves of the corruption.

    You lefty liars always attack using gutter tactics. Debate the issues raised in Ian’s books, as there seems to be a gap between perception and the factual reality in your malicious attack on his character.

    In a rotten Helen Clark society, elites are the source of the rot !!

  • Political fanatics are interesting creatures, though often intelligent they have no difficulty in putting aside rational objective thinking in their goal to advance their sides political agenda. Demonising those on the other side, (in their mind I’m sure “the enemy” is how they think of them) through innuendo, misrepresentation, or flat out lies, is all justified in their own minds because they know, or think they know, that their opponents are willing to do far worse, because they themselves have God and rightousness on their side, their opponents are Godless, worship the devil, or have corrupted the true faith.

    In short, they see themselves as good fighting evil.
    Even shorter, they think like children.

  • Danyl Mclauchlan

    In a week or so- when “Absolute Power” has ceased to’ve been bought by faithful Talkbacklanders- and no amount of self-promotion-via-attack-views has added to sales

    According to Ian’s site he’s sold about 7000 copies in the first few days. Since researching and writing his book mostly consisted of cutting and pasting old Investigate articles I’d imagine he’s sitting pretty, financially speaking.

  • While I doubt (for the reasons already elucidated above) that their marriage is a sham in the ‘love’ sense, so what if it was a marriage for political purposes? As Andrew and Russell have said, this is really a reflection of our conservative society, which is what should be challanged here, not the people feeling the need to get ‘married’ as society expects it. My partner and I have kids, have been living together for years and have our own personal agreement and understanding about our future that is far more significant than some abstract, externally dictated process. Yet we will probably get married PURELY for tax puposes, as we now live in a European country of catholic disposition that does not give equal recognition to us as to those who marry and divorce within months.

    The strange thing is, I wonder if those who so highly value the institution of ‘marriage’ of their own limited worldview realise what hypocrisy they force others to make of it.

  • Danyl- it is *extremely* unlikely Wishart has had that many sales given that ‘Absolute Power’ was sitting at the bottom of the best seller non-fiction list (at last NZSA mailout) but given his explanation -early Neilsen Bookscan result – it is possible. But you’re right – this is not a creative effort, this is rehash material and – o so timely! Election coming up and all that…

    I just find the troubled person – pathetic. (His later books are the product of a fevered mind, and his early investigative promise smothered by xtian-fundamentalism…

    Anybody antipathetical to ‘xtian fundamentalism’?
    These folk are neither Christian (as I understand the term – and I studied religion for over 30 years)
    nor anything but (a tiny juvenile remanant wants to shout ‘Fundaments!’) people who’ve never got their minds out of the bedrock-

  • I know Ian Wishart has said that “it’s not about Goodger”, but he insists on putting me in the frame. My name appears several times in Chapter 15 of the book reviewed. As a public servant I have limited freedom to enter this discussion, but I’m not willing to put up with another couple of years of false accusations about me swirling around the Internet to bolster a pernicious conspiracy theory.

    Wishart has yet to furnish evidence that I was the author (or even the co-author) of various quotes attributed to me, which have been recycled from a 2005 issue of Investigate. He omits the fact that the documents the quotes are selectively drawn from are the Socialist Action League’s 1973 conference resolution and the League’s submission to the 1973-1974 Select Committee on Women’s Rights, which were published in a booklet entitled “A Strategy for Women’s Liberation”. In the catalogue of the National Library of New Zealand, the author of the booklet is the Socialist Action League. That is perfectly clear from the description in the Introduction and on the back cover. He has said he has a copy of the booklet (which he refers to conspiratorially as “the documents”) so he must know what it actually contains.

    His representation of what is in the booklet is not accurate in several other ways. For example, neither I nor the League ever called upon anyone to use their positions within government departments to promote anything, although both in his book and in the Investigate article he has me calling on people to do so.

    Following the Herald’s June 4 2005 retraction and apology for similar claims made by columnist Sandra Paterson, who referenced the Investigate article, Wishart published a Clarification in the July issue of Investigate. As far as I know, he has yet to put it online. The gist of Investigate’s Clarification was to back down on some of the claims (without apology). Regarding the claim of my authorship, the best defence he could come up with is that I was one of the people presenting the submission, and that I referred to it in a speech as “our submission”. In other words, I belonged to the group at the time (more than 30 years ago!) and endorsed its ideas. He has insisted elsewhere that I wrote the stuff he quotes, and in this new book, he repeats the original claims all over again: “she said”, “wrote Goodger”. Moreover, the Socialist Action League’s 1973 conference resolution and submission to the Select Committee on Women’s Rights have been morphed into “the Goodger documents”. That’s inaccurate and unfair. There is no justification for dragging my name into this political debate, either in 2005 or now.

    Either Wishart is ignorant about what really happened in the 1970s, or is relying on the fact that these historical documents and other contextual material about the 1970s feminist movement are relatively inaccessible and no-one is likely to do the digging required to check his claims. A couple of weekends ago, while cleaning out my roof space, I found a pile of stuff my sister had left me to mind when she went to the UK around 1980. Amongst the orange kitchenware and macramé patterns were two bound volumes of the League’s paper, Socialist Action, and almost a full set of Broadsheet, covering most of the 1970s. I’m now in a better position to check the veracity of the claims Wishart makes, and that he associates with my name, should that be necessary.

    Suffice to say, the “Strategy” booklet was no clandestine document. Hundreds of copies were printed and distributed widely in the open market of ideas that flourished at the time, alongside the publications of the majority mainstream feminists, who strongly disagreed with the SAL’s Marxist theory. What Wishart refers to as the SAL’s “wish-list” of programmatic goals was pretty much the standard manifesto of the entire Second Wave women’s movement which emerged in most western countries from the late 1960s. Similar goals from a range of feminist groups are listed in Christine Dann’s 1985 history of the women’s liberation movement: Up From Under: Women and Liberation in New Zealand, 1970-1985.

  • I’m just interested at how Wishart’s position has changed since he wrote this in July of 2000. He crucified Broad for being at a party where a pornographic film was aired yet he himself knew of drug taking amongst his professional colleagues but turned a blind eye. If Broad was guilty by association then by Wishart’s logic he is as well.

    I note Wishart’s never done this story he claims to know regarding the National MP either.

    (article from July 2000 edition of Investigate is below)

    “Sex, drugs, a horse, and a teenager. IAN WISHART wants to know whether the media realise they’re in a glass house.

    Sex sells. And nowhere more so than on the desk of some bored news editor whose own life is so tedious they have to get their titillation from writing about other people’s pecadilloes.

    So what if Mark Todd uses cocaine? If the Sunday Mirror had revealed that his horse had snorted the Colombian marching dust I’d probably be more concerned, but I can’t just get excited about Todd’s personal habits, if any.

    In my career as a radio/TV/print journalistI have seen so many of my colleagues stoned, drunk or both in varying stages of moral decay. I don’t need to name names. They know who they are.

    Narcotics are not something I’ve ever wanted to indulge in – apart from a brief fling with marijuana as a 20 year old radio reporter, which I quit because I felt it was fuzzing my short term memory.

    But my fellow journalists not only went with dope, they progressively got stuck into harder narcotics like speed, ecstasy, cocaine, and even heroin.

    In some places I worked, the sight of manic reporters with horribly glazed eyes and sinus problems was one of the amusing highlights of my day.

    Hell, at Radio Hauraki in 1984 I came to work one day only to find that half of my fellow employees had been picked up in a dawn raid by police investigating a cocaine ring – the same investigation that saw a National MP left untouched by police because arresting the MP would have upset the Muldoon Government’s one seat majority and caused a snap election.

    Now in the latter case had I known of the the MP’s involvement at the time I would have run it as a news story for obvious reasons – but not simply because the MP was using cocaine. The only news value in the story for me was that police allowed political pressure to influence their judgement.

    And so back to Mark Todd. I, and I’m sure most New Zealanders, don’t want to know what he does in his spare time or who he does it with. The only legitimate news value in the Mirror story was whether or not any alleged drug taking would affect Todd’s equestrian performance.

    As for the Dover Samuels affair, spare me! Regardless of whether he showed stupidity in getting involved with a teenage girl, unless it is shown that she was underage then he has done nothing illegal, no matter how much any of us may find it repugnant.

    For the Prime Minister to sack him, before all the evidence is in and without allowing due process to be followed, shows how hollow the Government’s words are on our employment law – any employment lawyer worth his salt would have a field day with this on a personal grievance/unjustified dismissal basis.

    Given that some MPs have paid out sums of $90,000 or more to extortionists to cover up sexual misdeeds, one wonders how long before the lid blows on that one.

    Again the news value is not the sex, it is the fact that some of our MPs have been compromised and could be blackmailed into committing treason or corruption.

    It is time for the media to watch the ball, not the balls.”

  • Hi Keri,

    I like that word ‘Fundaments’ :-) But I hope you mean the ‘buttocks’ meaning, not ‘basis/foundation’:

    fundament |ˈfəndəmənt|
    noun
    1 the foundation or basis of something.
    2 [humorous] a person’s buttocks.

    And what do you mean ‘a tiny juvenile reminant’? Aren’t we all supposed to keep a great glob of the child in us? ;-)

  • Mr Wishart is a conservative christian. His raison d’etre is to get rid of the folk that he considers antithetical to his beliefs.Which is reasonable.

    What appears unreasonable is his naivety in believing that just Clark manipulates the public. Experience would indictate that ALL politicans would be guilty of this…and one wonders just who would be eligible for election. Certainly not Mr Wishart himself,if the comments on this blog are anything to go by.But then perhaps he isn’t as naive as he would have us believe. For a conservative christian who has lived among homosexuals…who has known defacto couples…who appreciates the subleties of the human condition perhaps he is just being disengenuous.Perhaps the means justify the ends.

    Clearly divorce doesn’t come within the parameters Mr Wishart seeks to set…irrespective of what his God may have said, and perhaps it is this sort of selective biblical picking and choosing that creates such……confusion. Just who to believe? Ian or Helen? God?

    When it comes to disingenuousness ,I’m not that sure I can tell Mr Wishart and those he targets as being all that different. I wonder if his God …and the more temporal Aesop had anything to say about that…

  • I was looking forward to reading insightful commentary here, but what is so despairingly disappointing with the majority of comments posted on this thread, but not all, is the lack of factually relevant critique only to be displaced by the disparaging remarks devoid in the main of any real scholarly criticism. It would be advantageously relevant for those who have now read the book, and I haven’t, to tackle the pertinent points put forward by Ian Wishart on this thread and discuss them in an unemotional and logical way without resorting to ad-hominin attacks.

  • Heraclides- I generally go by the New SOED and ‘fundament’ is either ‘base of a wall, building etc.’
    or ‘action founding thereof; or ‘ground, basis, or principle on which anything is founded.’ 3rd def. (not humorous) “the buttocks, the anus.”

    It was the latter def. I had in mind. And -’great glob of childhood’? If we’re talking primitive hominoid traits I’d agree . If we’re talking about longstanding personal childhood traits, mine died off about 700 years ago (when family learned to preserve writing and pass their experiences along-

  • Keri,

    I use the New SOED myself, for more formal things at least. Its on the next desk, and being too lazy late at night to bother getting off my butt, I used Apple’s Dictionary application instead… No idea what that’s based on.

    My post was in jest (at Ian, not you), so don’t get too worried about me! ;-)

  • (No worries Heraclides…ooo, the Mac has a dictionary application? Never looked for it. Pats my G5 in a worried fashion, while reassurring the 2 SOED vols. panting at my ankles…)

  • As some of you may know, I think it’s time for a change of government. However, I will defend the PM against the claim that she has misled the NZ public over her marriage. Rather, I think she has been exceptionally candid – in fact, on the topic of their own marriage, I cannot think of a more honest politician anywhere in the world than Helen Clark.

  • Its called ‘Dictionary’. (Whoop-dee-do :-) I always find it a little too straight-forward a name…) I use it when I’m in a hurry: its quicker to get to related words, etc., by clicking around. The OED gives better definitions and backgrounds for fussier things. Besides, I have fond memories of using the full OED years ago at university.

  • Serum…..I get the distinct impression that there just aren’t any pertinent points put foward by Mr Wishart. It would appear that there is nothing new, and his book is but a rehash put out prior to a general election.

    A local cartoonist,Garrick Tremain wondered in a recent effort why the price of dairy products were no longer stated. It appears that if one needs to ask..one can’t afford.

    There are bigger,more relevant fish to fry ( subject to price) than someones sexuality, their alleged manipulation of the populace…or if they had the temerity to sign their name to a secretary’s work on a piece of art to be autioned for charity.

    As for the police…well we all know they are scum.

    Don’t we?

    But what really worries me is..are the police,Helen Clark,her secretary ,their sexual preferences and everyone’s marital status…the reason why petrol is so expensive?

  • Danyl Mclauchlan

    It would be advantageously relevant for those who have now read the book, and I haven’t, to tackle the pertinent points put forward by Ian Wishart on this thread

    I get the distinct impression that there just aren’t any pertinent points put foward by Mr Wishart

    Wishart makes many points in his book and much of this thread has been about the validity of his points about Clarks marriage and sexuality.

    I think Ian Wishart is a very dishonest man – but don’t take my word for it. Go into a bookstore and read through his material on Clarks marriage, in which he references Edwards biography of Clark. Then check the references in Edwards book. Then ask yourself if you’re willing to give Wishart the benefit of the doubt in regards to the other references and anonymous informers he cites.

  • I’m simply staggered that Wishart has rehashed the Kay Goodger “story” in this book. That he’s still trying to shop this reckless grab-bag of supposition and error is evidence of not just a journalistic failure but a moral one.

  • Keri, Heraclides:

    REYNOLDS. ‘A printer’s devil, Sir! Why, I thought a printer’s devil was a creature with a black face and in rags.’ JOHNSON. ‘Yes, Sir. But I suppose, he had her face washed, and put clean clothes on her. (Then looking very serious, and very earnest.) And she did not disgrace him; the woman had a bottom of good sense.’ The word bottom thus introduced, was so ludicrous when contrasted with his gravity, that most of us could not forbear tittering and laughing; though I recollect that the Bishop of Killaloe kept his countenance with perfect steadiness, while Miss Hannah More slyly hid her face behind a lady’s back who sat on the same settee with her. His pride could not bear that any expression of his should excite ridicule, when he did not intend it; he therefore resolved to assume and exercise despotick power, glanced sternly around, and called out in a strong tone, ‘Where’s the merriment?’ Then collecting himself, and looking aweful, to make us feel how he could impose restraint, and as it were searching his mind for a still more ludicrous word, he slowly pronounced, ‘I say the WOMAN was FUNDAMENTALLY sensible;’ as if he had said, hear this now, and laugh if you dare. We all sat composed as at a funeral.

  • Russell…I used to think you had an intellect. Now you have convinced me otherwise. Read the extract on Goodger on the book and tell me specifically where you think it is wrong, then I will proceed to blow you out of the water… again

    And OK Danyl…I’ll call you on that…name the references you think are taken out of context. Chapter and Verse. If you are going to sling defamatory allegations around…you need to put up or shut up.

    [Poneke says: Everyone who posts here has an intellect. Nothing posted here is defamatory. Let's keep the debate above the level found elsewhere, please.]

  • Here’s some evidence that Wishart wrongly attributed quotes selected from the Socialist Action League’s submission to the 1973-1974 Select Committee on Women’s Rights to me, and subsequently insisted elsewhere that “Goodger wrote it”. The misattributions appear in Chapter 15, which is based on the May 2005 Investigate article.

    1. Investigate/Absolute Power:

    “Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family institution.”

    2. Source used by Wishart: SAL submission to Select Committee on Women’s Rights, describing the League’s view:

    “Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family institution and better able to provide for the needs which are currently met, however poorly, by the family. In this way we can ensure that personal relationships will be a matter of free choice and not economic compulsion.”

    3. Google search on quote published by Wishart:

    “While the oppression of women is institutionalised through the family
    system, the family as an economic unit cannot be “abolished.” It can only be replaced over time. Our goal is to create economic and social
    alternatives that are superior to the present family institution and better able to provide for the needs currently met, however poorly, by the family,
    so that personal relationships will be a matter of free choice and not of economic compulsion.”

    Source: Australian Democratic Socialist Party, a group fraternal to the SAL in the 1970s:

    4. Socialist Workers Party (US), resolution adopted at the 24th National Convention and published in International Socialist Review, November 1971, page 57:

    “We counterpose such demands [for reforms benefitting women] to the ultraleft concept of abolishing or destroying the family. The family as an economic unit cannot be “abolished” by fiat. It can only be replaced over time. Our goal is to create economic and social alternatives which are
    superior to the present family system, and better able to provide for the needs currently met, however poorly, by the family system, so that
    personal relationships will be a matter of free choice and not economic compulsion.”

    In other words, these ideas and phrases were part of the political programme of several Marxist groups affiliated to the (Trotskyist) Fourth International in the 1970s. There are many other sections of the documents that are exact matches to the 1971 resolution published in International Socialist Reviw. I did not write them.

    Wishart’s representation of what is in the booklet is not accurate in several other ways. For example, neither I nor the League ever called upon anyone to use their positions within government departments to promote anything, although both in his book and in the Investigate article he has me calling on people to do so.

    The “Strategy” booklet was no clandestine document. Hundreds of copies were printed and distributed widely in the open market of ideas that flourished at the time, alongside the publications of the majority mainstream feminists, who strongly disagreed with the SAL’s Marxist theory.

    … the link to the DSP quote

    http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/dspfsoc.htm#Rise

    Kay

  • Ian, I’m a Catholic who agrees with the teaching of the Church, so you and I probably agree on many things, especially of the moral persuasion.

    There wasn’t some conspiracy to put feminists into positions of power and then create social engineering to further their aims. The women who were fervent feminists in the 70’s were students at universities, they were the academic strata of society. It’s logical that they would eventually pick up jobs that required an academic background.

    The same people who showed leadership at student level are likely the same people with leadership skills that will propel them into high level jobs later on. And yes, they are going to take their values and morals with them. But that doesn’t make a conspiracy.

    Think back to the Roman environment where the Gospels played out. What we’re dealing with is human nature after the Fall, not a well planned co-ordinated conspiracy to change our society.

    These ideas go back to Enlightenment rationalism and philosophers such as Nietzsche. They’ve filtered through universities and down into their students and then out into the wide world and are now considered normative.

  • I do agree that Labour have a policy of social engineering, and that they didn’t campaign on it. In a sense it is a secret agenda. Except for one thing – what do you expect from a left wing party?

    Also, Labour’s social agenda reflects the views of very many New Zealander’s across the political spectrum, overcomes institutional inertia and makes a genuine difference to people who have been institutionally oppressed.

    The people who object the most seem to be the religious conservatives. Yet Christian parties have never got more than 5% of the vote. Why should we need the permission of this minority to choose how to live our lives?

    I think the government has now lost the plot on the economy and on their move towards negative and controlled politics. But they got it right socially, and well done to them, I say.

  • Danyl Mclauchlan

    Wow – Kay Goodger is a real person! All this time I thought you were one of Ian’s demons.

    And OK Danyl…I’ll call you on that…name the references you think are taken out of context. Chapter and Verse. If you are going to sling defamatory allegations around…you need to put up or shut up.

    I’ll try and find the time in my lunch hour to get to a bookstore and indulge you.

  • Russell…I used to think you had an intellect. Now you have convinced me otherwise. Read the extract on Goodger on the book and tell me specifically where you think it is wrong, then I will proceed to blow you out of the water… again

    As usual, this is becoming ridiculous. We’ve been through the customary end stages of these arguments: abuse, followed by petty and unpleasant threats of legal action, so perhaps it’s easier to skip to a previous iteration of the discussion. Readers may choose to start here:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/04/surprise_surprise.html#comment-173140

    Or simply skip to the summary of errors regarding Ms Goodger:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/04/surprise_surprise.html#comment-173150

    Key points:

    - We’ve retreated from the claim that she actually wrote the material.
    - We’ve acknowledged that she is not in fact a “senior advisor” to the government (a key plank of the story’s allegations of malign influence on policy) but a research analyst.
    - We have correspondents to a men’s rights forum refuting the idea that she is an anti-family feminist zealot and noting her helpfulness towards them.
    -We’re agreed, are we not, that the claim that she “still mixes with Marxist organizations in Europe” is 100% baseless and reckless (even though you apparently had enough confidence in it to use it in large coloured type as a pull-quote).
    - We have apologies and retractions from both the NZ Herald and Muriel Newman with respect to the same set of allegations.

    I’m not going to discuss this any more, because it’s unfair to the person you have attacked, and who, as a civil servant cannot defend herself.

  • And Kay, were you present when these submissions were drafted and presented? Yes.

    Did you have a hand in writing and editing some for NZ purposes (regardless of where they were originally sourced from)? Yes.

    I have the documents in my little hot hands, and will set out a little later your precise connection to the events and quotes in question.

  • The problem, Ian, is that these are not your original claims.

  • Thank you Poneke – both for an interesting post and the thread that has followed.

    Ian, after you’ve got Noelene her Lemonade please grab me a Cranberry Juice….

  • Guys, don’t indulge him. Can’t you see this is exactly what he wants? Just leave him to his childish conspiracy theories.

  • Yes, except that it’s important for someone to speak on Kay Goodger’s behalf, given the constraints she faces in speaking out.

  • Danyl Mclauchlan

    And OK Danyl…I’ll call you on that…name the references you think are taken out of context. Chapter and Verse. If you are going to sling defamatory allegations around…you need to put up or shut up.

    Well that was easy. On page 236 of ‘Absolute Power’ you have Helen Clark ‘boast [she] was forced into a sham marriage’ and you cite a 1995 Sunday Star Times article by Donna Chisolm as a source for this claim but the article – which is easily found in a NewzText search – contains absolutely no statement that even remotely resembles this.

    But here’s something rather strange and coincidental; the opening graph for the article is:

    TOUGH? How tough is Helen Clark? Her long-time friend, Labour MP Judith Tizard, fairly bubbles with mirth. “She’s so tough, I keep telling her that after the nuclear holocaust, the only thing left will be the cockroaches and Helen Clark.”

    Incidentally, Ian, kudos for the colorful nature of your citations. It’s not every political biography that references Wikipedia, previous articles written by the author and the comments section of Kiwiblog as authoritative sources.

  • Poneke

    I second terence – thanks for an interesting post.

    One question – you state that the book is ‘a bestseller’. How do you know, it hasn’t exactly displaced the the romance novels, cookbooks and sports bios that dominate my local bookshop?

    More broadly, how is it possibly to judge sales if a fair proportion are from a website?

    (I am not questioning your judgement, but am curious as to how it was formed).

    Deborah (or Kay, for that matter)

    As a public servant, I am constrained in how I speak privately about things to do with my current position, and the activities of the department where I work.

    I face no such constraints in dealing with allegations about things I did decades ago, prior to joining the public service. I have taken a quick look at the relevant SSC policies:

    http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?DocID=6369

    and can see nothing that would prevent a very robust response to claims about things I said or wrote in past decades.

    If you believe someone is smearing you, fire back with both barrels.

  • Thanks to all for this post and comments – now I don’t even have to skim-read it at Bennetts…
    (Hi Kay – very long time, no see! anyone who enrages Ian so much can’t be too bad)

  • One question – you state that the book is ‘a bestseller’. How do you know, it hasn’t exactly displaced the the romance novels, cookbooks and sports bios that dominate my local bookshop?

    Ian says he has moved 7000 copies through bookstores already and has ordered another print run because of the demand. I do not doubt this one bit. The bookshops I frequent in Lambton Quay have been selling Absolute Power in big numbers and have prominent displays of it, which they would not do for a book that was not selling well.

  • Thanks Poneke.

    I obviously need to get out of the suburbs and into town.

  • Russell Brown accuses me of attacking Goodger unfairly, and claims the following “key points”

    • Key points:
    - We’ve retreated from the claim that she actually wrote the material.
    - We’ve acknowledged that she is not in fact a “senior advisor” to the government (a key plank of the story’s allegations of malign influence on policy) but a research analyst.
    - We have correspondents to a men’s rights forum refuting the idea that she is an anti-family feminist zealot and noting her helpfulness towards them.
    -We’re agreed, are we not, that the claim that she “still mixes with Marxist organizations in Europe” is 100% baseless and reckless (even though you apparently had enough confidence in it to use it in large coloured type as a pull-quote).
    - We have apologies and retractions from both the NZ Herald and Muriel Newman with respect to the same set of allegations.
    I’m not going to discuss this any more, because it’s unfair to the person you have attacked, and who, as a civil servant cannot defend herself.

    WISHART’S RESPONSE: POINT ONE
    In answer, we have NOT retreated from the claim that Goodger authored or co-authored this stuff in the slightest. The “documents” that both the Investigate article and the book chapter are based on are actually four documents. Firstly, there is a two page introduction to the whole text, written by and directly attributed to Kay Goodger herself, and dated “December 1974”. The introduction provides an overview, and endorsement, of the contents of the whole text.

    Goodger, incidentally Russell, is the only NZ feminist named in the documents at all that I can see in my skim through it again today. She plays an instrumental role, on the face of the documents, in publishing the entire booklet.

    Secondly, the reader of the booklet is introduced to “The New Rise of Feminism”, which is “the text of a resolution adopted by the second national conference of the [Socialist Action] League, which was held in Wellington, January 7-10, 1973.”

    I dunno, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing a national conference of the Socialist Action League could have been held in a phone booth, or at most a school classroom.

    Thirdly, the document includes what it says is an excerpt from a speech by Kay Goodger, explaining the Socialist Action League’s submission to the parliamentary select committee on women’s rights. It was given at an International Women’s Day forum on March 8, 1974, at Victoria University.

    Fourthly, and finally, Goodger writes in her introduction that the last document “in this pamphlet is the Socialist Action League’s submission to the Select Committee. It presents a socialist programme of demands, some of which call for far-reaching changes affecting the very structure of the present social system”.

    Technically, documents three and four are merged into one. Either Goodger or the pamphlet’s editor (possibly the same person) have used Goodger’s Women Day speech explaining the Submission as a preface to the Submission itself.

    Goodger was not some independent academic or journalist. She was a Socialist Action League member who appears to have been instrumental in helping work on the text of the resolution adopted in 1973, and helping draft the text of the Submission to Parliament as well.

    How do I know Russell? Because in Kay’s admitted introduction she writes: “To those of us presenting the Submission…”, in regard to their appearance before the Select Committee and the frosty response they received.

    So like I say Russell…I do not for a second accept your claim that Kay was not involved in writing these documents.

    POINT TWO: SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR?
    Kay Goodger, Researcher/Analyst
    Social Policy Agency
    Department of Social Welfare, Private Bag 21

    As previously acknowledged by me in Investigate, I accept the distinction between Senior Analyst on social policy (which she was) and Senior Advisor on social policy. The reference to her in Absolute Power is entirely accurate. Russell Brown overstates the significance of the original mis-reference, however, suggesting it was a “key plank” to the story. Hardly. The story was not about one woman’s specific drafting of modern social policy (because I wasn’t looking at Goodger in that sense and wouldn’t have a clue what she had done later), but at the original list of demands and the incredible serendipity that all the wishes had come true over the years.

    It was a glancing reference in the original article. No more, and suggestions to the contrary are nothing but Russell Brown spin to avoid the real issue. The substance was, and remains, the hostility towards the traditional family and the “demands” the Socialist Action League (later renamed Communist League) laid down in order to “smash” the family unit.

    POINT THREE: We are agreed on this and I included a reference to this specific point in Absolute Power as an acknowledgement.

    POINT FOUR: Goodger’s name appeared on a Marxist-linked petition, IIRC (the original source documents have long been archived), but I accepted at the time that the modern Marxism issue was irrelevant – that Goodger’s name on the document did not arise from Marxist links per se. Again, a glancing reference. She was, once, a communist. She cannot erase that from the public record, but if she says she no longer is I am happy to accept that, and I did at the time. This issue does not arise in Absolute Power, so again Russell you are displaying ignorance by not actually reading what I have written.

    POINT FIVE: Investigate believed the Herald apologized for some things it did not need to – such as Goodger’s involvement in writing or helping to write the documents in question. For the reasons already outlined in Point One, it is patently obvious she played a key role, and certainly endorsed everything that was written at the time.

    I now turn to Kay Goodger’s response to me:

    • Kay Goodger
    April 29, 2008 at 9:04 am
    Here’s some evidence that Wishart wrongly attributed quotes selected from the Socialist Action League’s submission to the 1973-1974 Select Committee on Women’s Rights to me, and subsequently insisted elsewhere that “Goodger wrote it”. The misattributions appear in Chapter 15, which is based on the May 2005 Investigate article.

    1. Investigate/Absolute Power:
    “Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family institution.”

    WISHART RESPONSE: WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SAY:

    “The following is an excerpt from a speech by Kay Goodger, explaining the Socialist Action League’s submission to the parliamentary select committee on women’s rights. It was given at an International Women’s Day forum on March 8, 1974, at Victoria University: … ‘We say in our submission…our goal must be, we think, “to create economic and social alternatives that are superior to the present family institution…”

    WISHART’S COMMENT:
    Before some hopeless people have a crack at me for not getting the quote word-perfect, it appears again towards the end of the document in the text of the actual submission: “Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family institution…” (which is the quote Goodger refers to immediately below). Goodger presumably forgot her specific endorsement of the claim in her 1974 speech. And so did Russell Brown.

    GOODGER 2. Source used by Wishart: SAL submission to Select Committee on Women’s Rights, describing the League’s view:
    “Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family institution and better able to provide for the needs which are currently met, however poorly, by the family. In this way we can ensure that personal relationships will be a matter of free choice and not economic compulsion.”

    3. Google search on quote published by Wishart:
    “While the oppression of women is institutionalised through the family
    system, the family as an economic unit cannot be “abolished.” It can only be replaced over time. Our goal is to create economic and social
    alternatives that are superior to the present family institution and better able to provide for the needs currently met, however poorly, by the family,
    so that personal relationships will be a matter of free choice and not of economic compulsion.”
    Source: Australian Democratic Socialist Party, a group fraternal to the SAL in the 1970s:

    WISHART’S COMMENT: The Goodger “pamphlet” for which she wrote the introduction and whose text she helped thrash out did not cite its sources. If paragraphs were plagiarised from other socialist documents, that is hardly my problem. Again, Goodger endorsed it.

    In her speech, Goodger said, “Our submission explains how it is the entire family system itself, together with the laws and official morality associated with it, that is a block to the achievement of women’s rights…[we demand] alternatives to the present family set-up.”

    GOODGER4. Socialist Workers Party (US), resolution adopted at the 24th National Convention and published in International Socialist Review, November 1971, page 57:
    “We counterpose such demands [for reforms benefitting women] to the ultraleft concept of abolishing or destroying the family. The family as an economic unit cannot be “abolished” by fiat. It can only be replaced over time. Our goal is to create economic and social alternatives which are
    superior to the present family system, and better able to provide for the needs currently met, however poorly, by the family system, so that
    personal relationships will be a matter of free choice and not economic compulsion.”
    In other words, these ideas and phrases were part of the political programme of several Marxist groups affiliated to the (Trotskyist) Fourth International in the 1970s. There are many other sections of the documents that are exact matches to the 1971 resolution published in International Socialist Reviw. I did not write them.

    WISHART’S COMMENT: Again, none of these citations were sourced in the Socialist Action League documents. I’m quite sure many socialist groups were being fed the same rhetoric sheets from Master Control in Moscow or Beijing. I’m equally sure that Goodger had a role in helping select which bits to include in a written submission attributed entirely to the NZ Socialist Action League, a submission that she personally helped present in Parliament, and which she spoke in support of at International Women’s Day in March 1974. I am absolutely, unfailingly certain that Kay Goodger fully endorsed these views at the time. As I state in the book, she authored or co-authored the documents as presented. I accept she was not the only author, but have accepted this for many years. As I said, hers is the only name on the pamphlet copy we have.

    GOODGER Wishart’s representation of what is in the booklet is not accurate in several other ways. For example, neither I nor the League ever called upon anyone to use their positions within government departments to promote anything, although both in his book and in the Investigate article he has me calling on people to do so.

    WISHART’S COMMENT: In “The New Rise of Feminism”, one of the documents Goodger endorsed in 1974, the authors write: “The capitalist class is the best organised and most conscious ruling class in history and no small force will be capable of taking power from its hands. It will take the massive, united strength of all oppressed layers to place the resources of society under the control of the majority and out of the hands of the profiteers…The strategy of the feminist movement must be based on the understanding of how capitalism perpetuates itself and which forces must be mobilised in struggle to eliminate it.”

    The document then says, “Action to win control of university and high school facilities, such as use of classrooms and the library for women’s studies, provides an example for the general fight to win control of the resources of society away from the ruling class…the campuses can serve as vital organising centres for the feminist movement and enable it to reach out to broader layers of oppressed and exploited women.”

    The Socialist Action League document calls for women to network, united in “Sisterhood”, and to impose their demands for change: “The real meaning of sisterhood becomes clear at such times. It is the concept that woemn can unite on the basis of common struggle. Such actions are important in giving women a sense of their potential power…”

    The document calls on feminists to infiltrate the Labour Party: “The deep roots the party has in the working class, through the unions, make it objectively an ally of the women’s liberation movement. Feminists working within the Labour Party can do much to further the cause of women’s liberation.”

    Remember, this is a document effectively setting out the feminist policy of a rival political party to Labour – the Communist party – talking about getting its troops to work from within Labour for change.

    In her own, acknowledged written introduction to the booklet, Goodger says it is “essential” for women to network and “define the tasks of the movement for today and the direction in which it should go in order to achieve its ends…debates on strategy form an important part of developing an effective and conscious force that can lead to real victories…If the women’s liberation movement is to grow into a really large and powerful force for change, it must win the confidence of thousands of women by demonstrating that it can win meaningful victories…

    “A new kind of society must be built if we are to achieve freedom from our oppression…it becomes [clear] that far reaching changes are needed…Whether this will involve a socialist transformation of society is at present a subject under discussion among feminists.”

    GOODGER The “Strategy” booklet was no clandestine document. Hundreds of copies were printed and distributed widely in the open market of ideas that flourished at the time, alongside the publications of the majority mainstream feminists, who strongly disagreed with the SAL’s Marxist theory.

    WISHART’S COMMENT: No, the Strategy booklet was not “clandestine” at the time. It was available if you knew where to get it, and the ideals had already been publicly espoused in the parliamentary submission. However, the quiet networking and strategic planning that took place afterward was, to a large extent “clandestine” through the years. Entry to the networks by invitation only, among trusted feminists. And Hey Presto, the list of “demands” that Socialist Action laid out has now been fulfilled, largely by Labour, and specifically Labour women.
    Join the dots.

    Kay and Russell: I had to suffer a Vista meltdown and re-visitation of the original documentation, all of it only to reinforce the point Ms Goodger – you were integral to the early strategy that set the path in motion here. Regardless of your modern views on all of this, it doesn’t change the role you played historically. You wrote a ringing endorsement of the views quoted in Investigate and Absolute Power, you gave a speech repeating many of the quotes, and you personally appeared before the Select Committee to deliver the submission which contained the quotes in question.

    Obviously, I wasn’t there watching over your shoulder to see who typed which bits. But the booklet is bylined by you in its introduction, with your own role clearly set out. I name you as an author or co-author because I obviously believe you were. I am unsure why you are upset about this. It is a historical set of documents, and I make the point in Absolute Power that your views have moved on.

    Are you trying to say that you didn’t really endorse this stuff at the time, and that therefore my coverage is unfair to you? Because if you didn’t really believe it, and you want to place specific responsibility on other socialist organisations overseas, why on earth did you write a ringing endorsement introduction and make such a supportive speech, and appear at the Select Committee to speak to your submission?

    Who were your co-authors? More importantly – did you edit the “pamphlet” featuring your introduction? What was your exact role in helping produce and distribute the pamphlet?

    The sting of the story, as I see it, is that the Socialist Action League, with your help and obviously overseas communist groups, put together an agenda for radical transformation of New Zealand society (your words from your introduction), and that lo and behold it has come to pass.

    That was always the main point to the story. Please tell me how it is wrong?

    And on the dishonesty of Danyl…

    You deliberately omit to mention in your critique of p236 and the Donna Chisholm article that I quoted the exact phrase from her story in the footnote citation that I take as an endorsement of my comment.

    You are slippery beyond measure, Danyl old boy. The cite was clean, and readers could make of it what they would. My point however was that Clark had made similar statements in the Myers book, and it re-surfaced for the first time publicly in the mid 90s when her leadership was on the rise, before being repeated again in the Edwards book in 2002.

    You can call it whatever you like. I call any marriage undertaken as a ploy to shore up votes as a deeply cynical gesture. The perspective is subjective, and I make my own opinions clear and transparent.

  • I haven’t been able to get hold of a copy of the book.

    Is John Tamihere quoted as a source?

    and is that the real Keri Hulme?

    Amazing that we can find a nice corner of the web for representatives of the entire spectrum of New Zealand writers to get together.

    Do you think Ian has taken the time to read your book Keri?

  • Danyl Mclauchlan

    And on the dishonesty of Danyl… You deliberately omit to mention in your critique of p236 and the Donna Chisholm article that I quoted the exact phrase from her story in the footnote citation that I take as an endorsement of my comment.

    You really do walk into these things don’t you Ian?

    Ian’s quote, on page 236 of AP is:

    You cannot boast you were forced into a sham marriage . . .

    And the quote in the footnote from the SST article is:

    Ms Clark has freely acknowledged the couple married so their relationship would be electorally acceptable but it has endured where others have foundered.

    And in his post above Ian cites this as ‘an endorsement of [his] comment’. Not only does it fail to endorse his comment it explicitly contradicts it.

    Which brings me back to my original point – if an author is this dishonest with regards to publicly available printed sources how can we trust him to accurately represent statements from anonymous confidants?

  • Danyl…at this rate I’ll be buying you a free prune juice as a consolation prize:

    Ian’s quote, on page 236 of AP is:

    “You cannot boast you were forced into a sham marriage . . .”

    And the quote in the footnote from the SST article is:

    “Ms Clark has freely acknowledged the couple married so their relationship would be electorally acceptable but it has endured where others have foundered.”

    And in his post above Ian cites this as ‘an endorsement of [his] comment’. Not only does it fail to endorse his comment it explicitly contradicts it.

    WISHART RESPONSE: I agree those statements are contradictory, but that’s probably because you stuffed up the quotation, Danyl. I didn’t say it the way you wrote it.

    In fact, you’ve twisted it so far out of context I wonder about the sincerity of your attempted critique.

    What I wrote was, “You cannot, on the one hand, boast that you were forced into a sham marriage, and then on the other boast that your marriage has lasted better than other people’s”[footnote cited at this point].

    The reference is to the enduring where others have failed. If you had honestly read the passage, and applied it to the citation, you might not have put your foot in your mouth again.

    If you want a quote from one of Clark’s first public statements about her marriage, the essay she bylined for the Virginia Myers book says “I felt really compromised. I think legal marriage is unnecessary and I would not have formalised the relationship except for going into Parliament. I have always railed against it privately.”

    On numerous occasions Clark makes clear that she does not like the institution of marriage. I’m not sure why you are continuing to argue black is white Danyl.

  • Nowhere in Wishart’s lengthy post above does he provide evidence that I wrote the documents in question. He deduces it using the same peculiar logic that he used in arguing with Russell Brown on the kiwiblog thread Russell linked to upthread:

    SHE WROTE A WISHLIST
    THE WISHLIST CAME TRUE
    FANCY THAT

    In this case it’s

    SHE WROTE THE INTRODUCTION
    SHE ENDORSED THE CONTENTS
    SHE PRESENTED IT TO THE COMMISSION
    THEREFORE SHE WROTE IT

    I have in front of me a book called Senator Joe McCarthy, written by Richard H Rovere, with a foreword by Arthur M Schlesinger, Jr. It is obvious to a reasonable person that Schlesinger didn’t write the book, but he endorses its contents, which include this insight which I think aptly sums up Wishart’s technique:

    “The ‘multiple untruth’ need not be a particularly large untruth but can instead be a long series of loosely related untruths, or a single untruth with many facets. In either case, the whole is composed of so many parts that anyone wishing to set the record straight will discover that it is utterly impossible to keep all the elements of the falsehood in mind at the same time. Anyone making the attempt may seize upon a few selected statements and show them to be false, but doing this may leave the impression that only the statements selected are false and that the rest are true. An even greater advantage of the ‘multiple untruth’ is that statements shown to be false can be repeated over and over again with impunity because no one will remember which statements have been disproved and which haven’t.” (page 110)

    I don’t have time now to challenge each of the points Wishart raised above, but I will make the observation that conspiracy theorists are clearly not on the same page. On August 17 2007, Trevor Loudon wrote in his blog, newzeal:

    “More than half of the SAL’s approximately 200 members operated quite openly inside the Labour Party.”

    200 members is a lie: it was 205! (That’s the number of communists Joe McCarthy reckoned were in the US government.)

    And large numbers of younger Labour Party members were happy to have SAL members attend conferences in the 1970s. But the conservative leadership was not. In Margaret Hayward’s book, Diary of the Kirk Years, she records Norman Kirk complaining that he and former leaders had “spent years getting them out, and now Bill [Rowling] has allowed them all in” (page 36).

    The League was absolutely open about its ideas and activities; the pamphlet was sold at various public activities and in bookshops (not distributed furtively like condoms in the 1960s (”if you knew where to get it”) the way Wishart suggests above). When the League’s conference resolution says: “Feminists working within the Labour Party can do much to further the cause of women’s liberation, agitating for the inclusion of women’s rights in the policy of the party”, that is an observation, not a call for infiltration. The fact that debates on women’s rights did take place in the Labour Party was due to the growing support for feminist ideas, and the growing numbers of women taking an active role.

    The infiltration charge appears to have originated in Truth, and was subsequently taken up by Muldoon, in Parliament. Truth also labelled Mike Moore a Trotskyist. It is not a credible source.

    [Poneke adds: Truth was the publishing arm of the SIS at the time. Its reporters were regularly summoned to the SIS offices in the Auckland Savings Bank building on the corner of Queen and Wellesley in Auckland and given briefings to help with their stories. Those days, fortunately, are well gone, and the SIS has long been forbidden by law to spy on domestic political activists.]

  • In answer, we have NOT retreated from the claim that Goodger authored or co-authored this stuff in the slightest

    Yes, you have, and you do so in this very post. Your original article had her as the author of this “series of documents” and you reiterated this claim throughout. Now you’re allowing that she was “involved” or “endorsed” the contents.

    As previously acknowledged by me in Investigate, I accept the distinction between Senior Analyst on social policy (which she was) and Senior Advisor on social policy. The reference to her in Absolute Power is entirely accurate. Russell Brown overstates the significance of the original mis-reference, however, suggesting it was a “key plank” to the story. Hardly.

    To any sane reader, it was (the New Zealand Herald clearly thinks so in the apology reproduced below). And in the original article, you didn’t simply make a simple “mis-reference” in a “glancing” fashion — you reiterated it.

    Goodger’s name appeared on a Marxist-linked petition, IIRC (the original source documents have long been archived)

    Is this a fancy way of saying that Google can’t find the page any more?

    but I accepted at the time that the modern Marxism issue was irrelevant – that Goodger’s name on the document did not arise from Marxist links per se.

    Don’t you think an apology would be relevant here?

    Again, a glancing reference.

    Or more accurately, a baseless and reckless claim that you chose to blow up as a large colour pull-quote in your magazine.

    WISHART’S COMMENT: No, the Strategy booklet was not “clandestine” at the time. It was available if you knew where to get it, and the ideals had already been publicly espoused in the parliamentary submission. However, the quiet networking and strategic planning that took place afterward was, to a large extent “clandestine” through the years. Entry to the networks by invitation only, among trusted feminists. And Hey Presto, the list of “demands” that Socialist Action laid out has now been fulfilled, largely by Labour, and specifically Labour women.

    The group shared key views with the wider feminist movement (including far more prominent groups such as the Committee on Women and Women’s Electoral Lobby) and in the past 35 years many of these have come to fruition through the democratic process. It also had some positions that look plain cranky now. These have not. How exactly this justifies your claim of a secret conspiracy hatched via the Socialist Action League and deployed over three and a half decades is completely beyond me.

    Join the dots

    Of course.

    What you have done is take some publications from the early 70s, provided to you, I suspect, by Barbara Faithfull, and reverse-engineered these to meet your proposition of a feminist conspiracy against the family. In doing so you have made reckless allegations against someone who I presume was a student at the time and who is now a respected public researcher. And, I gather, a mother. Looks like the plan to destroy the family didn’t go so well, then …

    Perhaps I’ll just leave it with the Herald’s apology on the same set of allegations:

    Retraction and apology from New Zealand Herald To Kay Goodger

    This statement is in relation to an article by Sandra Paterson entitled “Feminist Agenda Reaches Fruition”, which ran in the 14 May 2005 edition of the Herald.

    The Herald accepts that Kay Goodger was not the author of the words attributed to her in the article which came from a Socialist Action League submission to a select committee on women’s rights in the 1970s published in a booklet along with an introduction by Ms Goodger.

    The Herald also accepts that Kay Goodger is employed as a Senior Analyst in the research section of the Ministry of Social Development, and that her position was misdescribed in the article as a senior adviser in the Ministry.

    The Herald accepts that the description of Ms Goodger as a senior adviser carries with it an implication that she has been able to influence government social policy through her employment. The Herald regrets any implication in the article that Ms Goodger has been able to use, or has used, her position in the public service to pursue the goals attributed to her in the article.

    The Herald unreservedly apologises to Kay Goodger and her family for any distress caused by the inaccuracies in the article.

    If you had any decency, you, too, would apologise. I’m not holding my breath.

  • That wink emoticon wasn’t intentional – but it turns out to be quite apt (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

  • I think the problem is that governments can be too successful at getting what they want and so have trampled on the sensibilities of people like Ian Wishart. We live in a democracy but that doesn’t mean there is one button per issue; in some ways we are given a choice of this stew or that stew. There’s also the problem of a public service which may have an entrenched ideology.
    We need to make government more open (IT) and apply critical thinking to every issue.
    Sack the spin doctors and make lobbying a more open process.

  • Interesting point, Poneke. In 1981, at the time of the protests against the Springbok Tour, my brother-in-law, who was a police officer, told me that my name was on a list of “known agitators”. In fact, I had been politically inactive since 1976 and was a full-time mum at the time.

    [Poneke adds: Muldoon notoriously released an SIS-compiled list of anti-tour agitators in 1981, claiming they were communists. From memory, one of them sued him for defamation and won.]

  • I do think criticism of Ian has missed something. Ian’s right in the sense that the people who espoused views that would make people independent of family structure have worked awfully hard to promote their values and they have been successful in making them normative.

    As someone who believes that the family is the basic unit of humanity, that homosexual relationships are morally wrong, that artificial reproductive techniques, contraception and abortion are immoral – I’m completely a minority. Many would go so far as to call me a backwards bigot.

    But of course these were typical ideas 60 years ago, shared by many in the community. That Helen Clark felt forced into marriage in order to succeed at politics is testament to these traditional ideas. It certainly would not be true today, which shows a sea change in our values.

    Whilst I don’t believe there was a planned conspiracy, I do believe that individuals and lobby groups worked very hard to have these new values become normative. And they have been exceptionally successful. I also think it’s true that the Labour Party has hosted these values and promoted them over the years.

    I think it’s also true that the Labour Party has moved from being a party for blue-collar workers to a middle-class party. I think this has left the working class out in the cold politically.

  • Russell, this is getting tiresome. We have ranged across different blogs about this for three years now.

    I have quoted chapter and verse Kay’s involvement with this bunch. She was no ingenue and you are being deliberately obtuse. The fact that Kay wrote the introduction is acknowledged in the Herald apology, and Kay’s introduction confirms that she presented the SAL submission to Parliament.

    She can hardly deny involvement. Her fingerprints are all over the document. The fact that the doctrine appears to be a cut and paste from Moscow by Kay’s own admission here only adds to the intrigue, given that the SAL submission made no mention of its plagiarism at all.

    And Kay has not answered the question: Given all of the above, what was her precise role, and who helped her with it?

    Until you can answer those, I don’t think either of you have a leg to stand on.

    As for the Herald’s apology, the Herald took a slightly different tack to Investigate, so I can’t really speak on their behalf nor they on mine. For the reasons outlined above, I am not resiling from Kay’s involvement as author or co-author. She certainly endorsed the entire lot.

    You are tilting at windmills here.

  • Prior to the last election, Paul Holmes interviewed Helen Clark on television. The interview was at Clark’s humble abode. She made mention of her marriage then, how she didn’t want to get married but felt that it was what was required of her (or words to that effect). You can make of that what you will, but it’s clear to me that she would never have gotten married were it not for the fact that she entered politics.

    Of course, there are plenty of people who have de facto relationships which last many years. So, whilst I agree that technically the PM’s marriage is a sham, you could say that had she not entered Parliament she would probably have had an enduring de facto relationship. IMO, I see little difference between the two.

  • [...] on this blog, but on Poneke’s. I’m currently addicted to the comments accruing on Poneke’s review of ‘Absolute Power’ (which I still would like a copy of to read and review myself – hint hint). Not only do we get Ian [...]

  • Judging from this debate I suspect it’s also pretty tiresome to have your name inaccurately linked to a conspiracy theory for three years without having a magazine, a publishing house and a website to set the record straight from.

    Who cares who supported what in the 70s – even the activities from that time of current politicians are diminishingly relevant, let alone those of fringe activists who are now private citizens. Last time I checked, we’re free to believe and support whatever political views we like. The important thing is whether you damage someone’s current reputation by telling untruths about them.

    The suggestion that supporter equals author or co-author is patently ridiculous. By that logic I’d hope Ian Wishart’s friends, promoters and sources are getting a share of his royalty checks.

  • They have changed, Muerk, because our society agreed with them, and wanted them to change. Lobby groups put the issues in the consciousness of the public to consider. This all happened in democratic country. Societies do change (well, maybe oscillate). Continuously. And the thing is that, while you may feel a minority, I hope you feel an equal.

  • You are tilting at windmills here.

    Ian, you’re unbelievable. Literally.

  • Danyl Mclauchlan

    The reference is to the enduring where others have failed. If you had honestly read the passage, and applied it to the citation, you might not have put your foot in your mouth again.

    At this point I don’t really feel I can add anything to the discussion. Readers (if there are any left) can decide for themselves whether or not Ian’s explanations are plausible and if they think the rest of his book is credible based on his performance here.

    If you do pick up a copy of his book keep a lookout for those footnotes that reference the authors previous articles. They look a bit like this:

    It’s a well known fact that Helen Clark is a serial killer . . .123

    123. Naked Angel: Clark and the Lesbian Bloodbath Wishart, I. Investigate 29/02/04

  • `Last time I checked, we’re free to believe and support whatever political views we like.’

    I’m sure Ian would agree, and the corollary to this is that other private individuals and their publicity organs have the right to `expose’ these views and actions. How much stock anyone places in them is another matter.

    `The important thing is whether you damage someone’s current reputation by telling untruths about them.’

    Ultimately Ian is arguing that if anyone has a strong claim of defamation or libel then they should pursue it through the courts. The `So sue me’ press release says as much. This is his business model – make outrageous claims about public (and private!) figures, then reap the reward of the public furore they stimulate. Any engagement on this level, and to an extent that includes this comment thread, therefore plays into the hands of the conspiracy theorists who want nothing more than the ability to point at the volume of discussion centred around their ludicrous allegations as evidence that they have legs. The aphorism goes something like `never wrestle a pig; you end up covered in shit and the pig enjoys it’.

    A certain number of people will always want to believe, but the prudent course of action for this sort of campaign is simply not to engage with it, and rely on the bullshit-detectors which – despite protestations to the contrary – still exist and function in the media and political establishment, as well as within the general public. Let the issue dissipate like so much bong smoke.

    L

  • Uh uh uh… no, no, I mustn’t.

  • “Rubbernecker”, there is a difference between society “wanting” things, and the breadth of mandate assumed by elected governments. Much of the social engineering that has been legislated into existence has been expressly contrary to the results of polling and referenda. If we had a Swiss-style “direct democracy”, elected governments would not have so much power to do things that were not the reason for which they were elected in the first place. By the way, THAT is an extremely important wider point that is well made in Ian’s book.

  • What a readable slab of comments. Normally I wouldn’t waste a second reading Wishart’s rant. These comments have made me decide to buy a copy and read it.

    And Keri Hulme, if only your bloody door-stop boulder of a novel had been as interesting as your comments here. Write your next novel like a blog and the Swedish lefties might give you the Nobel Prize in Literature.

  • Having read Ians book it reinforced my belief that those hwo stand ofr public office should be subject to the same tests that prospective employees are subject to.

    We have passed the point of what you see is what you get.

    The citizens should know exactly what they are getting just like an employer does.

    Citizens cant make a valid decision without all the evidence and an essential part of that is knowing the inner working of those who seek their votes.

    As an aside I thought the PMs response at the Congress when the fire alarm sounded as she was speaking was very revealing. She asked for advice. Now some would say that a real leader would have instinctively asked the audience to proceed in an orderly manner to the Fire Exits

    gd

  • Oh, I love it when Danyl and Russell team up, the total of their stupidity is greater than their parts.

    Not once have either of you two argued the general premise of Ian’s book. In fact, its clear neither of you actually get it.

    But then that’s not unusual…

  • Dude, it’s one thing to state a premise, but proving a premise is about establishing facts.

  • L.

    Your work on political discourse is interesting. If you would like a wider platform for the kind of analysis you give in your comment above, we would be keen on hosting a guest post from you on The Standard. Flick us an email at thestandardnz@gmail.com

    cheers,
    Steve

  • I’d love to hear more from L.

    L, could you pick a longer pseudonym? It makes it hard to find your comments in a long page of comments, on account of “l” being fairly common :)

  • Kay Goodger above brings Senator Joe McCarthy into her argument frequently.

    To get another view of McCarthy, readers should also look at the recent “Blacklisted by History: the untold story of Senator Joe McCarthy,” by M. Stanton Evans.

    Like Wishart, McCarthy may sometimes have been near the mark.

  • I struggle with the point of this whole Goodger obsession (and frankly what else is it if IW has to keep banging on about it).

    Public opinion changes – get over it. So some people thought some things in 1973 and now quite a few people agree with them. So what? Some people worked for homosexual rights (of substitute other ‘agenda’ items here), and some for abolition of slavery. They won. Society doesn’t seem to want to backtrack on these. Conspiracy? Nope just change.

    And also:
    “Join the dots”, secret agendas infiltrating society… carry this on for too long and you start sounding like the Protocols of Zion.
    Stuff just happens. Or as Napoleon put it: “Never ascribe to malice that which can explained by incompetence”.

    Enjoyed your review poneke!

  • pkiwi, I had always heard that called “Hanlon’s Razor”, and it is a personal favourite of mine.

  • “…The aphorism goes something like `never wrestle a pig; you end up covered in shit and the pig enjoys it’…”

    I’ve always enjoyed that saying, but somehow it seems a lot more apt and relevant when talking about Ian Wishart….

  • pkiwi

    to be fair to Ian, he is engaging in debate and defending his corner. I’m not sure if he has an obessession with Ms Goodger personally (as opposed to feminists, communists, muslims, evolutionists etc) any more than Russell does is in his pursuit of Ian through the blogosphere.

  • Sorry, Kay, but I think you’ve been well and truly fisked by Ian. Your name is on the paper/pamphlet as endorsing it. Are you now you say someone else wrote it? I don’t recall seeing in any of your responses (maybe I missed it), “no, I definitely didn’t write that” or “no I didn’t agree with that then”. Did you?

    You obviously agreed enough to delivery a submission before the select committee, so why are you trying to back out now? Have you changed your opinion on these things?

    I think it’s OK to change your opinion over time – opinions change as we grow older – but if you did say it then, what’s wrong with admitting it and admitting you were wrong and you’ve changed your mind.

    Do you still agree with what you said/thought then?

    As for Keri, they made us read your book in Form 7 but I couldn’t finish it, sorry. I couldn’t get beyond the first few chapters.

  • You did miss it: “In other words, these ideas and phrases were part of the political programme of several Marxist groups affiliated to the (Trotskyist) Fourth International in the 1970s … I did not write them. “

    I don’t care whether she supports or doesn’t support those views now, and neither should anyone else. There’s no public interest in it. Unless she decides to campaign or promote them, she’s entitled to keep them to herself if she wants to. It’s one of those nice principles that form the cornerstone of a free society.

  • Russell/Danyl et al
    If Wishart is factually wrong he will get his arse sued off, if there is no independent investigation into the allegations of Police Corruption and Political interference in operational matters then we live in New Zimbabwe. The book is a good read. Ever written a sucessful book Russ/Dan??

  • Well, I for one want honesty in government, and it does concern me that this government has a blind spot – they do not seem to understand ethics and values.
    From my perspective it is not ok to put a tennis ball in a pupils mouth tie their hands and then pass it off as ‘well that was then and different standards applied’. Nor is it ok to sign official documents and in so doing make a false declaration, or pass of art work as your on, etc, etc. Who cares if the PM and her husband are gay? Not me. Is it relevant? I would rather it wasn’t, but it probably is if it involves deceptively promoting oneself as something different. I am not sure if I have made up my mind on this yet, but what I do believe is that this particular government is quite dishonest and arrogant . I am open to correction, but I can’t recall any government having so many problems with MP’s and ministers.
    I just don’t get how so many people do not appreciate the importance of these issues. The troubling issue here is that MP’s and Ministers exercise significant powers on our behalf and I would prefer that the persons exercising conscience votes, making Ministerial decisions etc were above reproach. Unfortunately, I suspect this is not the case. Given all this I have been surprised for a long time about the lenient treatment the government has had on these matters. In other countries (such as the UK) resignations would have been forthcoming.
    I am also quite concerned about the senior leadership of the NZ Police. The honesty, and integrity (or otherwise) of those at the helm is fundamental to public confidence. Is it a coincidence that confidence in the NZ Police is at an all time low? I don’t thinks so. Were the well publicised Bay of Plenty rape allegations an isolated matter? Not in my view. Should there be a public inquiry into the NZ Police Force? resoundingly, yes in my view.
    I don’t know Ian Wishart. I have never met him, and I probably don’t share many of his ideas on life, but I have purchased and read his book, and I congratulate him on laying out the material in such a way that we can all either make up our minds about these various issues. stimulating this discussions is a very valuable service, regardless of whether he is right or wrong. Judging by the response he has lead with his chin. Apart from the grubby aspersions about his motives, his fundamentalist views (shame on you Kerri Hume I would have expected better) and other personal foibles.
    I did not perceive Ian Wishart’s book it to be a character assassination, but I am interested in the nature of the response it has generated. Much more heat than light in most cases, and I find some of the comments about the person rather than what he has written to be both distasteful and to say say more about the person making them than they do about Mr Wishart’s arguments.
    Serious issues have been raised, as they were about Benson- Pope. The governments response was to initially denigrate the journalist. Was Benson-Pope a fitting person to be Minister in charge of social policy for children? Emphatically no. Is it good that he has gone? Undoubtedly.
    If Ian Wishart had not doggedly pursued these matters we would still have this unsuitable person as a cabinet minister. On the strength of this performance I am definitely going to listen to what he has to say. I am old enough to make up my own mind on the various issues and I don’t care for the rhetoric from either end of the argument.
    These things needed to be said. Ian Wishart has put the challenge in front of this government. He has done us all a service in this respect. The Government has significant PR resources available to them. I eagerly await their response. Or wait, are they just so arrogant that they think they don’t need to say anything?
    Pete.

  • `If Wishart is factually wrong he will get his arse sued off, if there is no independent investigation into the allegations of Police Corruption and Political interference in operational matters then we live in New Zimbabwe.’

    Freethinker, you prove both my points: 1. Resorting to overblown rhetoric for such comparative trivia demonstrates that there’s nothing genuinely serious to complain about; and 2. Wishart’s business model.

    (By the by, I posted here once or twice as `Lewis’, which is my name, but then Lewis Holden of the republican movement began to do the same. To avoid confusion I shortened it to L. I’ll use Lew now, as a compromise.)

    L

  • Ian:

    You can call it whatever you like. I call any marriage undertaken as a ploy to shore up votes as a deeply cynical gesture. The perspective is subjective, and I make my own opinions clear and transparent.

    They were in a relationship that was in the nature of marriage, prior to being married in any case. So what’s the difference? They apparently had their relationship legally acknowledged as a PR exercise, back when people cared more about that symbolic exercise. Pretty understandable though. Certainly, only someone who’s a bit unhinged would get worked up about it now.

    But it’s good to see now that you have apparently given up your bigoted conspiracy theory, that both Davis and Clark are homosexual.

    Russell/Danyl et al
    If Wishart is factually wrong he will get his arse sued off, if there is no independent investigation into the allegations of Police Corruption and Political interference in operational matters then we live in New Zimbabwe.

    People understand that this course of action would only give his fantastical claims of conspiratorial activities a wider readership. In any case, Wishart is a discredited source. There’s no need to legally prove that he’s a liar.

    if Helen Clark enters a matrimonial state she does not want, nor respect, for the sake of achieving higher political office, how far is she prepared to go to retain such office.

    Politicians do things they don’t really “believe” in all the time for the sake of PR. It’s part of the game. Par for the course. That’s why I struggle to get worked up about it. Of course if you’re a fundamentalist zealot like Wishart it’s going to mean more to you.

  • slightlyrighty

    Roger says

    “Politicians do things they don’t really “believe” in all the time for the sake of PR. It’s part of the game. Par for the course. That’s why I struggle to get worked up about it.”

    Roger, you know I’m going to save that comment for a rainy day!

    What a tangled web we weave….

    Regardless of the sexual persuasion of any of the protagonists in this saga, it is a matter of public record that Helen Clark married for the sake of appearances, because that would make her more palatable to the people she purports to represent. She did not, nor does not now, hold the institute of marriage in any regard, and having passed the civil union bill, regards that as an option she would have taken, had it been open to her.

    This brings forward the question, if Helen Clark enters a matrimonial state she does not want, nor respect, for the sake of achieving higher political office, how far is she prepared to go to retain such office. This is the question Wishart raises in this book. I feel too much has been made of the “Elephant in the room” question and the issues raised have been used by those who disagree with Wishart to discredit him as having some sort of homophobic agenda. This ignores the central tenet of the book. I feel that the book may well have had more impact if that issue was not raised, but I can see the questions raised by such supposition in a wider context.

    Has Clark been corrupted by power in her quest to get to the top? Does the end justify the means? Is the marriage, in itself, a measure of how far Clark has gone to gain power?

    These are valid questions. The electorate is justified in asking if we have the real helen Clark representing us.

  • Slightly

    the question has been asked well before now and surely has been answered by the electorate who have voted for her and rated her highly in polls. It’s a non issue for the vast majority.

  • SR, so you don’t believe that? Have you looked into NZ politics in any detail? Really because if you have, the issues surrounding Clark’s and Davis’ marriage are pretty minor. Certainly you’re going to struggle to get most people to care about it. Of course you’ll probably succeed in getting the christian fundies to take a second look at it, but they’re not going to be voting for Labour anyhow – and they’re almost insignificant in NZ politics. So feel free to keep on banging your head against that particular brick wall.

    BTW- the evidence presented against Clark and Davis being homosexual, to me is conclusive.

    Then there’s also the fact that my partner’s friend witnessed a rather intimate scene between Clark and Davis at a private function not so long ago.

  • IAN, JOHN LENNON HAS BEEN SHOT!
    Apparently John Lennon has been shot.
    If there’s any more news on that, I’ll keep you posted.
    Or perhaps I would be better to leave it in your capable investigative (and ‘hot little’!!) hands?

    http://chasemeladies.blogspot.com/2004/04/john-lennon-has-been-shot.html
    [Look, even Elton doesnt write his own material. So sue me!]

  • slightlyrighty

    Roger.

    Answer this.

    Why are the circumstances of Helen Clarks marriage inconsequnetial, yet Don Brash’s was open season?

    The left was happy to point out Brash’s marital situation and go even further and portray that as part of a larger picture of a man who could not be trusted, given dealings with exclusive breatheren.

    Now Wishart points out some inconsistencies in Helen Clarks background, and paints a larger picture of a person who has stolen parliamentary funds, lied about paintings and destroyed evidence, misled about motorcades, and questions if this person can be trusted.

    What’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose my friend!

    Muerk hits the nail right on the head. This debate is less about the right to hit your children and more about railing against the assumed right of the state to tell parents what they can or can’t do in the course of raising ones own children.

    Those parents who whip, punch, kick and bash thier children deserve to be vilified for such conduct, as do the parents who emotionally abuse and cripple their kids, but of course non-physical abuse is not covered at all in this regard.

    But a light smack on the hand or bottom with an open hand and a means of illustrating consequences has been a tool of loving parents for generations, including my own parents, and I for one do not appreciate being told that being smacked by them was not in my best interests.

    Yes I do have children. I love them dearly, and I will smack as a last resort, not because I wish to cause them harm, but to prevent a greater harm in future.

    They get far more hugs than smacks anyway. They know that their mum and dad love them, as I know my mum and dad loved me.

  • Like I said SR – keep on banging, keep on banging.

  • Ian’s points are substantiated and well reasoned – the rest of you who are attacking him lose.

  • “The book is a good read.”

    Oh, that’s all right then. Why let facts get in the way of good writing? That just wouldn’t be fair.

    I take it, though, that the author you are referring to is not the same person commenting here. The Wishart comments on this thread are an excruciating read.

    Why are the circumstances of Helen Clarks marriage inconsequnetial, yet Don Brash’s was open season?

    Because, as Wishart keeps pointing out, Helen Clark has been consistently honest and open about her dissatisfaction with the idea that society expected her to get married to her partner. This was not a secret.

    Don Brash on the other hand wrote a letter to the church complaining about Clark “respect” for the institution of marriage whilst at the same time secretly disrespected that institution in the most blatant way possible. Can you spot the difference?

    Anyway, Brash was not brought down for his peccadilloes, he was brought down because he was shown to be constantly deceiving the public over his political agenda, something Clark and Labour can hardly be said to have done. And therein lies Wishart’s dilemma.

  • rly writes: “… constantly deceiving the public over his political agenda, something Clark and Labour can hardly be said to have done.”

    Here’s one example – the clampdown on free speech provision Clark and Labour tried to sneak through tucked in the middle of another totally unrelated bill. This was after the film censors had been knocked back by the courts on censorship of an anti-gay video. This was picked up by an alert MP — Franks of ACT.

    Then there was the secret FTA, with details announced after the fact, including forced acceptance of the other country’s citizens.

    On a minor level of course there was Clark’s lying signature on the painting, Dalziel’s dismissal from the Cabinet from lying, and the blaming of the police drivers for the Canterbury speeding escapade.

    There are scores of examples of Clark and Labour deceiving the public.

  • rly

    In fact I can very much see the difference. At the time of that incident, Leighton read out a statement the PM had made several years before where she railed against marriage and said she tried to convince everyone not to ever do it. The media of course would not print this at the time.

    Pete, I think your comments would be the most balanced and best in this group. Well said.

  • Kay is it shame or pride that prevents you admitting you had a hand in and/or approved and endorsed the views in the pamphlet.and the submission to the select committee as Ian claims /proves?

    Talk about being caught with your fingers in the subversive jar.

  • Good on Ian for telling it like it is and having being brave enough to do so. This dictatorial regime is downright scary, and capable of anything. It’s not the sham marriage I care about, but I do care about the political dishonesty. Labour is corrupt, and they will do anything, absolutely anything, to retain power. Just watch and see. MMP has wrecked this country, and Kiwis are just too complacent. Go, National!

  • Don Brash’s private life is also none of the publics’ business, that was a horrible dose of dirt.

  • Lew,

    Your point about serving Ian’s purpose is well-taken here. From my experience elsewhere, it reminds me of Creationists arguing about evolution: what they often seek is an argument, period. Having established an argument, they can then say “oh look, this is debatable” to those they wish to recruit or impress.

    Its quite clever in its own (pathetic) way. Take a few potshots. Wait for the ensuring ruckus. Fan the flames if need be. Then use the “debate”, to justify their point of view to those they wish to impress or recruit. The accuracy of their “contributions” are essentially irrelevant. What they want is “noise” that they can point at.

    So… to lump a few points to other than Ian in one post:

    pkiwi and Billy: In similar vein, I like “If you hear hooves, think of horses before zebras”. Shades of Occam’s Razor. The doorman of the house in the horse-drawn cart era on hearing hooves in the courtyard should think of the ordinary horse before the exotic zebra :-)

    Fletch: As noted earlier, endorsing is not authoring. Many people here are writers of various kinds and can hopefully vouch for me if I say that in many publications, that an introduction is “signed off” by a particular person is frequently an indication that that person wishes to be associated only with the introduction and not the main body of the work.

    Pete: And in other countries still peccadilloes are expected of those in high office. (Disclaimer: In writing this, I am not implying anything about anyone!) France seems to even anticipate sexual proclivity and affairs. Perhaps that’s more mature of them? Perhaps its our judgement that is silly?

  • I guess my only question is – after ‘The Paradise Conspiracy’ et al – Can Wishart write a readable sentence yet?

  • As interesting as it is to share the views of the many who have commented here, Shakespeare I believe wrote a play about this post – Much Ado About Nothing.

    Rather than be critically dissected Wishart’s works should instead be regarded in the same manner as those of a David Irving or a Ron L Hubbard: as handily combustible when attempting to light the Kent on a cold winter’s evening.

    And if we spent as much time on alleviating world poverty as we seem to do on discussing the Prime Minister’s sexuality I am sure there would be a lot less hungry children in the world presently.

    Ditto for the alleged political works of a young feminist in the 1970’s who later became an obscure public servant. It is all rather akin to the inane debate about whether Keith Locke supported the Khmer Rouge when they overthrew the military dictatorship of Cambodia in the same decade.

    Really, who cares?

  • Yes Brenden, who cares about corruption in kiwiland?

  • (Russell Brown) – We’ve acknowledged that she is not in fact a “senior advisor” to the government (a key plank of the story’s allegations of malign influence on policy) but a research analyst.

    (Ian Wishart) – It was a glancing reference in the original article.

    (Russell Brown) – We’re agreed, are we not, that the claim that she “still mixes with Marxist organizations in Europe” is 100% baseless and reckless

    (Ian Wishart) – Again, a glancing reference.

    I think what Ian means by a “glancing reference” is that you only have to glance at it to get the message, because as Russell points out, in the Investigate article that Chapter 15 of Absolute Power is based on, the above falsehoods are set out in large coloured type as a pull-quote. So anyone who hadn’t the time or the inclination to read the article was able to go away with the message that: a person named Goodger who is a raving commo authored documents setting out “a long term plan for changing the face of New Zealand society” and is now a senior Government adviser. Oh no!

    (Ian Wishart) – The story was not about one woman’s specific drafting of modern social policy (because I wasn’t looking at Goodger in that sense and wouldn’t have a clue what she had done later)

    Let’s have a look at that. Chapter 15 of Absolute Power is taken almost verbatim from an article with a similar title which appeared in the May 2005 issue of Investigate magazine, although in the book Wishart has omitted any description of Kay Goodger’s current job. However, she is fingered early in the chapter as the author of the Socialist Action League’s policy on women’s rights. Every quote from the unidentified “series of documents” is attributed to her. On page 283 of the book they are even called “the Goodger documents”, with the absurd claim that much of Labour’s policy has been inspired by the “smash the family” agenda inherited from those documents.

    As we know from the debate between Wishart and Russell Brown, Kay Goodger was described in the Investigate version as a senior Government adviser.

    According to Wishart, the documents set out a “long term plan”, one that “the Sisterhood would work towards over the next thirty years” – but none of the quoted excerpts actually indicate a timeframe for achieving the stated goals. Given that this was a programme devised by a bunch of young self-styled revolutionaries, tomorrow might not have been too soon. But thirty years? Forget that!

    Wishart says that Kay “then called on radical feminists to do all they can within political parties, government departments and communities to target and eliminate institutions like the traditional family.” Hang on a minute – where did “government departments” come from? In his response yesterday to Kay’s objection that neither she nor the League called on anyone to promote anything within government departments, Wishart couldn’t actually come up with any reference to government departments. But Kay Goodger works in a government department doesn’t she? Hmmmm.

    Wishart is so keen not to leave anyone in doubt about what he’s getting at, that he makes the following extraordinary statement: “Did the Socialist Action League plant the seeds now growing in Labour’s social policy advice units? If Prime Minister Clark’s recent call for a massive increase in government childcare facilities and more women in the workforce is any indication, the answer must be yes.” “Social policy advice units”? What can this be all about, if not another specific reference to Kay Goodger and her current job, with the innuendo that she is a “plant” put there by the SAL?

    The climax of all this scene-setting is the following statement : “In short, an agenda written by an offshoot of the Communist Party in 1973 has been met in full by the women it infiltrated the Labour Party and public service with all those years ago.” The Communist Party bit is just an attempt to play on Cold War fears, as he’s obviously ignorant of the origins of the SAL’s particular brand of socialism, but – leaving aside the alleged infiltration of the Labour Party (for which he presents no evidence) – the bit to note is the infiltration by the Socialist Action League of the public service. Hello Jack, it’s got to be that Kay Goodger again!

    In the Investigate version, in case he hasn’t made it plain enough for his regular readership, Wishart then adds: “As noted earlier, Kay Goodger is now a senior adviser on government policy initiatives”. OK, OK, you made your point for Chrissake!

    So how disingenuous is Wishart’s statement that he wasn’t focussing on Kay Goodger, past and present? To finger the Socialist Action League clearly wasn’t going to be enough – he needed Kay Goodger the person for that all-important link between past radical and present “government adviser”. So he’s bent the facts to achieve that, making her the author of “the documents”, and hinting that she is an SAL “mole” within the public service, where he’s on record as saying she’s employed as a senior government adviser.

    McCarthy invented this particular brand of witchhunting during the Cold War, to embarrass and disempower his political opponents, and Wishart is trying the same stunt. But his attempt to construct this particular edifice of nefarious influence is simply a joke. Defamatory too? Hell yes! Wishart clearly has some qualms on that score, which is why he’s omitted any reference to Kay Goodger’s current position from the book, but I don’t think that’ll save him – the book chapter and the Investigate article are essentially one and the same narrative (as Wishart concedes in the prefatory remarks he makes to Chapter 15), and the earlier version is still out there embracing the whole defamatory diatribe.

  • Vodka and tonic for me, please Ian.

  • Pascal's bookie

    Lawks a mercy.

    I’m afraid I don’t really understand the sham marriage thing.

    To me a sham marriage would be one that has the appearence or form of a marriage, but the underlying nature of the relationship is something else.

    Possible examples might be marriages made to gain immigration status or student benefits, between two people whose only connection is the marriage contract. This is what Ian hints at with the homosexual allegation.

    But he cites as part of his evidence the well known story that Clark and Davis, who were in a de facto relationship, married so as not to scare the horses.

    De facto. Funny phrase that. What say we use the older term, ‘common law marriage’.

    They had a common law marriage and decided, for political reasons, to make to make what was de facto, de jure. Therefore they are gay. WTF?

    How on earth can this marriage, that already existed in fact, now become a sham because it gets recognised by the state?

    I reckon the shammiest marriages are those by divorcees who claim to be christians. Pew did a study in the States and found that the highest rate of divorce was in the evangelical christian community. There’s your sham.

    I don’t have a problem with it, except for the hypocricy of these arrogant muppets running around saying that they have anything at all to tell the rest of us about how to live our lives.

    The civil union act allows people to commit to each other in a public affirmation of their intent to form a family. Pro family conservatives should approve.

    That they don’t approve points to the fact that what they really are about is dictating how other people should live their lives, and making things difficult for those who don’t share their own personal beliefs. There is nothing honourable, respectable, liberal, democratic, interesting, humble, compassionate, intelligent or commendable about that. But they are welcome to their beliefs, and are free to try and convince the majority that we must leap backwards.

    They haven’t had much success with that though. Which tells you something.

  • A faint reference to past investigative feats started coming to mind as I skimmed through Poneke’s review and the 129 comments. When I got to the posts about the marriage yada yada it came to me – Benny the Bin Man, infamous for ferreting through Brit politicians’ and celebrities’ rubbish bins for ‘the real dirt.’ Sadly, Ian the bin man doesn’t have the same resonance. Ian the sin man perhaps?

  • This was picked up by an alert MP — Franks of ACT.

    Was that Franks the Marxist, the neo-con Randyan acolyte or the mainstream, tits promoting National Candidate?

  • Gee Vince, all that fluff from you but you omitted to mention the crucial footnote acknowledging Goodger’s views have moved on, and she is well thought of by mens groups.

    You’re not Danyl by any chance?

  • “Who were your co-authors? More importantly – did you edit the “pamphlet” featuring your introduction? What was your exact role in helping produce and distribute the pamphlet?”

    Are you interviewing me for your story, Ian – after you’ve written it?

    “Gee Vince, all that fluff from you but you omitted to mention the crucial footnote acknowledging Goodger’s views have moved on, and she is well thought of by mens groups.”

    Ian Wishart knows nothing about my current views, but he has the temerity to insert the following words into the book version of his article in which I feature: “Goodger, who now incidentally rejects the radicalism of her youth…” Also, in the footnote he refers to he implies that I “wince” at things said and done in my youth. What a cheek! Unfortunately, I can’t respond to these statements, and he knows it. It’s like the loaded question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Whatever response you make condemns you.

    As far as men’s groups are concerned, in 2005, two men (one of whom has associated with me professionally regarding shared research interests), posted comments in my defence on the menz website, after the owner, John Potter, had posted a link to a pernicious piece of writing vilifying feminists in general and using the claims based on Wishart’s article, as repeated and referenced by Herald columnist Sandra Paterson, as an example.

    Wishart turns this into “is well thought of by men’s groups”. You really do have scant respect for accuracy, don’t you, Ian?

    I think your “crucial” footnote is there to try to cover your ass, nothing more.

  • Kay, your obfuscation is getting tiresome. You didn’t complain when Russ ran fulsome defences of you using the Mens Groups claim. Are you now saying Russell Brown’s defence of you through the blogosphere has been nothing more than a “beat up”?

    If you don’t resile from what you said and wrote, and you are too coy to tell everyone here your real involvement, then why the heck did you beat the Herald into giving you a crawling apology? For what?

    The more I see of your comments, the less I can see any reason for your complaint.

    I’m not covering my backside at all. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, based on all the assurances that Brown had been making on your behalf in all our clashes on this.

    And you still haven’t answered the questions that more than one person has now asked: Did you edit the booklet carrying your name? Did you help edit it? Who presented the SAL submission to the select committee with you, or did you do it alone? Which parts of any of that booklet do you resile from, if any, given your ringing endorsement of it at the time? Who were your co-authors, if any? You know the names.

    It’s up to you whether you answer, but you chose to come onto this thread to try and ping me. You tried to distance yourself from the booklet on this thread, but you haven’t given readers one reason why they should accept such a distancing, especially after I pointed out your role, and the plagiarism of other communist texts that were presented by you to Parliament as a Socialist Action League submission, apparently without attribution as to their true source.

    Imagine if I had written a book the majority of which was cobbled together from a Barack Obama speech and passed it off as my original thought.

    I’m interested to hear from Russell Brown as to the apparent insignificance of the mens group reference he has been running all these years.

  • This is starting to sound more and more like the trial of Sir Thomas More. Neither I nor Kay nor any of us are under any obligation to confess our consciences to Wishart or anyone else. We are all entitled to live in peace and believe what we want to believe without being inquisitioned about it, and to protect our reputations if lies are told about us.

    I understand truth is a defence to defamation, but that the onus of proof is on the defendant, not the victim. No wonder Wishart’s so desperate to find out what she really thinks.

  • As far as men’s groups are concerned, in 2005, two men ….., posted comments in my defence on the menz website, after the owner, John Potter, had posted a link to a pernicious piece of writing vilifying feminists in general and using the claims based on Wishart’s article, as repeated and referenced by Herald columnist Sandra Paterson, as an example.

    Just for accuracy, the menz site shows that the link was posted by “triassic” and not posted by John Potter, even if the site is owned by John. That is the equivalent of passing responsibility of everything said on this site to Poneke. I do not know who “triassic” is, but my best guess is that she is Barbara Faithfull, or somebody in close contact with Barbara.

    Furthermore, Kay appears to be doubly wrong in misattributing John as the person who had posted the Sandra Paterson link. For when Kay says there were two men who posted comments in her defence, there were actually three; one of whom was actually John himself.

    Refer comments 12, 13, 14 in the discussion (20 May 2005) I am referring to:
    http://menz.org.nz/2005/feminist-agenda-reaches-fruition/

  • When the going gets tough, the howling dogs of the left start to whimper, is that it Trouble?

    I think I see where Goodger/Russ et al are coming from. You think I can’t “prove” Goodger’s involvement with the documents to the nth degree, therefore I’ve defamed her?

    Nice try. I’ll be rolling on the floor laughing all morning if that is the collective level of legal analysis that you guys can muster.

    Mind you, this would be the same Russell Brown who was so quick to accept the 1999 letter exonerating David Parker:

    Russell Brown (No Karma available) Says:

    April 26th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
    Graeme: I’d take issue with this statement of RB’s ‘though “hence the false declarations”; there were in fact (and law) no false declarations at all.

    Right you are. There’s the letter of the Official Assignee quoted on page 5 . ” Please note that the Official Assignee waives the requirement to seek confirmation on a yearly basis that a unanimous resolution was achieved in respect of no auditor being required for the above company.”

    Apparently Parker had forgotten about the existence of the letter, or he’d have waved it around at the time.

    So like Idiot and Graeme say, this is an exoneration. Hands down. So WTF was Rodney Hide on about on the radio just now? Presumably he knows he’s talking complete crap and just saying it anyway.

    Cheers,
    RB

    Russell. How about dealing with the David Parker problem. Are you going to admit you got that one horribly wrong as well?

  • I’m interested to hear from Russell Brown as to the apparent insignificance of the mens group reference he has been running all these years.

    It was what it was: a forum discussion at odds with the picture you had been at such pains to draw.

    It was you, Ian, who turned a web page into a broad statement of fact about mens’ groups in your book. Because that is just how you work.

  • Ian! Kay Goodger is not obfuscating at all. You’re harassing her for something she did 30 years ago. And even if she still believes as she does when she was a student, that’s not a crime Ian. Kay Goodger isn’t some Communist puppet master for goodness sake.

    You’re dragging her name around for no good reason and it’s flat out sin to bear false witness which you have patently done. I mean you described the documents as the “Goodger” documents by all accounts! Investigate magazine has just been rapped on the knuckles by the Press Council for being misleading and inaccurate about Air New Zealand. You need to get your house in order and salvage what little respect you have left.

  • Imagine if I had written a book the majority of which was cobbled together from a Barack Obama speech and passed it off as my original thought.

    Nobody wrote a book. The materials you attribute to Kay Goodger were a submission to a parliamentary select committee, and a conference resolution. These materials were the product of a political group, which clearly felt free to use and adapt statements of policy developed by related groups. “Authorship” of such materials is not an issue. It’s you who have passed this material off as written by an individual, who it served your purposes to identify as a current government adviser.

  • Muerk, I’m not suggesting it’s a crime. Of course she’s entitled to her opinions. She and Russell raised the issue on this thread, not me. The book makes clear these were views she held in her youth which she may not hold now, but apparently she’s not happy with that either.

    The issue was not, and has never been despite Brown’s straw man attacks through the years, that Goodger personally directed massive change to NZ society over the years. That wasn’t the intention of my original article, and if Kay genuinely believes it was then I unreservedly apologise – not because I have to but because I want to. That’s why I refer to it as a glancing reference – it wasn’t what I was aiming at.

    Certainly my advice concentrated on the main issue, which was that back in the 70s she wrote or co-wrote and endorsed and presented what effectively became a communist manifesto for radical change, and that obviously the plan worked because the changes have been made.

    This much is historically undeniable. How this becomes “false witness” escapes me – if anything, my name has been dragged through the mud here by Goodger and Brown despite bucketloads of documentary evidence implicating Kay in the original documents and their presentation. Yet when I ask for a definitive answer, given the defamatory allegations that my story is false, Kay and Russell run for the hills.

    The documents are called “the Goodger documents” only because hers is the name that appears on the introduction to the booklet. No other author is named, part of the document is a speech given by Kay where she makes many of the same points and quotes in the submission itself.

    How hard is it for Kay to clarify her role? I’m quite comfortable on the evidence that I have that I’ve pinged Kay’s involvement at the time accurately. Nothing said in this thread has proven the contrary for a second.

    As for the Air New Zealand story, it isn’t quite that simple. Air NZ told porkies to the Press Council, and the matter is under review. The airline chose to fire a premature shot across my bows, possibly after being alerted this week that the matter was under appeal. That’s speculation as I don’t know their motivation for sure, but the timing is spectacularly coincidental.

    Anyway, if you want to see the substance of our appeal, visit http://www.investigatemagazine.tv

  • Just for accuracy, the menz site shows that the link was posted by “triassic” and not posted by John Potter, even if the site is owned by John. That is the equivalent of passing responsibility of everything said on this site to Poneke. I do not know who “triassic” is, but my best guess is that she is Barbara Faithfull, or somebody in close contact with Barbara.

    Furthermore, Kay appears to be doubly wrong in misattributing John as the person who had posted the Sandra Paterson link. For when Kay says there were two men who posted comments in her defence, there were actually three; one of whom was actually John himself.

    I think you got it wrong, Brian. I think you’ll find that Kay was referring to the link provided by John Potter to Angry Harry’s blog – see comment number 10 in the thread. This seems to be what she is referring to as “a pernicious piece of writing vilifying feminists in general”. And, Kay can correct me if I’m wrong, but she probably doesn’t see Potter’s contribution as being in her defence, especially when he says things, a la Wishart, like “Perhaps she has realised the error of her ways?”

    With friends like that, who needs enemies?

  • Certainly my advice concentrated on the main issue, which was that back in the 70s she wrote or co-wrote and endorsed and presented what effectively became a communist manifesto for radical change, and that obviously the plan worked because the changes have been made.

    It might be “obvious” to you Ian, but to anyone with a skerrick of sense it’s obvious that correlation does not equal causality.

    The submission from this obscure little group included positions shared with many other, more prominent, groups. Some of those have, through the democratic process, become government policy.

    But are you seriously suggesting that, say, homosexual law reform came to pass via a secret communist plot, rather than through a very public debate around a private member’s bill for which, eventually, a majority of elected members of Parliament voted? Merely because someone gave you some old pamphlets?

    Yes, you are. And that’s what’s so tragic.

  • No Russell, and I wasn’t anti the homosexual law reform bill at the time either. But, the private member’s bill did get pushed through Labour by the feminist wing…so in that respect, the importance of people like Clark, Wilde etc taking these positions (and many others besides) and driving them through the legislative process was crucial.

    Don’t be obtuse.

    Care to comment on David Parker’s “exoneration”?

  • “Certainly my advice concentrated on the main issue, which was that back in the 70s she wrote or co-wrote and endorsed and presented what effectively became a communist manifesto for radical change, and that obviously the plan worked because the changes have been made.”

    Here’s where we have the nut of the issue, and here’s where you are giving false witness. Just because someone (Kay Goodger) endorsed an ideology back in 1970-something doesn’t mean she _caused_ it to come to fruition now in 2008.

    You’re right, undeniably right, that Kay Goodger supported that submission back in the day. But as Kay stated, “There is no justification for dragging my name into this political debate, either in 2005 or now.”

    The issue is what does Kay Goodger, specifically as an individual, have to do with our current society’s values and morals? And the answer is… as much as any 1970’s feminist. So why are you singling out Goodger? Why her?

    You’re playing the man and not the ball.

    If you wanted to talk about the democratic shift of ideologies, the way that lobby groups worked to change people’s values, if you want to talk about the _ideas_, then hey, that’s fair… and interesting.

    What’s not fair is the focus on one, single individual who was then a proponent of those ideas and linking it with her current job as a researcher in the public service.

    The problem is, you have a worthy argument if you will just keep the individual names out of it. By describing the documents as “Goodger’s” you have weakened the main thrust of your argument, because she was associated as merely one of many, not as some High Queen of Communist Feminism.

  • This thread now begins to remind me of the Python skit featuring the Black Knight.

    I’m just no longer sure who reminds me most of the Knight.

  • No Muerk, this is where some of my critics misunderstand the point.

    Kay Goodger put her name to a booklet containing a communist wish-list for NZ society, back in the 1970s. It was a barrow well-pushed at the time, and the ideas that came from this and other radical feminist groups (their terms) were put into place. Kay not only put her name to it, she was a leader of the particular group, as evidenced by her select committee appearance (usually only one or a handful of people make such appearances – certainly not the entire membership of SAL), and the decision by the editor of the booklet to transcribe a speech given by Kay where she repeats many of the things in the submission she says wasn’t hers.

    You say I have “weakened” my argument because “she was associated as merely one of many”.

    On what basis do you say that? What factual nugget do you have in this thread that proves Kay’s involvement with the booklet and submission was merely “one of many”?

    Why did the booklet editor devote a sizeable chunk to a Kay Goodger speech, as well as Kay Goodger’s introduction? Who was taking notes when Kay made the speech, or is it possible that she supplied her notes to the editor? Is it possible in fact that Kay WAS the editor, which is why her name was prominent and no-one else’s was?

    You tell me it is unfair to single her out. How could I avoid it? The ONLY identifying name for the origin of the booklet is Kay Goodger’s. With respect, it would be a little bit like someone denying my specific involvement with The Paradise Conspiracy on the basis that I was one of a team of people who worked on the Winebox investigation and an even bigger team who helped produce the book (publishers, lawyers, printers etc).

    She was not, at the time, merely a “supporter” of the Socialist Action League’s plan, in the sense of being rank and file. She was far higher up the food chain than that.

    And as for keeping her name out of it, I would immediately have been accused of seeing “unnamed” “reds under the bed”. She’s named because she put her name to a document and speech and presentation to Parliament, and because she endorsed every single thing in the booklet. Again, this coyness about simply accepting that fact and moving on is bizarre.

    I can’t understand why we are all still arguing this point after all these years. Kay Goodger is not Rasputin. I’m sure she’s a lovely person. But the ideas she helped articulate and form and focus in the early years of the women’s movement in NZ have turned out to be dominant ideas in social policy of successive Labour governments.

    The fact that Kay herself now says many of the ideas came direct from international communist groups (ultimately getting their chains yanked by Moscow) will provide more weight to those who argue Soviet interference in Western social policy development.

    Russell is correct that correlation does not automatically equate to causality. But nor does that statement negate it.

  • No Russell, and I wasn’t anti the homosexual law reform bill at the time either. But, the private member’s bill did get pushed through Labour by the feminist wing…so in that respect, the importance of people like Clark, Wilde etc taking these positions (and many others besides) and driving them through the legislative process was crucial.

    Read your own words, Ian: according to you this group had “a communist manifesto for radical change, and that obviously the plan worked because the changes have been made.”

    You explicitly associate all these generational social changes with this “manifesto”, even though it makes no sense at all. It’s absurd.

    But it’s worse than that: it’s malicious. You have now twice dragged through the mud the name of someone (a mother, a public servant, a private citizen) — for no other other reason than that it’s only name you can associate with the squalid conspiracy theory you’ve invented as a means of justifying your premise.

    You could have actually done some research, found out who the prime movers were in the SAL, what roles they played, who put the publications together, where they are now, and what impact the group actually had.

    But that would have been too much like actual research, so you just harnessed the first name to hand, and built your fetid theory around that name.

    And even when you have been obliged to admit that you have made reckless errors about this person, you have never bothered to apologise to her.

    Do you even think about the impact the impact this kind of campaign might have on its subject? And, quite probably, on the host of other people who are subject to your political fantasies?

    You talk a lot about morals, Ian. One day you might regain yours and actually grasp what it is that you do.

  • Thanks for the misplaced lecture Russell. Kay Goodger was not the ‘tea lady’, but a key figure in the women’s strategy outlined in those documents, for all the reasons laid out above and ignored by you.

    Just as you have ignored, and this will be the third time now, my suggestion that you explain your egregious errors over the David Parker case.

  • Muerk, Vince, Russell and “Co.”:

    Isn’t investigation supposed to proceed, more-or-less:

    Obtain material, draw tendative conclusions, verify conclusions, publish claims

    (Given in a straight-line fashion for simplicity.)

    Not:

    Obtain material, draw conclusions, publish claims

    (Note lack of verification.)

    Without verifying it isn’t so much drawing conclusions, as assuming them.

    Reversing the burden of proof seems to be a theme in Ian’s posts, too: he asks others to refute things, rather than he have verified them in the first place.

    It seems to me that a little before-publication verification might go a long way to avoiding after-publication “justifications”…

    In fact, as far as I can see, he’s basically admitted that he didn’t check a number of things before publishing them.

    “Russell is correct that correlation does not automatically equate to causality. But nor does that statement negate it.”

    Arguing “does not negate” reverses the burden of proof: its not for other’s to negate afterwards: its for Ian to determine the truth of beforehand. (This approach seems to be common among followers of fundamentalist religions in “debating” against science too.)

    I’m with Russell. If Ian can show a correlation, fine, but he can’t present it as causative action until he demonstrates casuality. Mere possibility or even plausibilty isn’t enough.

    If his posts here are anything to go by I’m hardly surpised he’s being pinged for other things in more formal settings on similar grounds, e.g.: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0804/S00510.htm (“Press Council upholds complaints about Investigate”)

  • “the ideas she helped articulate and form and focus in the early years of the women’s movement in NZ have turned out to be dominant ideas in social policy of successive Labour governments.”

    That’s a perfectly defensible statement. But it’s not at all the same as the specific claims Ian made earlier.

    I wasn’t really familiar with the Wishart oeuvre before this post blew up, but I see now that the MO is to allege something outrageous, then retreat to a much more modest statement, claiming all the while that your position has never changed.

  • Heraclides…I’m convinced there are some of you on this thread who have become so obsessed by the trees that the wood is utterly escaping you.

    Kay Goodger wrote the introduction: Verified

    Kay Goodger made a speech paraphrasing the submission and resolution material in the booklet: Verified

    Kay Goodger personally appeared before the Select Committee to help present the submission: Verified

    Kay Goodger endorsed everything in the booklet: Verified

    Whatever mental replay loop you’re on right now, give the casing a good bang and move on already.

  • Hey, I can do that too. Let’s look at all the references to “Kay Goodger’s writings and sayings” in Chapter 15 of Wishart’s book:

    Page 270:

    “Goodger…authored and co-authored…” Verified?

    “…she wrote” Verified?

    “As signalled by Goodger…” Verified?

    “…claimed Goodger…” Verified?

    “…she wrote” Verified?

    Page 271:

    “…wrote Goodger” Verified?

    “She then called on radical feminists…” Verified?

    “In her 1973 analysis, Goodger correctly identified…” Verified?

    “Back in 1973 Goodger wrote…” Verified?

    “Goodger also reinforced that…” Verified?

    Page 272:

    “Selling the message in a sugar-coated way to women was also seen as important by Goodger back then, with her comment…” Verified?

    “…she wrote” Verified?

    “…Goodger argued…” Verified?

    “Goodger…realised that…” Verified?

    “As part of the list of ‘demands’ that the Sisterhood would work towards over the next thirty years, wrote Goodger in 1973, were…” Verified?

  • Kay Goodger endorsed everything in the booklet: Verified

    How exactly was that verified?

    How could you possibly know, to such detail, what I thought or agreed with in 1974? Even I don’t.

    It’s just another of your assumptions, based on your peculiar “join the dots” reasoning.

  • Ian, even assuming that you are correct about what Kay believed and endorsed and write and so on, so what?

    You agree she isn’t a shadowy puppet master so why does it matter what Kay did or did not write back in the ’70s.

    By the way Kay, where can we order your signed photo since you’re such a celeb ;)

  • Ian: I wasn’t writing to you as the first line of my post tried to indicate. (Arguing with you is like arguing with fundamentalist “Christians” on other topics like evolution—something I generally can’t be bothered with: the side-stepping, strawmen arguments, sly potshots, strange leaps of logic and whatnot aren’t worth the trouble.)

  • Muerk asked a good question upthread:

    So why are you singling out Goodger? Why her?

    I’ve asked the same question many times since Wishart, and then Paterson, and then numerous Christian conservatives and men’s rights activists (and others) attacked me in May 2005 and in the months following (years in the case of a few diehards).

    Muerk also pointed out that Ian was playing the man not the ball (ad hominem). I’ve thought about this, too, over the past couple of years. There is a particular type of ad hominem attack called “poisoning the well” – discrediting someone in advance.

    Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one’s personal integrity. As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets Poisoning the Well apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

    Since Ian Wishart claims to know what I thought or said in 1974, perhaps he could enlighten readers as to what he thinks I am about to think or say, something that is apparently so devastating to civilisation as we know it that it warrants discrediting me in advance. Thinking people want to know!

  • Poor old poneke – his other posts are being ignored.

  • OK, there will be no more comments about Kay Goodger.

    I am very concerned that some people are using this blog to attack an individual in this way over something that happened decades ago.

    It has gone on long enough. Kay is a private citizen, and should not have to be defending herself against an onslaught as has been happening here.

    No more.

    Who among us would want some single act we were involved in 35 years ago raked over to the point of total obsession, when we have had a lifetime since?

    And this is the first time I have ever asked that a thread cease. I hope it is the last. Karl du Fresne said this week that this is a gentle blog. I want it to remain gentle.

  • Re:Freethinker 30/4 2.35pm

    You call this book successful, something that panders to the lowest common denominator – misogyny. What a sorry indictment on NZ society that it appears to be so popular.

    I remember buying Ian Wishart’s first copy of Investigate, really excited that at last good research and study of all the things papers don’t publish would be on every page. So it was for a short while, then the content started to change and I realised why he had started the magazine. Helen Clark was proving to be far too successful as a PM.

    The trumped up attacks started on Helen Clark and other individuals that did not meet his narrow view of women. Incidentally, Brian Tamaki and Destiny Church happened on the scene around then… 2002. Helen Clark had won against Bill English.

    The sad thing is that whereas once I thought many of his articles not involving Helen Clark or Labour were well researched, having read Poneke’s excellent review and the other thread entries now, I begin to doubt his credentials as an investigative journalist; his twisted morphing from ‘caterpillar to mouse’ assertions on one individual in particular on this thread and making damaging assertions about Labour policies are deeply concerning.

    Thank goodness the blog world arrived to fill in the gap left by my disappointment in him. At least I know the blogs are based on personal opinions.

    Wishart said otherwise and I trusted him. Investigative Journalism now seems to imply 1+1=cheese.


Comments are closed.