Saturday, June 13, 2015

Yes Hanoi Jane Does hold a Chair At Auckland University.



From Wikipedia,
Elizabeth Jane Kelsey is a professor of law at the University of Auckland and a prominent critic of globalisation.
Jane Kelsey has an MPhil from the University of Cambridge and a PhD from the University of Auckland. She has worked at the University of Auckland since 1979 and was appointed to a personal Chair in Law in 1997. At Cambridge "left-thinking Marxist scholars ... taught her the political theory that ... underpins her daily work".[1]
She is a key member of the Action Resource Education Network of Aotearoa (Arena), and is actively involved in researching and speaking out against the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, free trade and corporate-led globalisation.[1] She is also actively involved in campaigning for the New Zealand Government's full recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi and opposed the controversial seabed and foreshore legislation.
Kelsey is an outspoken critic of the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade talks, of which New Zealand is a part.[2]
Kelsey took part in actions over the 1981 Springbok tour.

Image result for jane kelsey


She has been there for decades.

However to continually trot her views on Trade, The TPP, the actions of the current Government and John Key in particular with the introductory "from Auckland University" as if anyone who slides out from that monument to mediocrity must be relevant and have her pronouncements accepted as truths, is disingenuous in the extreme.

It is just so tiresome and inane to patronise those who still go to the TV News, The Wireless and the deadtree recyclers out of a misguided belief that they will emerge better informed,  is a distorting propaganda exercise that the alleged father of  Magda's doomed children  would be completely in awe of .

Hanoi Jane Kelsey is a trougher extraordinaire, who has warped the innocent minds of  generations of students since the Vietnam War days.

If the media had a shred of honesty, probity and fiduciary duty they would either ignore the Marxist preacher and communist enabler or preface any quote she might get published with a disclaimer that includes the true belief systems the sad old relic from the now thankfully failed communist residual dogma she clings to.

She appears to have absolutely no cognitive regard for the massive strides free world trade delivers year on year to so many of the worlds poorest who are striving to escape from their very real poverty, while those worst affected are only trapped because like minded wannabe game changers perpetrate the misery of for the simple reason that without the poorest flotsam,  what else would remain for sad bastards like her to fill in their miserable days with.

16 comments:

Noel said...

Getting hard....reduced now to trolling through Wikipedia for a culprit.
What about the Republicans...appear to have more influence on stalling the TPP than any activists.

The Veteran said...

Noel unlike you not to have done the research ... Obama's support for the TPP is opposed by an unlikely coalition of right wing (Tea Party) Republicans and liberal Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, two Democrat contenders, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and Senator Bernie Sanders, along with the labor unions that are an important part of the Democratic coalition.

Many Democrats still don't like NAFTA which is a product of Bill Clinton's administration. Hillary Clinton is waffling ... having previously called the TPP the 'gold standard in trade agreements' she is now backing away at the urging of the likes of Robert Reich, former US Labor Secretary under her husband, and Bill de Blasio who was her Senate campaign manager.

Backing Obama's championing of the TPP is the Republican front runner Jeb Bush.

Many might take the view that something opposed both by conservative right and liberal left can only be good.

I have always thought of Jane Kelsey as the Penny Bright of academia with one important exception ... at least Penny Bright puts her credibility on the line come election time.

Nick K said...

Jane Kelsey was my lecturer for two papers at University. She was unfailingly helpful and impartial in her teachings. Yes, we all knew where she stood politically, but I had a few interesting discussions with her and she was always interested in what I had to say. I doubt she knew I was an Act candidate, but she might have. Regardless, despite her public protestations, she was a fabulous and fair teacher.

gravedodger said...

I am confidant that your assessment is accurate and fair Nick, it is the duplitious use by the media with their minimal acknowledgement of her politics and the subsuming of them in according her the descriptive, "from the University Of Auckland", to give gravitas to her opinions without regard for the Marxist and antitrade beliefs that form those opinions, that I find manipulative.

I mean, her opinion say on the TPP, an entity that may well never come to the floor of the house for ratification following the conniptions in the US congress this week, could be formulated from her well stated recorded position without suggesting, for a peasant relying on the media to form opinions, be fed her opinion as an educated member of the professorial body of our leading place of learning without the necessary qualification that that opinion is formed from deeply held Marxist beliefs, that is duplicitous.
Could we for a single minute believe that Jamie Whyte would be sought for his opinion as a Ph.D from St Johns College Cambridge University and introduced as such, er no he would not even be accorded his honorific Dr he would be more likely introduced as the Ex leader of ACT and unsuccessful candidate for Pakuranga, yet I would regard Whytes philosophical opinions on most matters of far greater impact
than those of Hanoi Jane.

Noel said...

Reported in US today
"President Barack Obama's administration has been negotiating the TPP since the beginning of his presidency. Twelve nations are now involved in the talks, which have major implications for the U.S. economy, public health and foreign policy. But Obama has faced two domestic obstacles to enacting his pact: Democrats in Congress, who worry it will exacerbate income inequality, and a bloc of House Republicans, who are up in arms about the deal's implications for executive power and national sovereignty"

JC said...

Noel,

Refusing a fast track for the President to negotiate an FTA is basically unheard of these past 8 (IIRC) decades.

However Obama is a particularly lazy President who has not kept his own congressmen and senators in the loop and schmoozed them on what he's doing.

I think the commentators who say he has had this historic knockback are right.. he isn't trusted on either side of the divide because of his demonstrated contempt for both Houses.

In a final irony you could say the US is deadly scared at the thought of a trade agreement that doesn't fully protect those delicate flowers of US capitalism which of late looks more like a Third World economy.. Tim Groser should consider this nation as at the same stage as a Pacific island and offer aid and police trainers in a bid to bring it into the family of nations.

JC

The Veteran said...

Nick ... in my dealings with Wussel Norman I found him to be unfailingly polite ... clearly he and his Marxist colleague Jane Kelsey have much in common. I'm told that Kim Jong-un is unfailingly polite and helpful too ... until you disagree with him.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Nick et al

Rodney Hide in this morning's HOS gives the best summation of Ms Kelsey you'll ever fine.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11464802

Noel said...

Where have I seen this before?
Non transparent negotiations, no ratification with those affected and the devil obscured in the detail.

gravedodger said...

@ Noel, possibly in the demolition without notice of NZ citizens trust the Privy Council would be a last bastion in protection from incompetent judicial actions of their Judicial system.

Psycho Milt said...

It would indeed be a good thing if news media started mentioning the ideological, political or financial backgrounds of the people it goes to for comment - for example, it could point out that the Business Initiative isn't so much a "think tank" as a libertarian lobby group, that Matthew Hooton and David Farrar aren't "political commentators" so much as "National Party lobbyists", or that bank economists are people with a direct financial interest in the things they're commenting on. It would make the news much more interesting.

Rodney Hide in this morning's HOS gives the best summation of Ms Kelsey you'll ever fine.

And there's another one - when publishing his column, did the Herald point out to its readers Rodney Hide's extreme right-wing political opinions, his failed political career or the disgrace his 'perqbuster' efforts brought down on him?

The Veteran said...

PM ... or Bryce Edwards or Russell Brown or (heaven forbid) Bomber Bradbury etc etc

BTW ... I suspect you will find Matthew Hooton doesn't have much traction in the National Party these days.

gravedodger said...

Milt, Farrer is often qualified as having close ties to the National party and that is laudable and entirely appropriate.
As for Rodney Hide one would have been rather isolated from public discourse to miss his well documented position in the political sphere over the past 25 years, whereas Ms Kelsey's politics, ignored in her descriptive as "from the University of Auckland" would be a total mystery to most IMHO. However relevant her Chair in law is in contrast to her espoused Marxist beliefs and rather implacable opposition to free trade and the TPP in particular.

Your inclusion of Hooten, who gives a Hoot he is a chameleon at best, even the hounds would be confused to follow Matthew's scent

In the very limited bit at the end of Q & A I accessed this am I did hear the journalist Fran O'Sullivan allude to similar theories re Ms Kelsey and her credentials as a commenter on the TPP, LOL.

Psycho Milt said...

Fran O'Sullivan should also come with a disclaimer. Seriously, you think every time the news media quotes an academic they should do background checks on the academic's political beliefs and outline them for the audience? They're not going to do that, so here's a brief heuristic for those who encounter news stories with commentary from academics:

Business/Economics/Finance academics: assume to be very right-wing or libertarian.
Engineering/Science/Law academics: no particular political ideology, but assume rationalism will trump diplomacy every time.
Arts/Humanities academics: assume to be vaguely lefty liberal in a middle-class way.
Social Sciences academics: assume to be very left-wing or Marxist.

Nick K said...

Gee, in case it went over your heads (or stayed wedged in there rattling around like a pinball game), my point was that despite Jane Kelsey's Marxist's philosophy and her militant far-left views (which were well known 15 years ago when I was studying) she never let it affect her job as a teacher. She is/was a very good lecturer despite her leanings, and not because of them or as a result of them. The same is said for Rodney Hide: he was, by all accounts, an excellent lecturer in Christchurch despite his "far-right" views.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Of course Nick and GD are both right. The lady in question can be an excellent and fair teacher no matter what her political leanings but when she is trotted out time and time again by the media as an 'expert impartial' commentator then she and they are on shaky ground.