Thursday, November 30, 2017

ON JAMES SHAW

James Shaw, leader of the Greens, has some explaining to do about his involvement in the deception regarding Ghahraman's c.v.  This is an extract from a speech he gave to the NZ Institute of International Affairs in the Grand Hall at Parliament on 30 May 2017:
..... "Members of this audience may be interested to know that one of those candidates, Golriz Ghahraman, is, at number ten on the list, almost certain to become the first Member of Parliament who started her life in New Zealand as a refugee.
Having fled Iran in 1990 as a child, Golriz is now a human rights lawyer who worked as a prosecutor at the United Nations tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia ......"
That is a direct quote from Shaw’s speech to the NZIIA. So there are two alternatives in play here.
Either the Green Party didn't do due diligence on Ms Ghahraman, and simply took it for granted that her claims were accurate, or they made a conscious decision to present a sanitised version of her CV in the run-up to the election.

Shaw must address this issue without delay, instead of hiding behind his Shield of Sanctimony, accusing others of a “political hit-job”. It is clear from the quote above that he and his party, whether knowingly or not, have been part of the deception.

Hat tip to Keeping Stock

23 comments:

Johno said...

But according to Milt, James Shaw just doesn't understand human rights...

Noel said...

Interesting date and equally interesting reporting.
https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/a3kpja/we-cant-rely-on-majority-rule-meet-nzs-first-refugee-mp

macdoctor said...

Very interesting. I note she does not dress up the truth in the interview which was held after the election, of course.

New Zealand's majority rule is what brought her to this country and gave her and her parents a fresh start, so it is a bit thick to suggest that she must defend her fellow refugees against the evils of the majority. Typical identity politics from a unthinking socialist.

macdoctor said...

Shaw is unlikely to want to get rid of Ghahraman, she ticks too many Greenie boxes - female (right gender), Middle Eastern (not white), Refugee (from a preferred victim group).

Gerald said...

Ahh after the election but BEFORE the Whale lube crusade.

The Veteran said...

Gerald ... the 'Whale lube crusade'. Sure, he's one but the push back is from across the political spectrum including Bomber Bradbury who is hardly a friend of the right.

Fascinating 'her' take on the tyranny of the majority. The coalition government, of which she is a part, commands a majority in parliament. Methinks she has unwittingly described the coalition perfectly.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Funny thing, before I got up I thought to myself 'someone should have a good hard look at James Shaw' but Vet beat me to it. Five hour time zone difference.

MacDocter

Shaw won't but the voters will. She'll take him with her when she goes.

Gerald said...

I don't think Rwanda or Cambodia under Pol Pot had MMP.

Psycho Milt said...

Very interesting. I note she does not dress up the truth in the interview which was held after the election, of course.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that "dressing up the truth" is some evidence-free bullshit you're peddling:

Kirsty Johnston: "To clear things up: I interviewed @golrizghahraman about six weeks before the election, we openly discussed her time in Rwanda as a defence intern. It (like much of her story) didn't make my final story due to space."

Psycho Milt said...

So there are two alternatives in play here.
Either the Green Party didn't do due diligence on Ms Ghahraman, and simply took it for granted that her claims were accurate, or they made a conscious decision to present a sanitised version of her CV in the run-up to the election.


Two alternatives that only exist for the people participating in this:

"... the hit on Ghahraman is that she didn’t go out of her way to highlight some aspects of her past work that simpletons with a reactionary view of how justice should work would find objectionable."

Psycho Milt said...

Shaw must address this issue without delay...

There's an issue? I get that you'd like there to be one, because outrage by "simpletons with a reactionary view of how justice should work" plays nicely for the natural party of such people: National.

Funnily enough, this "issue" turned up just in time to have clickbait-hungry journos fail to notice the release of evidence about a genuinely serious deception by a politician. Just coincidence, I'm sure...

B Whitehead said...

As I've said before, its all just shades of grey arguments. Of course each particular color is partially defined by what tint you have on your glasses.

The Veteran said...

B Whitehead ... think you have it about right. Look, this is not a hanging offense like Me Tu's and you will get no argument from me that any accused is deserving of the best defense possible. What is at issue is that the Green Party, as evidenced on their website (before it was sanitised), decided either by omission or commission to spin the story that 'she' was involved in prosecuting war criminals.

You can understand the concern. Prosecuting those accused of genocide reads a lot better than defending them. The reality is that it shouldn't make a difference but it will to some and in a close election where every vote counted you can see that 'someone' made a call on this.

Shades of Ron Mark defending Bill Gudgeon (one term NZF MP) when his c.v. posted on their website had him as a Vietnam veteran and ex SAS when neither was correct ... Ron said 'someone else (not Bill) wrote that and in doing so made the understandable assumption that because he was a veteran he would have done both ... and we didn't check.' Many saw that as quite unbelievable. What candidate does read their blurb posted on their party website? Didn't wash then and doesn't wash now.

Bruce Young said...

People should also consider if she really was a refuge. I worked in Iran in 1988/89 and local Iranians were moving freely to places like Cyprus and the USA. As a country Iran was coping with the war damage and commerce and other travel was routine.

Snowflake said...

Sure, Bruce, sure. I bet she engineered her claim for refuge(e) status and paid off the UN to grant it for her. You’re the expert, so I’m sure you’d know. How old was she at the time?

This is Tory manufactured outrage at it’s best. Anything that gets you through the night, right losers?

Anonymous said...

The stench of hypocrisy from this subject is has floated half way around the world. It has taken the saying of playing the man not the ball to an entirely new low and like a rabid bulldog the national apparatchiks will not let go. It really goes to prove that these people do not do any research and that the subject matter was there for ALL to see had you bothered. But no, now I see that your reasons were purely altruistic in protecting the lazy, stupid and uninterested from from themselves.

To endlessly post about a missing word from a CV and ignore the revelation of Keys involvement in "Speargun" is not the way forward for a so called political blog. Or perhaps we should talk about decorated officers knowingly producing fake documents to a select committee.

Get over it.

Lord Egbut

Wilbur said...

At long last it finally came to pass that a Green wimmin MP actually had a CV actually worth something, as opposed to the usual boilerplate nonsense like "feminist" and "LGBTQ-WTF rights campaigner". Delahunty's one for example could've been written on the back of a postage stamp - but unfortunately for Golly she couldn't resist the opportunity, and she over egged the self-aggrandizement and virtue signalling. Where do the Greens keep finding these loopy bints?

George said...

Had she written that she had been involved in international law and not put the buddy buddy photo on her Facebook page it would have passes scrutiny.
Lying in a CV is not wise

Anonymous said...

Still the lying eh George...you are trolling. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE SHE LIED?

Wilbur..perhaps you could explain why LGBTQ-WTF campaigning is wrong, bad or illegal.

Being a troll is not wise.

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

Lying in a CV is not wise

It certainly isn't. Claiming an MP lied on her CV when she didn't is also certainly not wise, because it's called libel and can cause you to go bankrupt. Good luck trying to find a defence of "truth" or "honest opinion" if Ghahraman decides to go full Hagaman on you.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Pins are for dancing on chaps. Go and have a look at Kiwiblog where David Farrar has nailed the silly girl to the wall.

David said...

Farrar does nothing of the sort. He uses a lot of assumptions to try to cover up the failings of his party that led to their route at the election. Everyone and his mother knew Blingish was toxic to the electorate, but still they went with him. that shows the lack of depth in the Nationals.

You lost, suck it up Snowflake.




Psycho Milt said...

I did have a look at Farrar still trying to spin something out of this on Kiwiblog. He is an excellent propagandist, but then so was Josef Goebbels.

In today's dirty-politics special, he relies heavily on the claim that "putting people on trial" or variations thereof "implies prosecution." It may imply that to "simpletons with a reactionary view of how justice should work," but it's highly unlikely Golriz Ghahraman wrote anything with that market in mind, considering it consists almost entirely of National voters. It doesn't imply that at all to those of us who understand the right to a fair trial.