Colin Craig – Prosecution by Media
Putting all politics to one side, Colin Craig is man who is being prosecuted by media. The allegations are growing by the hour and all he can do is to publicly address them as false.
To me it seems the media has no consideration for the long term affect for a man who is openly accused without any process. There is no thought or respect for the loss and fallout of a man and what it may mean to his whole being.
I wonder at what point the media would consider success. Would the media think him loosing employment as satisfaction? How about a bust up of a long term a marriage, losing half his worldly goods? A breakup of a family involving kids? Would that make the media pleased? Maybe suicide might quench the medias desire. What purpose and what goal does the media what to achieve?
I wonder if there are those in the media who just thrive on some sort of quest to breakdown a man down. Just think those media people could come home and tell their partners and friends that they managed to make a man kill himself. Awash in their self-given licence to do whatever they want to whomever they want. Paint it the way they want.
When school children bully another child until suicide it is considered something near manslaughter. But when the media want to have a go at a man it is thought to be standard practice, necessary and worthwhile.
And I wonder why the media has not applied the same pressure to the woman who quite probably has an equal part to play.
Colin Craig has unwittingly made himself an easy target for the entertainment/profit media.
I suggest that the quiet issues, but which have far bigger impact for our quality of life, are:
Corruption in NZ, in particular starting with the Sky City/National Party and removal of gambling controls.
Corruption in NZ, familycauht$ judges’ management of the lists of “approved” psuychologists.
Corruption – the lack of independance in the “Independant” NZ Bar. sycophants…
Corruption NZ Police defensive behaviours to hide their lack of crime solving performance.
Corruption – the lack of independance in the “Independant” police Complaints Authority
familycaught$ milking parents, during separation, sacrificing children’s welfare in particular
Corruption in the loosening of Building Act controls, 1980 and 1990s
Corruption in ACC building permit process
Corruption in employment of legal workers by councils eg WCC wasting a fraction of $million against Rt. Hon. Benjamin Moreland Easton and many other similar examples
But to investigate these issues would require time, a little money and some guts.
Why bother if the public don’t value their own welfare?
Anyway, I had better get back to minding my own Ecstacy reactor and pill machine….
Comment by MurrayBacon — Tue 23rd June 2015 @ 9:25 am
The difficulty is of course that with politicians you can’t put politics aside.
They simply don’t live in the real world anymore, they’re lost in a world of their own.
Comment by Downunder — Tue 23rd June 2015 @ 9:31 am
Mr Craig needs to learn the old adage.
“When in shit, stop digging!”
He has an arrogant approach and thinks as a wealthy person that he can say what he likes and use the threat of legal action to prevent others from responding. Mr Craig comes across as a bully.
Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 23rd June 2015 @ 9:32 am
When it comes to politicians they can never win a PR argument due to the ad hominem fallacy. Colin Craig presented his identity through conservative politics. If you don’t really like the man or his politics then why bother overcoming the disonance in order to give due process a chance? In Sharia law the logic is that a woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s. In Western media the logic is that a woman’s testimony to a journalist carries a legion of the weight of a man’s.
My advice is…..Give up Colin….. You are completely out of your depth. Just get back to church and preach to the converted.
Comment by triassic — Tue 23rd June 2015 @ 9:59 pm
Mr Craig has put himself in the spotlight. Any politician that stands for “family values” deserves to be scrutinised for hypocrisy.
Comment by Jerry — Tue 23rd June 2015 @ 11:31 pm
If you look at our failed politicians, with men it’s more likely to be as a result of sex or alcohol, whereas with women it’s financial impropriety – what does that tell you?
Comment by Downunder — Wed 24th June 2015 @ 8:22 am
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/276951/christine-rankin-resigns-from-conservatives
Meanwhile Prime Minister John Key has said the National Party could benefit from the controversy surrounding Mr Craig and his party.
You’d think they would have learnt from their own controversies by now, Richard Worth, Don Brash, The Parnell Ponytail Puller.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 24th June 2015 @ 8:31 am
We don’t know enough about the Colin Craig events leading to this to form any worthwhile judgment. However, there appears to be some allegation that he sexually harassed a woman working for the party, which he denies. She claimed there is a confidentiality agreement concerning some settlement that happened and she complained that he has breached that agreement but she can’t unless he lets her. She does though claim that she wasn’t some kind of mistress to him and that he didn’t have her consent to do what he did. It all seems a bit fishy. Sexual harrassment nowadays is a convenient allegation women can use to damage or exploit men and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what has happened here.
Colin Craig might come to realize the importance of joining the battle against misandry and the feminist war against men.
He may rise from the ashes here if he behaves assertively. As Bill Clinton showed us, sexual scandals don’t necessarily turn public opinion. Unfortunately for Colin Craig though, politicians who put themselves forward or are portrayed as moral guardians find it almost impossible to avoid showing themselves as hypocrites. Better to be seen realistically from the outset as human, imperfect and fallible.
Comment by Man X Norton — Wed 24th June 2015 @ 10:30 pm
If she was enjoying the attention it wouldn’t have been a problem, but if she wasn’t, off to the Human Rights Commission and get your contract paid out and piss off.
Whether the attention is real or imagined or bullshit, it’s still an easy out to a contract for women.
Comment by Downunder — Thu 25th June 2015 @ 9:00 am
It wouldn’t have mattered whether she liked the attention or not; either way it’s a route to get some easy money from a millionaire known to be generous. It may well have been a siren’s entrapment from the outset.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 25th June 2015 @ 1:16 pm
Be interesting to know if she got more from the HR decision than she would have got from her contract.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 26th June 2015 @ 4:46 pm
She knew exactly what she was going to create when she set out to make it public.
It’s about an allegation of misconduct verse what probably was either an affair or flirting. In either case whatever it was they both allowed it to carry on.
You can be sure almost any man who is flirted with will flirt back. And you can be almost double sure in this world if a mans flirting is ignored or spurned he will go no further.
When does she get to pay him for all his loss?
Comment by Lukenz — Sat 27th June 2015 @ 2:44 pm
‘Focus on Politics’, National Radio today, gave an interesting account of how media set up Colin Craig and harmed him instead of treating him fairly when he cooperated with them. For example, he agreed to a photo being taken of him laying on some grass and this photo was then used by the same journalists to lampoon him. The ‘sauna interview’ (that last week was used by back-stabbers to attack him and wreck the party) was actually simply a planned feature of that tv show, i.e. the ‘interview someone in a hot sauna’ section. Although the name of the tv show was ‘Newsworthy’, the sauna interview was edited before screening to remove or splice any substantive answers by Craig, apparently in a deliberate (and successful) attempt to make him look stupid.
Sure, one could criticize Colin Craig for his lack of political savvy in allowing himself to be harmed. However, I believe some credit is due for his positive qualities such as openness, trust and goodwill towards others. Sadly, trust and goodwill so often ends up being undeserved or exploited.
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 28th June 2015 @ 9:30 am
The Conservative Party appears to have fallen victim to feminist thinking among its members including demonization of male sexuality. Even agreeing to play along with a tv show’s interview in a sauna was considered too suggestive of male sexuality to be tolerable by his party ‘faithful’. Some romantic interaction with a press secretary, concerning which Craig apparently reached some settlement and took responsibility for his error, is now used by his own party to demonize him and even attempt to expel him. Interestingly, we saw nothing of this in response to Helen Clark’s reputed exploits with her Labour lesbian friends; in fact, it was only her husband’s parallel sexual activities that were ever the focus of significant public comment. If men do it it’s a terrible outrage of patriarchal power and control; if women do the same thing it’s understandable and forgivable.
Here are excerpts from correspondence to Colin Craig:
Dear Mr Craig
I have followed recent events concerning the Conservative Party with interest. I regret seeing the emotional roller coaster you have been put through and the shallow loyalty evidenced by some.
Important underlying issues appear to be gender issues in NZ and the destructive nature of feminist politics. Fairness to men legally, politically, socially and economically has been increasingly eroded under feminist pressure. Errors made by men quickly become exaggerated while similar errors by women are swept under the carpet. In cases where a male and a female both contribute to a situation, the female is generally absolved of responsibility which is instead fully laden on the male. The originally valid concept of ‘sexual harassment’ has been broadened and corrupted so that now it means ‘anything a male did that a female retrospectively claims not to have wanted whether or not she ever made this clear to the male’.
… NZ cannot afford to have the talented male half of the population further damaged. Men commit suicide around four times as often as women do. Men die in their jobs and work roles around 100 times as much as women do. Men’s contribution, although still primarily responsible for the infrastructure of our privileged society, is taken for granted by society and actively resented by feminists.
It appears that you have also been taken for granted, your generosity and role for the Party disrespected on the basis of largely irrelevant transgressions and insinuations. You have attempted to take responsibility for some results of your human fallibility by being honest and reaching a settlement. I would prefer to have seen Party members stand up to support you and calling for reason and fairness. However, taking responsibility and making amends is no longer enough when it comes to a male. Once a male has transgressed the feminists want him to be hounded and punished forever. Civilized principles such as forgiveness and respect for restorative process are foreign to those who adopt feminist ideology…
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 28th June 2015 @ 10:09 am
And here’s a bit of femicentric analysis today by journalist Joanna Mathers titled “Why high-profile wives choose to stand by their men”. As expected, the article makes little effort to answer honestly the question in its title but instead assumes women should not really stand by unfaithful men and if they do they must have ulterior motives. If Ms Mathers had asked some such women directly, or perhaps read autobiographies by such women, she may have learned that some women are able to recognize that we are all imperfect, we are all vulnerable to desires, we all make mistakes and it is possible to take responsibility for a mistake and to work to avoid any repeat.
A more general issue that Ms Mathers did not mention was that it’s generally only male unfaithfulness that is given much attention. When women do it, colleagues and journalists are much more likely to turn a blind eye, remaining sensitive to the woman’s feelings and right to a private life. When men do it, they’re demons who deserve to be exposed and burned at the stake.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Sun 28th June 2015 @ 10:26 am
Colin Craig waltzed in and used his big money to effectively take over the old “Kiwi Party”.
The Kiwi Party had a moderate membership, not much money and quite a bit of enthusiasm. That was largely swept aside, as Colin Craig dominated and ended up pouring into the drain, much of the old Kiwi Party.
He then failed to deliver a sustainable party machine, based on carefully thought through practical policies.
End result, thoughtless dominance achieves perhaps nothing at all. And that was achieved through spending money far beyond that dreamed of in the father’s movement.
Really a negative result, wasting Colin Craig’s own money, time and the time and energy of many other party members too.
I think this points out how important it is to gain consensus, early in building up a party.
This is the very essence of small and large parties. It takes time, talking and listening, compromise, analysis of issues on a practical basis and then considering whether “it” will fly with voters.
Thanks to MoMA and Man X Norton for their many perspectives.
Then, can we learn and apply useful lessons from watching the train wreck?
I hate sexless sex scandals. It seems so British… The real thing is so much better.
But the most important thing isn’t crying wives or mistresses or politicians, it is creating and selling workable policies to large numbers of voters!
Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 28th June 2015 @ 6:05 pm
Wise comments Murray
Comment by Man X Norton — Sun 28th June 2015 @ 11:13 pm