Guilt Free Politics

Over the last few days a story has rumbled on in the Chronicle regarding vandalism towards electoral signage. This has been fuelled by media releases from the Mayor and Vision insinuating involvement on behalf of John Martin or his supporters.


Despite the 'alleged' retraction of these insinuations towards John Martin, the bad taste left by these allegations is still in the air.


When vandalism first appeared on Vision signage, it was no surprise to us that at some point this would be allayed, by Vision, with John, John's supporters, friends of John's supporters and friends of friends of Johns supporters, in fact virtually everyone in town who is not a fully paid up Vision devotee.

It is not unusual for the Mayor to attack and accuse sections of the community of criminal or anti-democratic behaviour. Ironically it is not the gangs or criminal element that is attacked but individuals and groups of pro-active residents, who volunteer a lot of time, energy and expertise to supporting and contributing to the positive growth of Wanganui. The fact that someone does not support the incumbent does not imply they support any other candidates either.

We chose not to fuel the debate and having suffered vandalism of our own signs along with other candidates and had felt this uneccessary. John Martins campaign has been conducted with the utmost regard and respect not only for other candidates but for the electorate and their right to information.


Not only is it unimaginable that John or any of the campaign team would condone or initiate any anti-democratic activities. There would simply be nothing to gain politically or morally from such underhand tactics for a candidate with integrity.


You cannot put a huge billboard of yourself in a public place and not expect some comment, moustache or horns to be added! The vast number of Vision signs and the nature of being the incumbent candidate are going to engender greater critical attention than the less well known potential candidates. A public figure especially such an outspoken one normally has a thicker skin.


Despite the obvious ire of Vision with this vandalism and un-democratic behaviour; Vision saw fit to clone their website with the same name as this blog; an act akin to us creating fake Vision billboards and placing them in front of the real Vision ones. In addition we have watched in bemusement as the word' positive', a word which we do not own but had definitely 'made our own' for the campaign, has been sytematically inserted into Vision publicity. These were direct moves to hinder the effectiveness of our campaign by the Vision team, not the work of unrelated 'activists'. Does the sophistication of the act excuse the intent?


The fact is that politicians do not choose who supports them, the electorate choose who to support, that is democracy.


We are very pleased and proud of the campaign that we have conducted. It has essentially been a community effort against a corporate one. We would like to thank and acknowledge everyone that has actively supported the John Martin campaign, through their time, expertise, commitment and dedication to making Wanganui the best little City in New Zealand.


Kia ora



Notes and Quotes:

We would like to now take this opportunity to reproduce an excerpt from a letter to John Martin (09/10/07) from Mayor Michael Laws regarding his non-support for these allegations and intended retraction.

'I understand that you have taken offence at a media release I circulated to media today and that you believe that there was an implication that you are the candidate implicated in the damage.

I wish to categorically state (and have now done so publicly) that you are not. An amended media release - stipulating that - has beencirculated to the media and posted on my personal website.
Yours sincerely
Michael Laws'

There now follows an excerpt from the latest Media Release from Mayor Michael Laws (12/10/07) regarding this issue.


'The only excitement became just who was destroying Vision Wanganui hoardings and whether it was linked to the camps of opposing candidates.

On that latter issue, there was a night-time sabotage by perhaps one or two individuals. It was organized and it was sustained. It clearly targeted my personal signs and then those of Vision. I have no doubt that a fringe element – drawn from the fringe arts community – were responsible. Unfortunately, for John Martin, they were a fringe element who supported his campaign.'


Thanks for the retraction! We all know 'mud sticks' but who would employ it as a full-time political strategy?