By Chris Trotter*
What are we to make of Chris Hipkins speech “Working With Others”? Ostensibly about unity, the Prime Minister’s address homes in on the two issues which, for the last three years, have divided New Zealanders the most – Ethnicity and Gender. For good measure, he has also ruled out leading Labour into any kind of coalition agreement with NZ First. Taken in its entirety, Hipkins’ speech has much less to say about unity than it does about refusing to work with anyone who declines to embrace Labour’s radical social agenda. That being the case, it would have been more honest to entitle his address: “Going For Broke With Woke”.
Implicit in this strategy is a strong belief that New Zealand society, or, at least, a majority of those New Zealanders determined to vote on 14 October, have embraced the Labour Government “line” on Ethnicity and Gender. Clearly, those who balk at the idea of injecting the concept of co-governance into the provision of public services; or reject as unfair the idea of trans-women competing against biological women in sport; will no longer find a welcome in Labour’s “big tent”. Once celebrated for its broad inclusiveness, Hipkins’ party has opted to greet potential supporters with a grim pair of ideological bouncers.
This is not, however, the picture Hipkins wishes his audience to conjure-up. Quite the opposite, in fact:
“Elections are contests of policies and values”, says Hipkins. “Disagreements are a fundamental part of a healthy democracy. But I won’t seek to divide our communities.
Labour’s focus in this election won’t be on imported culture wars, but fighting an economic war against inflation and inequality.”
From the man who issued a “Captain’s Call” ruling-out a Wealth Tax, these lines have a disturbingly Orwellian quality to them. It wasn’t Labour’s opponents who commissioned the He Puapua Report, and then kept its recommendations hidden from both NZ First and the voting public in the months prior to the 2020 General Election. Nor was it National, Act or NZ First that whipped-up opposition to the visit of “Posie Parker”, and then downplayed the violence unleashed upon those who came to hear women exercise their right to free speech. No, when it comes to importing culture wars, Labour is well out in front of its rivals.
How else are we to interpret the following sentence explaining Labour’s refusal to work with Winston Peters’ party?
“New Zealand First has become a party more interested in toilets than the issues that really matter.”
The reference is to NZ First’s policy of ensuring that biological women’s – and men’s – right to privacy is protected by requiring public toilets and changing-rooms to include spaces for those whose definitions of gender differ radically from those of their fellow citizens. NZ First’s “architectural” solution to the intrusion of biological males into biological women’s spaces, may well strike voters as a laudable attempt to broker a compromise between the contending parties.
That’s not how Hipkins sees it. According to the Prime Minister, Peters is:
“[S]eeking to make trans people the enemy in this campaign.”
That is an extraordinary accusation. It does, however, comport with the political style of the aggressively woke, who interpret anything other than 100 percent acceptance of the “correct” ideological position as proof positive of “incorrect” beliefs and “genocidal” intentions.
In for a penny, in for a pound, Hipkins presses on:
“Living fully in your own skin isn’t always easy for any of us at the best of times, and it can be particularly hard for our rainbow communities. None of them deserve the kind of abuse that is being directed their way, stoked up by politicians who should know better.”
This is hard to take from the political party which, alongside the Greens, lent its support to a social movement whose followers openly threatened violence against those who dared to oppose them – and then delivered it.
It is all of a piece, however, with a party so convinced of its own rectitude that it has become incapable of construing disagreement as anything other than – to use the buzzwords du jour – “misinformation, disinformation and malinformation”. In its mildest form, this mindset offers “education” as the optimal solution to the “wrong-think” of dissenters. Among the hardcore, however, dissenters are to be suppressed. What Hipkins has signalled in his speech is a personal preference for the hardcore’s response to the communicators of “wrong-thought” – among whom he clearly includes Winston Peters and NZ First.
That Hipkins has opted to drag New Zealanders into the strange, looking-glass world of the super-woke is deeply troubling. According to the Prime Minister, dissent on questions of gender threaten the unity of the nation and automatically disqualify the dissenting party, NZ First, from any role in government. At the same time, Te Pāti Māori may pour scorn upon the principle of majority rule, and the democratic system it upholds, without rebuke. The party’s claim that Māori genes are superior to those of New Zealand’s other ethnicities, likewise, presents no barrier to entering a Labour Party-led coalition government.
What Hipkins’ speech makes clear is that Labour has opted to “go negative” for the seven weeks remaining before the election. The Prime Minister may wax eloquent about the unity of the nation, and claim that only Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori have the right to speak for the shining Aotearoa-New Zealand of tomorrow; but what he has done, in the fractious world of today, is divide the nation into an “Us” who agree with the Red-Green-Brown troika’s radical programme, and a “Them” who cling to the wrong-thought of their outdated ideas and dangerous beliefs.
It is the intractable problem that besets all populist movements, be they of the Left or the Right. Who is, and who is not, to be counted among “the people”? Because, once you have determined who may properly be included in the “true” nation, then it follows that all those who fall outside your definition must be “untrue”. And what is the usual fate of those who prove untrue?
By the strictures set forth in his speech, Hipkins has identified the untrue nation as those who still believe that one-person, one-vote, one-value is the unalterable foundation of representative democracy. Also excluded from Team Chippy are those who answer the question: “What is a woman?”, with the words “Adult human female”.
By sunrise on 15 October, New Zealanders will know which nation is larger: the Woke Left’s “Us”, or the Centre-Right’s “Them”. Whatever else follows, the “others” being “worked with” are unlikely to include the untrue. The ones, representing close to half the nation, who lost.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
85 Comments
Same.
Yesterday's speech was a sad little outburst from Chippy. When you've got no record to defend, I guess you have no choice but to go on the attack.
His government has spent the last several years diving NZ society into "us" vs "them" on every conceivable issue when it was politically expedient to do so.
Now to try and claim that you are the great unifier (and if you aren't with us you're against us - and against human decency) is really rather pathetic and reeks of desperation.
I am fully onboard with LGBTQ rights and am going to vote against this lot. Trying to position the opposition as a threat to human rights is dirty politics in this country.
Interesting that the woke agenda doesn't really apply to exploiting labor from South Asia, China, or the Pacific. It's all about the victimhood of the trans community.
Cultural Marxism. I get the feeling its being rattled across the Anglosphere.
By colonialism do you mean being a part of an empire or the influx of foreigners? Did much improve for the indigenous peoples of the USA, NZ, Indonesia, Sarawak, Australia, most South American countries when they gained independence? Would the indigenous peoples of western China or Russian Siberia be better off if independant? Many African countries are only just beginning to 'work out better' despite 60 years of independence. An independent country is always better for its small elite - for the remaining 99% of the population access to hospitals, schools, safe markets and the rule of law matter far more than which individual is in charge of their country.. As you say 'in many cases' but not universally.
Point taken. Singapore for example. They have prospered socio-economically since independence. Nevertheless, I should be careful in saying that S'pore is not without its problems. There's an ethnic pecking order there that has parallels with colonialism.
Central Asia is arguably better than under the Soviet Union. I don't think really qualifies as colonialism though.
That is the trouble; the word colony and colonialism are ill defined. From biology a colony is clearlt defined but for people today we usually don't mean the movemet of ethnic groups but do mean one nation dominating another either by directly ruling it or with neo-colonialism simply dominating it with threats.
It is noticeable that the central asian countries that were ex-USSR are not assisting Russia in its invasion of the Ukraine; that is not like NZ and India supporting Britain in two world wars.
The Treaty of Waitangi established one people in NZ through Maori tribal leaders ceding sovereignty to the Queen of England forever (article 1), and through the Maori peoples of NZ being granted all the rights due to being subjects of Queen Victoria (article 3) (which actually includes the right to own land, a right that ordinary Maoris up to that point did not have). Article 2 established a means for Maoris to sell to Queen Victoria any land that they may decide they want to sell at a price that they are happy to sell it for.
Prior to the T. of W. Maori peoples didn't view land as something that they could own, and there is evidence of Maoris selling the same parcel of land multiple times to different people on the same day.
Speaking as a gay man, I see no value in voting FOR "LGBTQ" rights. I see the alphabet soup nutters as completely contrary to what we campaigned for in Law Reform back in the '80s, and in reality a significant threat against children through the imposition of their woke insanity.
Yes excellent. But also extraordinary in that Mr Trotter, an established and stalwart supporter of the left, is so alarmed by the antics, direction and performances of this Labour government that he has been compelled to abandon those standing loyalties and pen this condemnation. Have been reading Mr Trotters columns and articles for over forty years. One thing has always been clarion clear. His first concern has unflinching been for the good, for the security of the nation and people, and this piece confirms exactly that. What a great pity it is that this Labour government has let him and all of us down so badly.
To see all this nonsense going on has you wondering at just what world we are living in. To see Chris Trotter basically leaving his left belief behind while the leaders of the so called left - the Wokesters -make their dash. Its amazing and hats off to Chris. I have also seen much venom heaped on NZFirst - complaints that are quite on the nose. I am of the view WP/ N Z First needs a bigger share of power and have a fair crack at the process. Have read their policies and believe they can do better than has dropped on us for the last 30 years
The wokester virtue signaling politics is slowly running out of steam. Labour went "all-in" on wokester ideology, because there were loads of cheap political wins available for simply virtue signaling.
That has now dried up and should hopefully be confined to the history books going forward. The tide is finally turning, back to reality, and this is being led by women in sport not wanting to compete against biological men.
As a man and a father of daughters, I care. I do not want men around my daughters in this vulnerable and sensitive location.
The men that think they are women can continue to use the facilities with other men. Women should not be coerced into indulging the delusions or fantasies of these men.
It's immediately evident when someone is in the wrong place, currently. If all toilets essentially become unisex, that distinction is gone.
I want to be clear - I have nothing against trans-people. I just value the safety of women and the importance of women's spaces, and there are many more women than trans-women. Don't get me started on women's sports!
These are tricky issues - I would likely agree that there should be some restrictions on Women's sports e.g. based on age of transition. This may mean some athletes don't really belong in either category which is unfortunate but I think it's the lesser evil.
The toilets issue I really think is striving for something to complain about based on a theoretical risk which I think is very small, while the harm of a group of people not having a toilet option is very real. I suspect the risk to trans women in a male toilet is much greater than the risk to other women if a trans woman enters the women's toilet.
Frank always wonders about this issue. Like what is the percentage of trans men wanting to use women’s toilets? It must be <1% of society.
In what other situation would we make 99% of the population change for 1%, and lose untold energy arguing over it?
Is this really the biggest issue society faces, where someone goes to take a shit?
If you are a trans woman who essentially looks like a woman, but still has a penis, what is the correct bathroom to use? Or is the answer 'none' because there aren't many of them and Frank thinks they don't matter?
It's OK - the ladies bathroom has cubicles, no one has to see anything startling.
Matthew C. Leinung and Jalaja Joseph, Changing Demographics in Transgender Individuals Seeking Hormonal Therapy: Are Trans Women More Common Than Trans Men?Transgender Health 2020 5:4, 241-245 https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2019.0070
Meier, S.C., Labuski, C.M. (2013). The Demographics of the Transgender Population. In: Baumle, A. (eds) International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality. International Handbooks of Population, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5512-3_16
By and large the greatest threat to your daughters are their uncles, other family members and church leaders. I do not see you protesting the church and having male family members restricted in their access to the same spaces and bathrooms as your children. But by all means you are welcome to build a male only and female only bathroom in your home and then also recognize and protest for apologies from the church to child rape survivors (hundreds of thousands of whom still have no reparations decades later). If you actually cared you would never allow any male family members near your daughters. Sadly you don't really care and allow 99% of most likely perpetrators of sexual assaults against children near yours on a regular basis. Why? to maximise the chances of harm over time to your daughters on purpose or to loose all reason for your hatred against trans people.
If I was one of your daughters I know logic would not be my strong suit but it does not take a genius child to see the flaws in your argument (even I could tell the greatest risk as a 7 year old in a church school). Even basic knowledge of child assault cases would clearly show it is not complete strangers that is the greatest risk but rather trusted people in the children's lives like controlling irrational parents, church leaders who have lost any sense of morality who then focus on power & control over the flock and opportunistic family members who are frequently left in contact with children. Your house is not clean.
It beggars belief that some men think a woman might go through an elaborate masquerade and subsequent life-changing operation that brings relentless scorn upon them from more conservative quarters, just so they have the opportunity to grab a glimpse of a random bloke's todger in the public bogs.
I was under the impression women were seeing far more frank and beans these days than they ever asked for.
Most of it on reality tv that is aimed towards a young audience... Love island, celebrity specials, the endless forced relationship drama in reality tv with many incidences of bad behaviour. But sure it is seen as morally wrong instead for children to have a basic idea of anatomy we would expect any 1st year high school biology and health class to teach as a point of medical safety & basic education for everyone. Some kids know what genitals look like way before that by being able to read and go to a library to look at fine classic art (or indeed any medical textbook or website)... they also know where the dirty words are in the dictionary. Shock horror.
Labour seem to be behind the rest of the world on the trans debate. Shortly after the SNP in Scotland allowed gender self-identification, a convicted rapist said they now identified as a woman. The SNP soon realised that it wouldn't be wise to put them in a women's prison.
The main thing stopping me voting green is the presence of Green MPs in the Posie Parker crowd advocating "stomp on a Terf". How can the Greens align themselves with advocates of violence against biological women, who have legitimate concerns about safe spaces and also fairness in sport. I think Chippy has got this wrong. He seems to be unable to read the room anymore.
Most people have no problem with Trans people having equal rights in terms of education and employment but there are legitimate areas of concern that should be up for debate.
Re: the 'Stomp On A Terf' crowd, the explanation is simple (and found in Mr Trotter's writing about 'us' and 'them' as above).
TERFs are 'them', and if you are a 'them' you don't really have rights - so bashing an old lady about the head because she is a TERF isn't a problem at all because she simply doesn't count ... it's all so logical and simple.
Same thing played out with Covid (if you've ever lurked the cesspit that is Reddit NZ, you would have seen this play out time and time again during the peak of the hysteria).
Anybody who wasn't 100% on board with every restriction, mandate, declaration etc was not an 'us' but a 'them' and therefore totally not a problem if they were hounded from their jobs, subjected to abuse, humiliated publicly or anything like that. Once declared an 'anti-vaxxer' or 'Covid denier' you were persona non grata, and therefore a valid target because you were a 'them' and not an 'us' (before anybody insinuates, I did my bit to make Albert Boula wealthier - four times now in fact).
In other words, if you are outside the tent you are liable to be pissed on from within, and are well-deserving of said soaking.
It is a sad state of affairs, I think of myself as an environmentalist, socially progressive and on the centre left, but I couldn't vote for Labour or Greens at the moment. They are living in a Wellington bubble and completely detached from the rest of New Zealand.
Indeed, but the alternative is just as awful. Opening the floodgates to transgenics and cut and paste synthetic organisms, along with the same flooding the country with any immigrant that can demonstrate a pulse, to keep the property bubble bubbling. Frankly our representatives are universally clueless extremists.
The PM looks to have descended into the puerile arena of the politics of a twelve year old. For instance the GST exclusion on food etc had less than the maturity and thoughtfulness of a primary school think tank and the eventual announcement was laughable in its delivery as all it did was confirm that there was a considerable leak within the government’s ranks and that the support of senior ministers Robertson and Parker was as solid as a snowball in hell. Mr Hipkins is now lashing out intemperately in all directions. This is neither novel nor unexpected. In 2017, barely in government, he was slapped down by Julie Bishop Australian Foreign Minister and our PM Ardern was forced to intercede and apologise. He apologised to Ms Bellis for defying both protocol and departmental advice, but only after litigation was undertaken. He has never apologised for calling the travellers to Northland sex workers and border breakers. He had Auckland ring fenced and Aucklanders pinned at home before the Xmas break until the police told him to nuff off and find others to man the impossibly of imposed borders. Quite honestly it is becoming quite clear he is not of the calibre of a Prime Minister and these latest desperate histrionics are due testament to that.
Couldn't agree more. The NZ Reddit page is an absolute echo chamber of Green party politics and Saint Jacinda hysterics.
They just ban anyone who has a differing opinion or anyone who posts data and fact driven analysis to explain their opinion (they really dislike data).
it has always been this way -- the left have always promoted the concept of freedom of speech -- but yet never offered that to people with a different ideology to them -- as ever when you count the number of billboards damaged Act and National will have a far higher % of theirs damaged as opposed to the lovely law abiding greens and labour supporters .... but nothing is ever said or done about it --
In reality this government has buried itself through total incompetence and an inability to deliver almost anythign it said it would do -- so even the good ideas it had -have turned into nothing but hot air! the massive structurak deficit and budget hole to be announced shortly will kill any last lingering doubts
The toxic and divisive "Us" vs. "Them" narrative has been evident for some years under this government. You're either Maori (many health, education and business benefits) or Non-Maori (none), vaxed or unvaxed, pro-trans spaces or agin, "with us" or "against us".
There attempts to use "equity" as an excuse to categorize everyone according to race, gender and other categories is a very dangerous strategy that could be used by a future administration, against the very minorities that it attempts to support.
Dark clouds looming which ever way the wind blows in October.
Can He Puapua be repealed?
Labour really, really, really, really...doesnt want to be in government post 2023s election in October.
They're likely not to be in government again for decades for all of the damage they've caused and the Banana Republic status they've put NZ in deliberately.
He Puapua is not law so doesn't need to be repealed.
"While the declaration is non-binding, it both affirms accepted rights and establishes future aspirations.
"Prime Minister John Key said New Zealand's endorsement of a declaration on indigenous rights would not change "our fundamental laws or constitution".
"Will Māori get a veto right on government decisions?
The Treaty of Waitangi continues to be the basis for the Crown-Māori relationship. In some instances this does involve mutual agreement on proposals, notably Treaty claim settlements, but right of veto is not conferred."
National Govt to support UN rights declaration | Beehive.govt.nz
"He Puapua is not acknowledged as official government policy, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stating that her government did not publicly release He Puapua "because of a concern that it would be misconstrued as government policy".[16] However, several steps have been taken in order to implement the declaration specified in the report."
No. The Treaty of Waitangi did not create a Crown vs Maori relationship. It handed all sovereignty from Maori tribal leaders to Queen Victoria and her successors forever.
It also granted the Maori peoples of NZ the same rights and privileges as all the rest of Queen Victoria's people (which includes the right to own property).
Well said CT. It must be hard for you to write something like this when for your whole life you have been a central part of the left of centre movements over time & throughout NZ. Even I can remember when the Labour Party actually stood for people of labour & their communities. It was how democracy worked.
But what we (sadly) see today is primarily a large city based, so-called educated elite, with their weird beliefs that are, as we shall see in October, representative of very few of us. My original (when the election date was announced) target of 25% of the party vote for Labour, could turn out to be too high, if they keep carrying on like this.
I'll let you know on 15 October.
It's a crying shame that TOP hasn't learned from the great master himself, Winston Peters, and worked out you only need to pick an issue or two to get 5%.
I reckon if TOP did the following:
1) Smash property speculators (particularly anyone using leverage) Ditch the obsession with land tax on everything (weirdly enough except rural land and iwi land) and focus on going to war against property speculation and leveraged investment.
2) Continued with the focus in youth investment
It would be a shoe in for 5%.
Also ditch their other biggest problem that has always been that its leaders - and its supporters - seem to think they are so much smarter than everyone else and it comes through in an unpleasant "oh you wouldn't understand" manner.
I looked closer at Top's land tax and it's not for me. A close relative of mine (elderly widow, fiercly independent), told me that she dreads receiving her rates bill and she cuts back on heating and food to make sure she can pay on time. Top's answer is defer paying land tax. This leaves the problem of who fights over her estate - the retirement home? Heartland (if she has to apply for a reverse mortgage)? Her land tax bill which was deferred? The last thing she will be worried about are her two children as the bones will be well and truly picked by then.
Woke is a silly unexplained wide ranging generalisation suitable for all to use for their Left or Right purposes
Hipkins and Ardern unfortunately did disguise the report about co-governance and also did state that anything about cv19 which did not come from Government should be regarded as disinformation. And Labour announces nothing but piffle in place of policy to redistribute wealth in NZ. Meanwhile National and Act playing usual playbook of non belief in government doing anything except kissing ass of business and landlords and pretending that investment needed can be done without more tax revenue or borrowing, which they say they are opposed to. Greens and maori at least have a radical tax policy to help bottom 30%
Labour culture wars for individual preferences ahve replaced any radicalism. Jacinda epitomised the disappointment that always accompanies Left governments that really only ever tinker with how system works, despite fact that for 45 years it has been going way of capital across the Western world. The election will be v close and is utterly uninspiring. There is now said to be too little money to do anythign and no one admits tax has to go up. Another election next year beckons as this one will be a dead heat
Technophiles and bureacracy thinking of obstruction and procedure of correctness has long since rplaced radicalism. All promise and no trousers. West spent all this money on cv19 prevention and now they reckon nothing can be afforded. meanwhile Robertson says grwoth forecast is good, despite the recent one being utterly wrong due to treasury smiling on China propsects for last 12 moths when its plain China is going down the pan.
I have always voted Left and remain in broad agreement with the progressive imperatives of Labour and Greens. Despite many of their electoral policies surpassing the Right’s for vision and progress though, I shan’t be voting Left this time. My reasoning is that the inevitable social and environmental damage done by National and Act can be remedied but the profound constitutional changes looming through the Left’s ethnocratic Treaty politics will never be undone. Think about it … What government of the future would dare tell Maori that their legislated co-governance rights are to be revoked? So, without any sign of the public discussion promised by October last year, the Left have embarked us all on the He Puapua waka into a future of distorted constitutional arrangements just when the terrifying threats of climate change, contagion and other disasters demand social stability and the full enfranchising of all Kiwis.
It is the intractable problem that besets all populist movements, be they of the Left or the Right. Who is, and who is not, to be counted among “the people”? Because, once you have determined who may properly be included in the “true” nation, then it follows that all those who fall outside your definition must be “untrue”. And what is the usual fate of those who prove untrue?
All the signals are there. "Othering" those that disagree with them. Seeking to exclude from society those same people. Changing democracy until it is, in fact, no longer democracy.
It is clear to me that the troika of which Chris speaks are the fascists of the 21st century.
Labour's broadly leftist, we're-all-in-this-together tolerance has gone in favour of an inflexible and narrow Manichaenism that tries to shout down any differing views down with refrains that run along the line: "if you're not part of our solution you're part of the problem."
As a previously lifelong Labour voter: I just can't do this any more, so I guess we're breaking up, and it's not me; it's you.
Chris Trotter makes a lot of sense in this article.
Worth remembering:
1/ Winston Peters over a year ago ruled out working with Labour. So Labour making that announcement is pointless.
2/ NZ has never been more divided than it is now after the last 6 years of a Labour-Greens government, and especially with the last 3 years being completely dominated by Labour's absolute majority in Parliament. So it is patently false to suggest that Labour doesn't seek to divide NZ. Labour has actively divided NZ through actively imposing an ideology that a very large number of NZers outright does not accept.
3/ While Labour wants to focus the campaign on the economy and "equality", it is intent on pushing through a racist Co-Governance program of work that is truly opposite to the original meaning and intent of the Treaty of Waitangi, and they want to continue to actively push forward with implementing their belief in Identity Politics.
4/ The politicians who should have known better were politicians in the Green and Labour parties. They - including Hipkins himself - are the ones who stirred up foment against Lesbians and women in general in Auckland on 25 March 2023 when a bunch of NZ women invited Kellie Jay Keene to NZ to facilitate an event for NZ women to stand up and speak in public. Many homosexuals in NZ - including myself were utterly appalled the anti-women, anti-homosexual protest (ostensibly pro-"trans", but in reality was anti-female, anti gay) that the NZ Government allowed to happen in AK that day.
5/ Economically, The Labour party were the ones who chose to borrow large amounts of cash and hand it out like lolly water just so that people did nothing while Labour tried their hardest to kill so many small businesses in Auckland through pointless repeated and extended lockdowns.
6/ Labour actively promoted the use of an unproven vaccine, claiming that it was "safe and effective", but which it has subsequently has been proven to have a very poor risk profile and be ineffective against any of the later Omicron variants including the latest variant which is significantly different from the virus that the vaccine was created to work against.
7/ Labour claims to have delivered on it's housing policy. In reality, houses have never been more out of reach for first home buyers, and rents have never been so high.
I would suggest that anyone who thinks Labour has done well needs to get their head examined.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.