The Dim-Post

June 11, 2009

Choudary! Choudary! Choudary!

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 9:47 am

I don’t think it’s a big deal that the media has outed Neelam Choudary; she wanted it all kept quiet and it’s a shame it didn’t work out that way – through no fault of hers – but the reality now is that Richard Worth is being publically judged on allegations she made that will never be tested in court, so it seems appropriate for the public to be aware that she was a nominee for a Labour party candidacy, is involved in an immigration scam in which her husband was convicted etc.


  1. Well, Phil Goff has been using her as a political football, so it was bound to happen. But its interesting that he has managed to get so much traction on this issue. There doesn’t seem to be much to it, on the evidence so far, but nonetheless Goff has managed to parlay it into a rolling maul of attacks on Key, and definitely has him on the back foot.

    Comment by vibenna — June 11, 2009 @ 10:26 am

  2. Yeah, that’s right. And to have anonymous colleagues of the woman who made the (apparent) sexual assault complaint to call her slutty and say that she likes sleeping with powerful men. Cos women who may have been sexually harassed deserve to have their names dragged through the mud in public. I agree its not as simple as all that in this particular situation, but come on. If this is the treatment you get when you’ve been sexually harassed by a public figure, why would you ever come forward?

    This is a nasty smear job by an overwhelmingly male media, with the misogynistic asshole results you’d expect in the kiwiblog sewer.

    Comment by Eddie Clark — June 11, 2009 @ 10:33 am

  3. “Cos women who may have been sexually harassed…”

    Asking a woman if she wants to come swimming is not sexual harrassment. It’s awkward, but not harrassment.

    Comment by radar — June 11, 2009 @ 10:59 am

  4. Worth has rights too, and he’s being tried in the court of public opinion instead of a court of law; it would be nice if the complainant could have remained anonymous but her close association with a rival political party has such a huge, obvious impact on the debate that it would be grossly unfair to Worth not to make it public.

    Comment by danylmc — June 11, 2009 @ 11:00 am

  5. the husband “went with her, and waited in a vehicle in the carpark” while she met Worth??? all a bit secret squirril. gets more bizzare each day.

    Comment by Neil — June 11, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

  6. I sort of agree in this situation, just in general it seems symptomatic to me of a general, rather icky attitude in the NZ media towards women who’re claiming to have been harassed.

    Comment by Eddie Clark — June 11, 2009 @ 12:37 pm

  7. The unintended consequence here is that if the Korean complainant gets similar treatment (already started, as you point out above) then Worth will become some kind of folk hero to the bloke-osphere, and their “PC gone mad” columnists.

    Which only makes it harder for Key to justify pushing the “innocent” man out of caucus.

    Comment by sammy — June 11, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

  8. ‘the husband “went with her, and waited in a vehicle in the carpark” while she met Worth??? all a bit secret squirril. gets more bizzare each day.’

    Actually no, from what I was told by a friend I know who was being sexually harassed, that is a normal tactic. You make sure you aren’t ever alone with your harasser. That she confronted him by herself, whilst still having support in the carpark, is actually courageous.

    While I agree that Worth is facing adverse public opinion on this matter (not the separate incident being investigated by the police), the fact that this woman was very involved with Labour was never hidden from the public when this matter came up. And the price the woman is paying about coming forward with this issue is also great now her name is known. Ms Choudary wanted to be an MP, this sort of publicity will hinder her?

    Comment by Sean — June 11, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

  9. Yeah, this is getting very strange.

    Personally, I’;m starting to think that the ‘honey-trap’ is becoming more likely with each new piece of news. Except, it’s not a Labour Party orchestrate one – it’s just a very poorly organised one some individuals who think they can climb the party ladder. Maybe they only saw the first half of ‘Burn After Reading’?

    Comment by Phil (not Goff) — June 11, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

  10. “He [Goff] had no cause to believe Mrs Choudary had behaved inappropriately with Dr Worth.
    “Why would she? Why would a woman of her age be interested in a relationship with a man of his age.””

    Classic Gaffe, at his best. Clearly he’s never seen ‘Girls of the Playboy Mansion’

    Comment by Phil (not Goff) — June 11, 2009 @ 1:16 pm

  11. but she wasn’t meeting to confront Worth – this was at the very beginning of their contacts – before it all turned nasty.

    “this sort of publicity will hinder her?”

    prbably it wouldn’t but now there’s a Labour parter voter claiming she is as dodgy as her convicted fraudster husband – that might not be good for her political career.

    Comment by Neil — June 11, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

  12. Not sure what you are getting at. So here are two answers.

    I think Phil Goff actually knows that we don’t live on ‘Planet Playboy’, and perhaps presumes that a member of New Zealand’s parliament doesn’t have the same ability to convince younger women to sleep with them as the very, very wealthy Hugh Hefner does.

    Alternatively, you may be suggesting if we imagine that Richard Worth is New Zealand’s answer to Hugh Hefner, his actions all make sense. Not keen on that idea myself.

    Comment by Sean — June 11, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

  13. Hasn’t Goff been saying from the very beginning that the lady involved was a party member and activist? How is that bit news?

    I understand about her husband being news but the big play seems to be the “revelation” that she has Labour links which is bizarre.

    Comment by Don — June 11, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

  14. Hasn’t Goff been saying from the very beginning that the lady involved was a party member and activist?

    He has. Obviously he couldn’t reveal that she stood for candidacy because that would have revealed her identity, which she asked him not to do. But I think it was fair game for the media to put that information out there.

    Comment by danylmc — June 11, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

  15. no he said she was a party member. not that she had such an active role

    Comment by insider — June 11, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

  16. Goff is in the luxururious position of being in the opposition rather than the government in the sense that Goff may have goofed, as it were, but it seems that in this particular situation it doesn’t matter what he does – the pr is all bad for National and Key’s handling of the situation. I suspect that is why Goff is milking it for all its worth, no matter the idiot that it makes him look.

    Comment by Sam — June 11, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

  17. Yep – the longer it drags out and the more information becomes public, the more stupid Worth, and by extention National, look and the more media coverage Goff gets. It’s all good as far as Labour’s concerned.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — June 11, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

  18. Come on Sean, don’t be naive. Look at what passes for ‘celebrity’ in New Zealand. Sadly, the likes of Worth ARE the Hef’s of NZ.

    Comment by Phil (not Goff) — June 12, 2009 @ 12:14 am

  19. Thats right Psycho, you keep telling yourself that-all the way to 2011……..

    Comment by Captain Crab — June 12, 2009 @ 7:58 am

  20. The disgusting sh*t Farrar and his goons is now serving up I think makes my point. The latest comment on kiwiblog is suggesting that she ‘collects’ powerful people, and poor Richard Worth has just been taken in. This sort of stuff is the reason I think it was unethical for Choudary to be named.

    The end result, I suspect, is the next time someone thinks they’ve been sexually harrassed by an MP, they’ll be less likely to complain.

    Comment by Eddie Clark — June 12, 2009 @ 9:19 am

  21. some idle speculation since that’s always handy to fill the fact gaps.

    Goff feels obliged to take Choudary’s accusations to Key but isn’t sure that he’s on very soid ground as he knows she’s been invloved with her husband’s immigration fraud. So seeks to do the right thing but at the same time underplay it (avoiding the embaressment to Labour of Choudary’s activities) and so approaches Key in private. evidence is thin and Goff over-eggs what evidence he thinks he has.

    Worth probably lies to Key.

    a second allegation emerges. Goff decides to go public for fear the Labour bully boys will use this to oust him if he doesn’t act The Strongman.

    Goff now in a bit of trouble.

    When I look at Labour all I can think of is The Boys Are Back In Town. Shearer might be some welcome civilised company for Goff.

    Comment by Neil — June 12, 2009 @ 9:24 am

  22. You can almost see the thinking – ‘Look, boobies! She was definitely asking for it.’

    Comment by George D — June 12, 2009 @ 11:21 am

  23. As much as I think Labour have a strategic victory in this increasingly surreal debacle, I also think Labour is seriously f#cked in using these means to arrive at this end. They are yet to recognise why they lost a good deal of their own support base in the last election. Labour needs a whole-sale clear-out, or alternatively, the left needs a new party that can focus on political policy rather than politicking from the gutter.

    Comment by Sam — June 12, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

  24. Sam, there’s plenty of focus on policy. But how many people read the reasoned arguments from Phil Twyford or Charles Chauvel or any number of smart, policy-focussed Labour MPs?

    Phil Goff has been around as long as Winston Peters, and yet he is far less well-known. That’s his reward for being more interested in substance than sleaze.

    I really hope Labour campaign on progressive, social democratic issues, and raise the level of debate. But if the media prefer Lee and Worth and every other sideshow, how long are Labour going to keep preaching to an empty hall, when the crowd is over at the circus?

    Comment by sammy — June 12, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: