MCCARTHY: Rebuttal to Frisch

Frisch Statement.PNG

Following a fascinating statement by Mercian Count Frisch, regarding my previous post, I am publishing a point-by-point rebuttal.

The article is an attempt to villainise a party[…]

No. The editorial piece was publishing my opinion on recent events, with the intent of informing the Mercian public of the actions of the National Liberal Party.

[…]for attempting to be involved in the coalition-forming process and attempting to negotiate a fair deal.

If that was the case, my piece would never have been published. Following the legitimate announcement of a coalition, the opposition became involved in blatant attempts to fracture it. I do not dispute the NLP’s right to form attempt to form a government, but to try and poach parties from an existing coalition is exceptionally bad practise.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with attempting to put forward a deal[…]

See above.

[…]and I cannot see why any of the other parties would be opposed to having another option on the table even if it’s not taken.

Why? The NLP was trying to fracture a democratically elected government, cause a breakdown in relations between the political left, and take over despite losing the election. The new coalition took this poorly, and saw it as a transparent ploy by the NLP to remain in government.

And should the NLP not try getting into government? Why wouldn’t they? It’s not a bad thing to do.

“I do not dispute the NLP’s right to form attempt to form a government, but to try and poach parties from an existing coalition is exceptionally bad practise.”

And even if it was, the PDP went to the NLP first, according to Beal na Tire.

If Count Frisch had bothered to check this line of enquiry out, he would have discovered that Alejandro Whyatt-Miranda, the First Minister of the coalition, approached the NLP, non-seriously, in retaliation for the NLP’s repeated attempts to steal the SDP from the coalition. Numerous screenshots can prove that the PDP had no intention of leaving the coalition.

The article conveniently leaves out any mention of this fact to imply that this was something the NLP did when this wasn’t the case.

It was something the NLP did; they were the instigators of the entire affair. This argument began when a senior NLP MP approached the SDP, asking them to switch sides.

The article then says “They are directly challenging the constitutional status of an election, and the right of the voters to decide on their leaders. They need to accept that for the first time, they lost the election. They may be the largest party, but they were not capable of forming a government.” This paragraph is an even greater affront to the constitutional roles in Mercia than what it attempts to claim the NLP have done. Nobody “won” the election, it was a hung Parliament.

Indeed, no party won the election. An election is won by whatever side can form a majority, and the coalition formed that majority.

It is true that the NLP were not on their own capable of forming a government, but neither was any other party.

Individually perhaps not, but as a collective grouping, the coalition succeeding in proposing a government.

Since the voters didn’t choose a majority government, a coalition must be formed. And as I have said, the NLP has as much right as to be involved in forming coalitions as any other party.

I won’t repeat myself again.

This article joins “Top 10 Kennedy-isms”, another of McCarthy’s pieces, as one of the worst things I’ve seen published.

Now we are getting into name calling, and similar repeated antagonism from the NLP has led this situation to escalate. For those interested, a full apology was issued for the article in question.

Using the guise of journalism[…]

The post never pretended to be journalism, it was an editorial, and was clearly presented as such.

[…]to discredit a party for attempting to fairly get into government[…]

The NLP’s actions have not been fair. The right choice for them would have been to have accepted the fact that a coalition had been formed, and not to have jeopardised the democracy of the state by attempting to end that coalition.

[…]is something I’d expect from a tabloid[…]

Now that’s hardly fair. All papers have a political bias.

[…]and with the same level of of truthfulness too[…]

I ask the Count to name one factual failing of my editorial.

[…]whereas themicronational has tried to give itself an air of journalistic integrity.

As I’ve said, the piece was clearly presented as an editorial, much as Count Frisch’s piece was. We maintain the highest standards of journalistic integrity in our factual articles. Our editorials are, by their very nature, biased.

If we continue to see articles as pathetic as this one[…]

I have already refuted that point on multiple counts.

[..]then it’s not the NLP who are “destroying Mercia”, to use their standard of hyperbole[…]

The NLP is destroying Mercia. Their actions have caused a political rift to open wider than any I’ve yet seen, and the openly antagonistic nature of some NLP members has had such dire consequences to even make one MP seriously consider resignation.

[…]but rather the fact that Kit McCarthy, who has been so willing to lie to the people as he has done here, has made it into government.

How kind.

I will finish with this rather superbly crafted post by Baron von Uberquie.

“I am going to jump on the speech bandwagon. I must say I am sorely disappointed with some of the reactions from across Mercia, both sides, about how the post-election has been handled. I can say from experience that I would never expect such inappropriate, intolerable behaviour from such upstanding citizens. I am disgusted that certain tirades and personal attacks have expanded from disagreements over a 22 person Microstate. In regards to the NLP – I have sat on the Opposition for three straight terms and never once did I start a vicious personal attack, never once did I conspire against the Government, and never once was I sore after I had failed. I sucked up what had happened and moved on. I hope I can expect this from the other members of the house, both sides, in future – otherwise my faith in the Mercian project will be lost.”

This editorial by SDP MP Kit McCarthy does not necessarily reflect the views or political leanings of themicronational as a news source.

MCCARTHY: NLP is Destroying Mercia

Following the recent events in Mercian politics, SDP MP Kit McCarthy writes regarding the NLP.

It’s only been a few days since the Mercian General Election, where, for the first time in history, the National Liberal Party (NLP) found themselves with no majority. Instead, a coalition was formed between the newly founded People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the newly founded Social Democratic Party (SDP), and the Green-Socialist Independent, Baron von Uberquie.

The NLP is trying to break this coalition up. Members of the coalition have been contacted individually by a senior NLP MP, who has tried to get them to leave the coalition and form a new government. The NLP has been trying to convince the coalition members that the proposed government is unstable.

No one in the coalition accepted the offers, but that’s not all. It now seems likely that the NLP leaked these negotiations to the Béal na Tíre, which recently published an article by  previous NLP First Minister Shane Cahill stating that the coalition was breaking up.

The NLP furthermore has repeatedly claimed they will hold a vote of no confidence against the coalition, and will try and bribe coalition members over to their side. As a member of the coalition myself, I condemn this.

The NLP is destroying Mercia, knowingly or unknowingly. They are directly challenging the constitutional status of an election, and the right of the voters to decide on their leaders. They need to accept that for the first time, they lost the election. They may be the largest party, but they were not capable of forming a government.

NLP member HL Richard I said recently that the coalition was ruining everything he had worked for, but the hypocrisy from the NLP is astonishing. The same NLP official who contacted members of the coalition proposed, when his offers were turned down, a national referendum on public support for the coalition. From a party who claims to protect Mercian democracy, the undemocratic nature of this is glaring. By the legislated electoral process of Mercia, the coalition has won this election, as collectively they hold a majority.

A national referendum would be directly challenging the voters decision in a fair election. The NLP is becoming desperate, and they need to stop these pathetic attempts to break up a rightfully elected government.

The coalition stands united, and will not tolerate further feeble attacks from the NLP. A new government has been elected, and it’s time for change.

This editorial from Kit McCarthy does not necessarily reflect the opinion or political leanings of themicronational as a news source. Kit McCarthy is a member of the Mercian Social Democratic Party.

McCarthy – In Defence of New Israel

Kit McCarthy begins a new column, and is concerned by the community’s attitude towards the Holy Empire of New Israel.

I would like to draw some attention to quite a disturbing issue I notice arising in the community. I am talking about the attitude some users hold regarding the Holy Empire of New Israel.
Because I know this is the immediate point others will raise, allow me to say this: I do not agree with many of the views the Holy Empire holds. To me and others, some of them violate basic human rights, and there is no excuse for this.
However, some users have a considerably hostile attitude towards the Holy Empire. Now, if this was solely in response to the views of the Holy Empire I suspect I would understand.
What I feel though is that this attitude is not in response to New Israel’s views. To me, it seems more like a personal attack against one user. Quite frankly, it seems like bullying, and that’s inexcusable.
Either that, or people are holding a grudge, which I think is similarly unacceptable. Forgiveness, for both Christians and non-Christians, is a very important human trait.
We have situations now where on Skype people are using New Israelis as objects of ridicule. Criticisms are no longer regarding views, but on people. This needs to stop. People get frustrated, I understand that, but please, keep it under control.
The question must of course be asked (as I do not deny that this stemmed originally from New Israel’s sometimes controversial views), how far should religious tolerance extend? I am in favour of great religious tolerance.
Many, I’m think, would agree with me there. Like freedom of speech, religious tolerance is to many a great civil liberty, but most wouldn’t want to see it used to condone violence, or oppression. I think, however, that there’s a problem with this.
I see a difference between religious tolerance, and acceptance of behaviour. You can be tolerant of a religion while not accepting its actions. Imagine saying, ‘I respect and tolerate your religion, although I do not agree with it.’ It’s almost the dictionary definition of tolerance – accepting a view that you disagree with.
I believe that religious tolerance (or perhaps respect is a better word), should be infinite and unconditional. Religious acceptance need not be.
Coming back though to the original points regarding New Israel, I would say tolerance should be extended fully by and to both sides. We cannot retain much credibility as a community without this.
Also, I’d make the requisite point about civility. Sure, disagree with people, but at least do so in a civil manner. As above, we cannot retain much credibility as a community without this.
We’ve seen a bit of a trend recently with community members becoming stigmatised (e.g. Dallin Langford). This isn’t on.
I’m not asking for people to be completely forgiving and laidback about major issues, but I’m asking for people not to drag issues on and on and on. It does no one any favours – instead, it shows the rest of us that you’re incapable of being mature and letting things go.
I’ll say again – I do not agree with the views held by New Israel, and do not wish to see them become actionable, nor used to incite further violence, but I respect New Israel’s right to those views.
Fine, disagree with New Israel, but stop making them out to be ignorant and violent. With the greatest of respect, I might say the same about you…

The views of the contributor do not necessarily reflect the views of themicronational as a news source.