Posts by Sacha
-
Can you suggest something "complex" a protestor with individual access to that area could do, that would also attract TV and other media attention during the 60 seconds of the visitor's entrance?
-
Yodelling should be regarded as a crime against humanity ;-)
and just like that, Lealand is off the Topp Twins christmas card list...
-
a matter that requires the House to be put under urgency. Again.
I understand from Idiot/Savant's previous posts about this that it silences the opposition by eliminating a Members Day (on Wednesdays) where MPs other than the government ones might get to put forward legislation. And this lot have done it about half the time so far, which is many times more than any previous government.
It undermines the whole concept of "urgency" and of parliamentary representation of diverse views. It also says a lot about their character that they fear anyone else having a say. Cowardly bullies in charge.
-
I wonder if journalists have generally come down fairly hard on Norman because two of their number have just been hit very hard by the Speaker for doing what he is said to have done after he picked up his flag -- pursuing someone through Parliament, shouting at them.
My understanding is that they breached a ban on filming in Parliament's stairwells, which is enough for the Speaker to discipline them regardless of the rest of their behaviour.
Norman on the other hand, as I said upthread, ought to have registered his protest with the Speaker according to protocol and as a known quantity should anyway have been the subject of risk assessment briefings by DPS to the Chinese.
In any case, as a Member of our Parliament it would be a bit ridiculous if he was not allowed to be on its grounds. Perhaps whispering deferentially on behalf of the people would be acceptable? The future restrictions that the Speaker has been asked by the Prime Minister to implement will be interesting to compare with other bastions of democracy like Fiji, Zimbabwe.. and China.
-
Perhaps, he just dropped it, and they helpfully picked it up before he assaulted them?
Heh. I'm reminded of Joe's observation upthread:
Give these types an inch and they'll viciously thrust their groin into some hapless goon's knee.
-
By contrast, Q&A producer Tim Watkin examines the distinct purpose of protest.
But surely the point of protest is to provoke, to confront and to agitate. The goal is be so confronting as to affect change. That's what marks protest as a tactic different from diplomacy or negotiation. To ask a protester to stop being confrontational is to ask them to stop protesting, and protesting is our right.
As Dr Martin Luther King Jr. wrote during the Birmingham campaign in 1963, not long before he gave his 'I have a dream' speech in Washington, "The purpose of ... direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation".
Norman's hope is that if enough people around the world put pressure on the Chinese government over Tibet, then it will be forced to negotiate.
...
My simple point is that a legal protest was made in a country with a proud history of protest. Kate Sheppard, Te Whiti, the anti-Springbok crowds and others all caused offense to make their case. Norman has every right to make his case as well.
-
Ex-MP Deborah Coddington displays some worrying 'logic'.
When my children were little and ran to me telling tales of sibling bullying, my first reaction inevitably was, what did you do to cause your sister's wrath?
Russel Norman's behaved like a child since he roughed up (yes, if you watch the television footage closely, it's his hands shoving people aside to retrieve the Tibetan flag) security personnel outside Parliament.
...
Norman involved in argy bargy with Chinese security, then complaining to police is the same as McCroskie staying up late to watch naked men then complaining to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
-
SHORE's website navigation is disastrous (not my first time struggling to find something I know is there).
Phew, not just me then. Ta for hunting it down, James.
-
practical genetics pictured (h/t Patrick Pilcher)
-
If we're going there, I understand Einstein and Oppenheimer were both top blokes and were in no way pawns of government or commercial interests.