Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
KevinHicks; After reading this I have very slightly modified my view
Well that is the whole point of discussion, that opposing parties can listen to each other and come to an understanding. Although there will always be people with differing views those views should never, in a democracy, be based on ignorance of known facts or the dogmatic views of the functionally illiterate.
The cry from the right on the EFB has been, mainly, on the basis of the belief that the bill reduces the right of free speech but the tactics of the right, including the actions of National in the house is to shout down any opposition to their wants, the fascicle protest at parliament was a case in point.
The same can be said about Family First child abuse campaign. A law is passed making it an offence to beat children, they shout and scream above all those who support it and then come out saying that "something should be done" well it was and the firs case under that law has had a result that can only be seen as a good thing. The punishment fits the crime, the punishment was "go away and learn to behave in an acceptable manner, at no cost to your self" May I suggest the right wing screamers and shouters go away and learn how to listen and discuss in a civilised manner or even just go to Australia where they believe life is so much better. -
Wellingtonista-Public Address Christmas Party at Welington's Mighty Mighty on Thursday, December 6.
Damn. I'm off to the Family First Fun Evening that day. I've already got my walk shorts ironed and a new pair of knee socks and sandles.
-
For me the questions remain:
1. Were people actually heading down a path of doing harm.
2. And/or were police reasonable in their belief that someone was heading down a path of doing harm.We already have laws to cover those eventualities. Disturbing the peace, public nuisance and a raft of others. The point about the TSA is that it was required for international reasons and as it stood it was adequate for those circumstances. The amendment, on the other hand, didn't go far enough to cover what the police thought it should, ie. domestic terror threats which, I believe, are highly unlikely
-
"(despite what that letter writer in this morning's Herald thought)"
There will always be those that will say "Well he did it so there na na na na na" and that goes for the twat that brought the charge against Trevor Mallard over the fisticuffs in Parlaymunt too. It's just childish. -
So are you saying that if someone says "I want to destroy GE crops" or whatever, but doesn't actually mean it ie they're mouthing off, then they shouldn't be arrested? Or do you mean that if someone says "I want to destroy GE crops" or whatever, and means it (and starts planning to turn those words into action), that they shouldn't be arrested?
My point rather was that we do not need laws that suppress dissent. Mouth off all you want to, that is a true mark of democracy. In terms of activism I do belive that as long as it is acting/theatrical as opposed to Action/Harm then this also is a mark of democracy. What we do not need are laws that can be used to suppress dissent even if those laws were not intended for that use and the TSA is one of those laws.
-
So. Back to the point.
As I said at the start of the original discussion.Had the warrants been issued after the amendment to the TSA was passed would the result have been any different, if so how?
also, the police must have known about the amendment debate so the timing is of the essence. Is it not?.
I have niggling doubts/fears about the motivation behind this whole thing and still can't figure who sparked the decision to go ahead with the raids.For those of you that considered my "conspiracy hypotheses" Here is the final solution.
The powers that be considered that the law as it stood gave no protection to the status quo. In fact, in it's current form, there was no protection unless an outside agency had defined the "offenders" as a terrorist organisation. So. therefore we had no protection against the tangatawhenua (unless they/we were considered as an international threat to America). Nuff said.
So. As I said earlier "there must be a reason why this happened at the same time as the parliamentary discussions on the TSA".
Well I think that the "Powers that be" (and I mean in the enforcement part of the tripartite) decided that, as it stands, the act would not "protect" us against the enemy that the police consider to be the real enemy. ie Maori. or for that matter anyone that would stand against the international agreements that we have in regards to trade, ie anti GE anti animal mistreatment anat.
I still stand by my initial observation that this was no coincidence.
Bugger the lawyers marching on Queen St in defence of their right to get the government they want to pay for. The real freedom here is to be able to say " I want to destroy GE crops" or whatever, without fear of being locked up for it under some ill thought out law. -
So now it's pastel picking Pinkos? or is that pistol pacing pinkos and pastel picking errr.... furgeddit
-
I just had a thought. You could describe the Urewera lot as "Pistiol Packin' Outlaws"
so could you describe the Queen St. protesters as "Pastel Picking Inlaws"?
Just a thought. -
Ahhh semantics,
We can also say that to inspire "Shock and Awe" with the intent to cause as government to do or not do something, ie. disappear, is a terrorist act. -
But even if one were to err on the side of caution, the "freedom fighters" referred to attacking Key as Prime Minister, in Wellington. It's fairly obvious that the very last place they'd have a crack at him would be on their own marae, as a guest.
Yeah. John Key ... just drop a bomb ... Just wait till he visits somewhere and just blow him ... They won't even find you." – two suspects in bugged vehicle, August 17, 2007.
A little Lewinskyesque for my liking but it worked against Clinton.
;-)