Saturday, June 19, 2010

Dr Norman deserves respect for reminding us about the importance of our democratic freedoms

I know this post is not going to be popular with the locals. It took a lot of guts for Russell Norman to stand alone and trouble our conscience. I watched that tape a few times to form my own conclusion. It is the heart of our democracy that peaceful protest is allowed. Dr Norman was standing where he was entitled to stand, making a peaceful protest. Foreign guests decided they would interfere with a duly elected Member of the New Zealand Parliament undertaking lawful activity.

The police decision not to follow up is a lame excuse. They have photographic evidence and could easily identify the individuals as they leave the country tomorrow. Apart from one officer towards the end they failed in their duty to protect a New Zealand politician from assault.

John Key is taking a see no evil approach. I understand it but I think a little less of him because of it.

If we cannot stand up for the democratic rights of our countrymen, even when you disagree with them, then we have lost something of our freedom and our democracy. As it happens I agree with the action of Dr Norman and salute him. We should trade with China for the benefits trade brings, but we should never forget, and we should never allow them to forget, that democracy, human rights and self determination are important. That is not what the Anzacs fought for.

24 comments:

KG said...

amen! to that Sagenz.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I think you're wrong. Reviewing the footage it is clear Norman provoked the incident. He pushed forward to within two metres of the VIP.

What were the security people to do? Give him a cup of tea?

Kiwiblog sums up this ratbag well.

There's more of Bradford than Donald in Norman.

sjm55 said...

Pity they did'nt shoot the cock sucker. Save wasting our time on trying to dump the piece of shit

JC said...

Heh,

Two Commo regimes facing off against each other.

The only difference being that one's mass murders and genocide lie in the past.

JC

Psycho Milt said...

As usual, it doesn't surprise me that some right-wingers will turn up here and back a totalitarian dictatorship against democracy. It does surprise me that they'll go so far as to endorse a foreign dictator's enforcers manhandling a New Zealand MP exercising his democratic rights in the New Zealand Parliament. That really is a new low...

Anonymous said...

sorry mate you are wrong. NZ let a major breach of security occur. This is not good enough. If it had been the US President, his security would have flattened Norman (and deservedly so).

It doesnt matter the cause - the bottom line is we invited the (soon to be) second most powerful man in the world to visit us in our homes, and we insulted him with amateur hour security.

not a good look.

and the ginga whinger got a clip of him whining "gimme my flag back" in an australian accent - most leaderly.

But good to see the Greens are committed to supporting Medieaval hereditory dictatorships. Guess they won't be part of the republican movement in NZ anymore will they?

But when was consistency anything to do with green grandstanding?

Anonymous said...

Good to see that Milt is of the same view as Norman.

Hmmm

supporting hereditary dictatorship of a man who is the reincarnation of a God, over communist dictatorship...

Hmm, big call that.

Can I vote none of the above?

JC said...

"As usual, it doesn't surprise me that some right-wingers will turn up here and back a totalitarian dictatorship against democracy."

Charming. Red Russel supports the God Botherers in Tibet whilst ruthlessly suppressing the Exclusive Brethren here with the most draconion electoral laws in the West.

He also unreservedly supports the God Botherers of the terrorist organisation Hamas against secular and democratic Israel.

Did he personally get in the face of Chinese Govt visitors when Labour was in power?

JC

Psycho Milt said...

The right-wing dim-bulbery is worse than initially imagined (not for the first time). Tibet has much to do with it as the price of artichokes, you cretins. Let me spell it out for you, thickos:

In theory, a NZ MP has the right to hold up a flag or other symbol of protest on the grounds of Parliament.

In theory, Chinese security guards visiting NZ's Parliament must stick to protecting their contemptible representative of totalitarianism and refrain from assaulting elected representatives of the NZ people.

Unless you're a right-wing liberthauritarian - in that case, contemptible representatives of totalitarianism trampling the rights of elected MPs is a sight to be enjoyed and praised.

gravedodger said...

Where was Mr KLocke while this assault on our democratic freedoms was occurring.
Was there a rally to rehabilitate that wonderful champion of human rights Mr Pol Pot going down elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

milt doubling down on stupid again.

Noone disagrees with you that the MP had a right to protest or to "hold up a flag".

Rod Donald undertook a silent dignified protest.

But that isnt what Norman was doing is it?

The ginga whinger broke through a security cordon to attempt his grandstanding.

He could have done a dignified protest, but he chose not to.

He embarassed New Zealand.

How hard is that to understand?

Its nothing about manhandling an "elected" representative. Its about an "elected" member of Parliament deliberately trying to create an international incident in order to generate some publicity and poll traffic for his sorry party.

It is also about our DPS and police FAILING to do their duty to protect a visiting dignatory.

But its much easier to resort to childish insults about rightwingers isnt it milt.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Actually Milt, you are quite wrong.

In this case, nobody has any right to hold up a flag in the grounds of parliament unless he or she has the prior approval of Mr Speaker. Had such approval been sought on this occasion, most certainly it would have been denied. [See the example (at Kiwiblog) of Rod Donald and his protest in which the Speaker laid down strict conditions.]

The green commie prick was not manhandled for holding a flag, he was manhandled for being a threat to the safety of a visiting dignitary. The only thing wrong about this whole episode is that the dumb arses who are OUR security people fell down on the job and left it to their Chinese colleagues to restrain this gibbering foreign trouble maker.

I hope our Prime Minister has given the head of the DPS the first class dressing down he deserves.

Psycho Milt said...

Its nothing about manhandling an "elected" representative.

Apparently not, as far as the govt's concerned. It should be though.

The green commie prick was not manhandled for holding a flag, he was manhandled for being a threat to the safety of a visiting dignitary.

High-grade bullshit. He was trying to get the visiting Piece of Shit to notice a flag.

The only thing wrong about this whole episode is that the dumb arses who are OUR security people fell down on the job and left it to their Chinese colleagues to restrain this gibbering foreign trouble maker.

OUR security people recognise that people have a right to protest without authoritarian thugs attacking them. They certainly did fall down on their job of protecting Donald from said thugs, but presumably the weasel Key won't be giving them a bollocking about that - he's used to greasing up to shitty characters if there's money in it.

I hope our Prime Minister has given the head of the DPS the first class dressing down he deserves.

Like I said, highly unlikely - as unlikely as the Speaker giving Key the bollocking he deserves.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Low grade excuses, Milt.

Your Piece of Shit was trying to get noticed by the pre-arranged TV cameras.

Anonymous said...

Utterly emberrassing for NZ.
What Norman did is wrong on every level. He should be up before a judge for breaking the police cordon.

sagenz said...

Adolf - Norman provoked an incident by being there. That is the point. He was exercising his and our democratic right.

If US security had been there they would have established from local security that he was in fact a harmless local exercising his democratic right of protest and would have been blocked by a small wall of security who would have ensured they did not touch him but equally did not prevent him from moving forward.

The justifications on the basis of supporting medieval hereditary dictatorships miss the point entirely. Actually Tibetans were comfortable with that style of government and have their right to make those decisions. The Dalai Lama is a man of peace.

I agree that Rod Donald made a far more dignified protest than Russell Norman. But both had every right to be exactly where they were.

The speaker has the right to ban a member from parliament when there is a transgression but not without cause.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

No Sagey, you are fundamentally wrong again.

The Speaker controls what goes on on the parliamentary precinct. end of story. Don't be surprised if Lockwood rebukes Norman for bringing the parliament into disrepute.

Anonymous said...

actually Sagenz what Norman was 'protesting" in support of is material.

We know that the Greens hate organised religion

We know that the Greens are republicans

We know that the Greens supposedly support democracy

So why is their leader demonstrating on behalf of a religious theocratic dictator?

I don't care if the current Lama is a "man of peace". Benevolent dictator is still dictator.

I then read that your justification is that the Tibetan peasants were happy being serfs therefore its no business of ours. Hmm, moral equivalence at its finest.

There was silly old me thinking that human rights were absolutes, and that principles mattered.

Of course, there is the upside that we will never hear a cross word from you about Islamic repression anymore, because it is a religion of peace, and muslim women like having their bits hacked off.

sagenz said...

anon 10:50 - That is not what I meant at all. Democracy is not the most important thing, it is self determination. There was not widespread civil unrest in Tibet against the leadership before China took over. You cannot simply impose Western standard democracy everywhere if the local people prefer a different form of governance. Every answer and every situation is nuanced. Your point about barbarism in certain Islamic countries is a cheap shot

Anonymous said...

Actually Sagenz by definition you don't get "self determination" in a dictatorship.

Its why saddam hussein always got 98% of the vote of his grateful people.

Its why the North Koreans always love Kim il Jong

(its also why the Labour party still loves Helen Clark!)

self determination implies free will and the free right to consider alternatives without consequence.

Pre-1948 Tibetans had none of those rights. Opposing the Monks meant at best severe punishment, at worse death. This is what a religious theocracy means.

But hey, don't let facts, history or logic get in the way of how you"feel" about the issue.

Hence my point - Norman was protesting in support of a regime he BY DEFINITION couldnt support - if he had any principles - against a regime that he personally is strongly in favour of (communist dictatorship) while pretending he is concerned about democracy (rather than trying to get on the frontpage of the paper and move his poll rankings).

fun, fun, fun.

Ratchet said...

I'm of the opinion that Norman got exactly what he deserved. If you act like a radical activist, expect to be treated like a radical activist.

He was elected to parliament (well, kind-of) and thus should act with the dignity that people expect.

If you take issue with a visiting dignitary, do so diplomatically, not by tring to smoosh a flag into his face like some radical nut-job. That's what Sue Bradford's around for.

Psycho Milt said...

Norman was protesting in support of a regime he BY DEFINITION couldnt support

Lots of "Greens derangement syndrome" on this thread. Those of us who haven't let hatred of the Greens fry our sense of logic are able to figure out that China doesn't actually have a right to annex and colonise other countries. It's not rocket science.

...a visiting dignitary...

"Dignitary?" Is that what we're calling them these days?

Anonymous said...

Whatever Milt

So when are you leaving Aotearoa?

Anonymous said...

What is evident form the ranting of this MP Huo here is that his mindset is not that of a New Zealander, nor that of an independent thinker, but clearly that of a proxy for the Han CCP who managed to infiltrate NZ politics.
All their nauseating propaganda lies find their place of pride in this sordid expose of Han racism, against a people the Han Chinese obviously regard as so inferior, and unworthy of being accorded the international rule of law.
For one the right to self determination as the PRC has signed up to under the UN Charter.
Or all the other conventions covering Human Rights, Freedom of Religion, or Freedom of whatever hue.
But of course laws, agreements, human rights or international conventions they are bound by mean silch to the Han CCP, and obviously the Chinese community in NZ.
They demand an apology from Norman, well what are they here in NZ for?
They obviously treat NZ as a colony of the Han empire and think of themselves as the Han overlords of this territory, just as they think of all the occupied territories, Tibet, Mongolia, East Turkestan etc as theirs and for them to rape, pillage, oppress and destroy at will, and no other country dare interfere in “China’s internal affairs”!
They obviously never think of themselves as Kiwis!
What arrogance!
An exhibitions expounding all the ‘cruelty and barbarity’ of the “old Tibet” has been held in NZ.
So, are we now reduced to hosting such obnoxiously racist exhibitions on our soil!
The mere fact that the Han Chinese regime forces this nauseating concoction of fabricated lies to vilify and denigrate the Tibetan people on the world at large is a disgrace and the height of racist depravity.
Even if there were a grain of truth in any of these concocted smears Huo is referring to, it still would amount to the same; the Han Chinese have been an absurdly racist creed throughout history, and it seems their newfound wealth in the 21st century has only strengthened this arrogance and ignominy.

http://sites.google.com/site/onejustworld/

Read this article and get some appreciation of what the Tibetan / Han Chinese relationship really is all about, and then make up your mind!