As an MP, I once experienced demonstrations outside my home. It was about the Family Court. The neighbours were not impressed, even though it was quite a modest demonstration.
Heather du plessis-allan, in today's Herald, sets out the sheer scale of the demonstrations outside Winston Peter's house. They have been way beyond reasonable. It is surprising the Police did not act.
The proposed legislation doesn't prevent all demonstrations in residential areas. Instead it provides limits on the basis of reasonableness.
In short. the bill is a considered and reasonable response.
The discussions about what is free speech and where and when it should take place have been on going. The Bill that Parliament is considering is even more interesting in that the freedom to speak in Parliament itself is challenged regularly through house rules being broken and speaking time limits abused.
The problem I have with protests is that inevitably the numbers involved, if they are large, are taken as a reflection of the Nations support for the issue being protested, and that for me is only partly true. Even the largest protests will have the support of half the population at best I believe. Add to that the frenzied ability to round up a crowd on social media, and the scrum of true facts are being twisted again.
What amazes me about the attack on Winston Peters home was the illogical and vague argument the protesters are using against Peters. The emotional demand for Peters to call for a Palestinian State and sanctions against Israel , which imo was pointless, saw him being cancelled and his property vandalised. Those completely unqualified of making these demands, the likes of Acacia O’conner, just gave themselves permission to ride rough over other peoples rights, and still can’t see they are wrong. If someone who objected to her acting ability, threw a rock through her window she would be disgusted no doubt.
Times have changes and so I believe a Bill preventing protest on the private property of elected MP’s is justified.
Hamesuken is what it's called in Scottish law, from the Old English meaning home-seeking. Even the Vikings thought this sort of thing to be bad form, as per Njalls Saga, etc.
Yes that was the one, also called Saga of Burnt Njáll etc. But it seems the plot condemned a steadily worsening vendetta that began over trifles, with the burning of Njáll's homestead the ultimate act of folly. Viz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nj%C3%A1ls_saga.
Let's not overlook that Winston's supporters/activists/base/campaign team waged a war of harassment against Jacinda Ardern, even abusing her as she holidayed at a bach in Tairua during the time leading up to her resignation. He knew about it and stayed silent. Winston, however, doesn't like it when the boot is on the other foot.
That's most unfair, SE. Winston has no way of determining who supports his party, nor is he responsible for the abominable behaviour of persons consumed by political hatred. He has always condemned forthrightly all instances of political violence.
Jim " how far away from them are we allowed to protest?"
The government (Adern's lot?) brought in protest distance restrictions for abortion clinics, in some jurisdictions even silent prayer has seen people arrested.
I don't think it's a good idea to make laws that are dependent on those sorts of assumptions; we simply don't know what emotional state the "protest's" intended victims are in. Even if Winston is as tough as old boots the other people in his home, and those in neighbouring homes, may not be.
US Democrat Governor Josh Shapiro, who's home was fire bombed and invaded by an anti-Israeli terrorist, said he was "unshaken by the attack"*. His wife and four children were, and are, probably terrified. They were obviously all in great danger.
Excerpt: "However, when speaking with reporters on April 16, the governor told reporters he was unshaken by the attack.
"Nothing he could do would deter me from doing my job as governor. Nothing he could do would deter me from proudly and openly practicing my faith," Shapiro said."
Ummmm, sorry, Jim, but ethically-speaking this is as woeful as your earlier comment.
Our parliamentarians are put there by us, and we can remove them if they err too grievously.
If their behaviour shades into criminality, then we can call upon the police and the courts.
But monstering a Cabinet Minister and his family on the grounds that you disagree with his policies, or, even worse, because the voters refuse to defenestrate him? No. That's crossing a line. That's not on.
As an MP, I once experienced demonstrations outside my home. It was about the Family Court. The neighbours were not impressed, even though it was quite a modest demonstration.
Heather du plessis-allan, in today's Herald, sets out the sheer scale of the demonstrations outside Winston Peter's house. They have been way beyond reasonable. It is surprising the Police did not act.
The proposed legislation doesn't prevent all demonstrations in residential areas. Instead it provides limits on the basis of reasonableness.
In short. the bill is a considered and reasonable response.
I for one would support such a Bill.
The discussions about what is free speech and where and when it should take place have been on going. The Bill that Parliament is considering is even more interesting in that the freedom to speak in Parliament itself is challenged regularly through house rules being broken and speaking time limits abused.
The problem I have with protests is that inevitably the numbers involved, if they are large, are taken as a reflection of the Nations support for the issue being protested, and that for me is only partly true. Even the largest protests will have the support of half the population at best I believe. Add to that the frenzied ability to round up a crowd on social media, and the scrum of true facts are being twisted again.
What amazes me about the attack on Winston Peters home was the illogical and vague argument the protesters are using against Peters. The emotional demand for Peters to call for a Palestinian State and sanctions against Israel , which imo was pointless, saw him being cancelled and his property vandalised. Those completely unqualified of making these demands, the likes of Acacia O’conner, just gave themselves permission to ride rough over other peoples rights, and still can’t see they are wrong. If someone who objected to her acting ability, threw a rock through her window she would be disgusted no doubt.
Times have changes and so I believe a Bill preventing protest on the private property of elected MP’s is justified.
Hamesuken is what it's called in Scottish law, from the Old English meaning home-seeking. Even the Vikings thought this sort of thing to be bad form, as per Njalls Saga, etc.
Yes that was the one, also called Saga of Burnt Njáll etc. But it seems the plot condemned a steadily worsening vendetta that began over trifles, with the burning of Njáll's homestead the ultimate act of folly. Viz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nj%C3%A1ls_saga.
Let's not overlook that Winston's supporters/activists/base/campaign team waged a war of harassment against Jacinda Ardern, even abusing her as she holidayed at a bach in Tairua during the time leading up to her resignation. He knew about it and stayed silent. Winston, however, doesn't like it when the boot is on the other foot.
That's most unfair, SE. Winston has no way of determining who supports his party, nor is he responsible for the abominable behaviour of persons consumed by political hatred. He has always condemned forthrightly all instances of political violence.
Very well spoken incl. the historical context! Thank you.
...and according to this morning's news picketing outside Peters' home has been ongoing for 18 months...
Thanks Chris, your post illustrates that our NZ judiciary have become anti-law and that they endorse and support fellow activists…
Provide those activists are “on the same wavelength” as the judiciary.
Police are no longer empowered to enforce the law because the judiciary won’t back them.
Because of them police have lost their morale.
This MUST be stopped!
The ethical obtuseness on display here, Jim, inflicts enormous damage on your side of this argument.
Didn't you mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
Jim " how far away from them are we allowed to protest?"
The government (Adern's lot?) brought in protest distance restrictions for abortion clinics, in some jurisdictions even silent prayer has seen people arrested.
So: “my protest good your protest bad”
And who determines the one from the other - you?
I don't think it's a good idea to make laws that are dependent on those sorts of assumptions; we simply don't know what emotional state the "protest's" intended victims are in. Even if Winston is as tough as old boots the other people in his home, and those in neighbouring homes, may not be.
US Democrat Governor Josh Shapiro, who's home was fire bombed and invaded by an anti-Israeli terrorist, said he was "unshaken by the attack"*. His wife and four children were, and are, probably terrified. They were obviously all in great danger.
*https://people.com/shapiro-arson-suspect-allegedly-revealed-motive-911-call-11716709
Excerpt: "However, when speaking with reporters on April 16, the governor told reporters he was unshaken by the attack.
"Nothing he could do would deter me from doing my job as governor. Nothing he could do would deter me from proudly and openly practicing my faith," Shapiro said."
Ummmm, sorry, Jim, but ethically-speaking this is as woeful as your earlier comment.
Our parliamentarians are put there by us, and we can remove them if they err too grievously.
If their behaviour shades into criminality, then we can call upon the police and the courts.
But monstering a Cabinet Minister and his family on the grounds that you disagree with his policies, or, even worse, because the voters refuse to defenestrate him? No. That's crossing a line. That's not on.