Labour puts up a cordon of black-suited thugs to block out protest sign. Do they think this is the way to protect Andrew Little? Waitangi, 6 February 2015
On television this morning, Labour leader Andrew Little was being interviewed. As all too often, sadly, his words were vague and fairly confused: he failed to condemn John Key’s disgraceful and inappropriate misuse of his Waitangi platform to push for New Zealand to join in the “fight against ISIS”. Instead of saying something principled and intelligent, Little babbled about “effectiveness” and lack of mission clarity. He could have mentioned the fact that the U.S. and U.K. governments have armed and rhetorically supported ISIS in its murderous insurrection in Syria, that New Zealand has endorsed all of this bloody dealing, and that stopping THAT support would be the most immediately effective means of combating ISIS.
While Little droned on, behind him, protestors were holding up a sign that read “MAORI SOVEREIGNTY IS GOOD FOR ALL NZERS”. I know that’s what it read, but viewers watching this morning’s interview were prevented from reading the words because a phalanx of black-suited thugs deliberately stood in front of the sign.
I could identify one of the thugs: it was Palmerston North’s undistinguished M.P. Iain Lees-Galloway. I don’t know if the other thugs were Labour Party apparatchiki, but I strongly suspect they were.
A couple of women, clearly frustrated and disgusted at Lees-Galloway and his fellow censors, were politely remonstrating with them, and perhaps asking the police to move them away. No matter how polite they were, the police did nothing.
Why is the Labour Party trying to block democratic, peaceful protestors?
And why don’t the television crews simply walk past the likes of Lees-Galloway and his black-suited mafia lookalikes and interview the protestors?
That is the problem, sadly. If you know nothing about what the United States has been doing in Syria for the last three years, then you will not be aware of the hypocrisy of Key’s words yesterday, or of the failure of Little to put that hypocrisy into any kind of context.
If you do a little reading, weka, and actually school yourself up on the situation, you WILL see a problem with what Little said, and with what he failed to say.
Little isn’t talking about Syria or the US or FJK, or anything other than Māori sovereignty and that NZ needs to look at self-governance in the context of modern nation stated. Not a blacksuit or protestor in sight.
Which leaves us with a bunch of slurs from whatever it is you saw that you haven’t linked to. As TRP points out below, you are notoriously uneven in your accuracy, so your comment just came across as pretty useless for anything other than demonstrating what you think of Little and a Labour MP.
Maybe instead of being a patronising fuckwit you could do some research of your own.
Little DID talk about ISIS this morning, even though he failed to say anything that made much sense about it. And you’re quite right—he did not talk about Syria. That’s the problem—he’s too frightened to state the glaringly obvious, because the government would immediately whip up an hysterical political firestorm about how Labour supports Assad.
2.) Not a blacksuit or protestor in sight.
The blacksuits were in sight this morning for anyone watching television, as Little droned on confusedly about why it’s maybe not a good idea to get into the “fight against ISIS.” The protestors were pretty much blocked out by the blacksuits.
3.) Which leaves us with a bunch of slurs from whatever it is you saw that you haven’t linked to.
I reported factually about the deliberate blocking off of peaceful protestors in a public forum, by a cordon of Labour Party men. The only possible “slur” in my reporting was my labeling of Lees-Galloway and his cronies as “thugs”. If they are were not behaving as thugs, what word would YOU use to describe people who deliberately stand in front of peaceful protestors in a public space?
4.) As TRP points out below, you are notoriously uneven in your accuracy, so your comment just came across as pretty useless for anything other than demonstrating what you think of Little and a Labour MP.
Could you cite an example of my being inaccurate, let alone “notoriously” inaccurate on this or any other forum? I described exactly what Lees-Galloway and some other men did to block off some peaceful, silent protestors this morning. Are you trying to say they did not do that? You might disagree with my interpretation of what Lees-Galloway and his cronies did; I think their behaviour was sinister and profoundly anti-democratic, whereas you evidently think it’s acceptable for a political party to use people to shut down law-abiding protestors. I obviously don’t approve of such anti-democratic behaviour, but my description of the action was perfectly true. Not according to YOU, however. So please tell us: how exactly was my report of Lees-Galloway’s actions “uneven in accuracy”?
By the way, my friend, here’s a little advice: on this blog, starting a sentence with the formula “As TRP points out” is a sure-fire way to instantly discredit oneself. Your co-opting of our favorite Party apparatchik is about the funniest mis-step since…. well, since THIS howler, when a bloke cites Winston Peters to bolster his case…. http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06022015/#comment-964230
Ha ha ha, keep ’em coming, Moz, this is quality stuff! We’ve really gotta get you on the telly. I’m thinking a sitcom, maybe a monkey sidekick? All we need is a catchphrase and a title. The rest just writes itself.
ffs, you do a rant, and provide a link that doesn’t show anything of what you are ranting about. A few people point out that you’re not making sense. You ignore this and continue with the rant. And now you want to claim you were being accurate?
“The link I provided is not that clear, sorry.”
No. The link is perfectly clear, it’s Andrew Little talking about Māori sovereignty. What isn’t clear is your post, and subsequent comments when you already knew the link didn’t match your story.
You’ve been called many times on how you write up the ‘transcripts’ off things like RNZ, so don’t make out you are not aware of this reputation.
At this point in the conversation I don’t give a shit about your views on Little and Lees Galoway, because you’ve demonstrated that what’s important is your view rather than communicating what happened with accuracy or respect for the people reading here. By all means keep justifying and defending, but your original comment is full of slurs, not just one slur but many. That wouldn’t be so bad (this is ts after all), but there is nothing in your comment that has substance beyond “I don’t like what Little and LG just did”.
“If they are were not behaving as thugs, what word would YOU use to describe people who deliberately stand in front of peaceful protestors in a public space?”
I don’t know, because I have no fucking idea what you are talking about. All it’s assertion, done badly, and with so mych ego shit in it it’s too hard to see what’s real. Up your game, mate. You’re better than this and IMO Waitangi Day is not the day to do this shit.
I described, clearly and unambiguously, the anti-democratic actions carried out by Andrew Little’s self-styled security corps. I labeled those fellows “thugs”, which you might disagree with—but I see you have not come up with any better description of them.
Little DID talk—foggily—about ISIS and our response to the “threat” it poses. You can pretend he didn’t if you like—it’s your credibility on the line.
2.) You’ve been called many times on how you write up the ‘transcripts’ off things like RNZ, so don’t make out you are not aware of this reputation.
This has been done to death many times on this forum. Yes, sometimes I’ll miss out something from one of my rush transcripts, and sometimes I might emphasise the stupidity and inarticulateness of, say, Hekia Parata, a little too much for some people’s liking. But inevitably, those objections have been shown to be politically motivated—the shenanigans started with poor old Lanthanide, who objected to my transcripts because they showed up the moral idiocy of not only a bewildered politician, but also of his own thinking….. http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-30082011/#comment-369467
Others to jump on the “inaccurate transcripts” bandwagon were such nasty and disreputable customers as McFlock, Populuxe and of course Te Reo Putake, formerly known as The Voice of Reason. In every case, the “inaccurate transcripts” line was used as a way to attack me in the absence of their being able to muster a convincing argument against me. Their absurd and wildly exaggerated shouting about the “inaccuracy” of my transcripts started almost as soon as I started to post up stories about the U.K. regime’s persecution of Julian Assange—articles by people like Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and Daniel Ellsberg. My posting of those articles enraged McFlock, Populuxe and Te Reo Putake, because they contradicted and thereby exposed their own credulity and viciousness in that shameful matter.
Of course, I like everyone else make mistakes—this morning’s dud link for the Andrew Little interview is a case in point. However, to magnify and absurdly jump up and down about the odd missed word, as Te Reo and his chums have done consistently, is neither fair nor reasonable.
3.) …IMO Waitangi Day is not the day to do this shit.
So ordinary citizens should not say anything on Waitangi Day. I presume, then, that you are also opposed to Andrew Little and John Key talking about anything on Waitangi Day?
Not even going to bother reading that. If you won’t listen to what other people are saying, then there is no point. I read your first comment, followed the link and there was nothing in that video that matched what you are claiming. All the mess that has followed is a consequence of you thinking your views are more important than communicating effectively. If you had stopped and listened to what TRP and myself had said, you could have clarified and relinked. But instead you are just reposting the same old shit.
To be fair to poor, bewildered Moz, he presumably saw an earlier clip than the one that is in the link. But he is wrong to characterise the Labour MP’s as thugs and Winston also told them the ‘protesters’ to do one. The one photo I’ve seen seems to show middle class pakeha holding the banner, so probably not all that authentic anyway.
I described something—a cordon of black-suited men blocking off a protest sign—that no one can dispute happened. Could you explain your use of the prejudicial epithet “bewildered” please?
But he is wrong to characterise the Labour MP’s as thugs
They were deliberately blocking off a sign held by peaceful protestors. They are anti-democratic thugs.
…and Winston also told them the ‘protesters’ to do one.
Winston Peters! And John Ansell! And Allen Titford! And Matthew Hooton! And Blubberguts Slater!
The one photo I’ve seen seems to show middle class pakeha holding the banner, so probably not all that authentic anyway.
I neither stated nor implied that the protestors were Māori. Is it Labour policy now that only Māori are “authentic”?
Poor Moz, life really is passing you by, isn’t it? I’m not Labour, bud, and I can laugh at middle class tossers trying to keep the spirit of Rick from the Young Ones alive whenever I feel like it.
Ps, this morning’s word ‘o’ the day is hyperbole. Look it up if you have time.
(Me, I don’t have any more time. Off to Wembley Park, Whanganui to huff and puff around the football field in the NZ Masters. Wish me luck Standardistas, I’ll need it!)
“and I can laugh at middle class tossers trying to keep the spirit of Rick from the Young Ones alive whenever I feel like it.”
Me too. Among the nuggets of informed opinion, The standard gives me a daily dose of guffaws and chortles, though I doubt very many are middle class, in fact, some are quite classless if you know what I mean.
The trouble is: Andrew Little did not talk about the issues, he avoided them. He is mealy-mouthed and afraid to speak plainly. It’s an on-going problem with Labour leaders, I’m afraid.
Wow. Labour leader fail to consult notoriously innacurate blog poster before speaking to media. So that’s where we’ve been going wrong these last few years. I’ve let McCarten know and no doubt he’ll be in touch pronto, Moz. Stand by your phone!
How is what I described at all inaccurate? Did Lees-Galloway and others in black suits deliberately block out that protest sign or not?
You have recently, I note, been taken to task by Paul over your strategy of launching into demeaning personal attacks. It’s an unpleasant habit that does nothing to enhance your credibility.
“Backtracking”? Everything you say is couched in the most demeaning and negative fashion possible. I conceded that the word “thug” is a value-laden term. I think it is appropriate for people who illegally block the right of peaceful protestors to hold up a sign, but some people might disagree with that.
I do not “backtrack” or resile from what I wrote this morning: it is quite clear and beyond refutation what Lees-Galloway and his cronies—yes, that’s another value-laden word—were up to.
What do YOU call people who illegally stop citizens from protesting in a public place?
“What do YOU call people who illegally stop citizens from protesting in a public place?” and you have used the term “illegally” a few other times when referring to this incident.
How does being ‘blocked’ from view during an on camera interview suddenly equate to people being “illegally” stopped from protesting?
Were the protesters you referred to manhandled away? Were they evicted from the grounds of Waitangi? Or did some suits simply stand between them and the camera? Rude, certainly, but illegal?
At http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06022015/#comment-964190 You wrote “but viewers watching this morning’s interview were prevented from reading the words because a phalanx of black-suited thugs deliberately stood in front of the sign.”
How is this an illegal act?
Do you concede that your language use is getting a bit extreme in describing a situation which is no different to almost every other TV broadcast ever held at Waitangi?
…you have used the term “illegally” a few other times describing this incident.
I used the word advisedly, and accurately.
How does being ‘blocked’ from view during an on camera interview suddenly equate to people being “illegally” stopped from protesting?
You put the word “blocked” in scare quotes as if it didn’t actually happen. It did happen, and it was illegal, just as it would be illegal for me to accost you and prevent you from carrying out an entirely legal action, such as walking down the street or looking at a sign on a shop-front. The Labour Party is not the police force. They had no right to prevent those protestors from showing that sign.
Were the protesters you referred to manhandled away? Were they evicted from the area? or did some suits simply stand between them and the camera? Rude, certainly, but illegal?
Rudeness is not the issue here, the issue is that they formed a physical barrier, and illegally prevented the protestors from making their protest in a public place. The action of Lees-Galloway and his cronies was illegal.
How is this an illegal act?
Nobody—certainly not the Labour Party—has the right to stop a citizen legally stating an opinion in a reasonable, orderly way, in a public place.
Do you concede that your language use is getting a bit extreme in describing a situation which is no different to almost every other TV broadcast ever held at Waitangi?
If there was a problem with order, it was the job of the police to sort it out. The Labour Party is not permitted to employ anyone to stop people protesting. Protestors, just as much as politicians, have the right to be seen, and heard, in a public forum.
The ‘blocked’ was meant to be in quotation marks as it was taken directly from your comments. My apologies for that error.
Please don’t take this the wrong way Morrisey, or think I am telling you to be quiet but maybe take a break and go for a walk or something, fresh air is a good thing and it helps with perspective.
Well, we must be listening to a different Andrew Little, I am constantly reassured how “on the nail” he is , and find him very refreshing when listening to any other “soundbite, poll driven “politician.
I think it is black and white thinking that got us into this mess,
What on earth do you mean by “black and white thinking”?
the issue is one to grapple with, not dog whistle
And Little will not grapple with the issue. If he did, he would raise the issue of our government’s continued support for ISIS in its bloody campaign in Syria.
Haven’t seen the video etc but when my leader is being interviewed I would not want to have other messages becoming distractions to his message.
What would we have said had the interruptions come from youth doing hand signs, or people saying ‘Hi, mum” or celebrity gate crashers?
It could be argued that the ones breaking protocol, being nuisances, being unhelpful, being invasive, those at fault might be the sign holders. As in the case of the t-shirt protester in Australia, or others who are rude, boundaries can be crossed where even Popes have their tolerance stretched.
As I say, I’ve not seen the situation. All I am doing is saying there could be, and usually is, another point of view. And ‘thugs’, morrissey, might be just too strong a word. Do you have another agenda involving Little or Lees-Galloway?
Black suits can be, by the way, a sign of respect shown by visitors wearing their best formal clothes.
I also acknowledge the sign holders who have strong views and feel they need to get their message across. Their particular issue was referred to positively by Little in his korero, was it not?
when my leader is being interviewed I would not want to have other messages becoming distractions to his message.
Then “my leader” needs to conduct interviews in a studio, and not in a public space.
What would we have said had the interruptions come from youth doing hand signs, or people saying ‘Hi, mum” or celebrity gate crashers?
The protestors were doing none of those things. They were quiet, orderly and dignified.
It could be argued that the ones breaking protocol, being nuisances, being unhelpful, being invasive, those at fault might be the sign holders.
No, that could not be argued. The protestors were quiet, orderly, dignified throughout.
And ‘thugs’, morrissey, might be just too strong a word.
Do you have another agenda involving Little or Lees-Galloway?
I have often criticised Little before today—not for being “colourless” as some trivial media naysayers have done, but for the very qualities he showed today: a failure to speak plainly and honestly. I have taken little notice of Lees-Galloway before his disgraceful performance this morning. Maybe I shouldn’t blame him however; perhaps he was merely carrying out orders from one of those clever Labour Party tacticians who have done so much to make Labour a respected political voice for the last six years.
Black suits can be, by the way, a sign of respect shown by visitors wearing their best formal clothes.
In this case, however, they were a sign of disrespect and contempt for the rights of people to demonstrate in a public place.
I also acknowledge the sign holders who have strong views and feel they need to get their message across. Their particular issue was referred to positively by Little in his korero, was it not?
If Little was sincere about that, he would have told Lees-Galloway and the others in that cordon to sit down.
You say “Then “my leader” needs to conduct interviews in a studio, and not in a public space.’
I would ask where the studio is upon a marae? Also, politicians are most often interviewed in open, public spaces. That is generated by being where the politicians actually are, and by the needs of the interviewers.
And you say, “In this case, however, they were a sign of disrespect and contempt for the rights of people to demonstrate in a public place.”
They were a sign for you, Morrissey, but they would have worn the clothes out of respect for the place and occasion. This is the heart of my disagreement with you. An action takes place which you disapprove of, and everything becomes coloured by that- black in this case.
I am glad that the sign carriers were quiet and dignified. To have been other wise would have reflected upon their message. So, too, does exaggeration (black suits, thugs) reflect upon your message.
There were any number of rooms available if, as seems to be the case, Little wanted to exclude any possible demonstrations by ordinary citizens. He chose to do the interview in public territory.
2.) I am glad that the sign carriers were quiet and dignified.
I am pleased that you recognize that. Perhaps next time you will think carefully before equating democratic, responsible, law-abiding demonstrators with “youth doing hand signs, or people saying ‘Hi, mum” or celebrity gate crashers… breaking protocol, being nuisances, being unhelpful, being invasive, … rude”.
3.) …exaggeration (black suits, thugs)…
The men in the cordon were wearing black suits, which is what I described. How is that “exaggeration”? You may reasonably disagree with my labeling those men as “thugs”—so what would YOU call people who—illegally—block off signs held up in a public forum?
1.) Why did you link to something showing not what you describe..? in fact contradicting what you claim..
I clicked on the link, as it was the first one that came up after I googled “andrew little waitangi isis” this morning. You’re correct that it doesn’t exactly show what I described, but how does it “in fact contradict” what I claimed?
2.) ..and..are you sure u aren’t getting confused with the interview with key….where two large burly men wearing small backpacks….stood backs to camera..blocking protestors/a sign/banner from view….if not..cd u plse link to the footage u describe..
No, Phillip, I am not confused between Key and Little. I didn’t see Key’s interview, but I did see Little’s, and I did see a phalanx of Mafia types, including Ian Lees-Galloway, deliberately masking out the protestors’ sign. It was on either Television One or TV3 this morning, live. I think it was TV3.
Morrissey, the link you provided had an interview with Little. A wharenui in the background, two people standing in the porch. No mafia, black suits, dark glasses, thuggery, stand over tactics, deliberate blocking, masking, not even Ian Lees-Galloway.
Sorry I’ve been wasting your time writing about something that doesn’t seem to have…….. happened.
Ps, Moz, Iain LG is a long way from “undistinguished”. He has held Palmy against a concerted effort from the Tories for 3 elections and for one term was the only provincial Labour MP. He successfully promoted David Cunliffe for the leadership, and was elected as junior whip. He clearly has Andrew Little’s ear as well. Even more significantly, he has also built a formidable local electorate team that is easily the best in Labour for canvassing and publicity and is a model for how to campaign successfully. Even John Key acknowleged his work, commenting to Banksie in the teapot tapes that he was unbeatable in the seat.
He also turned off many workers who enjoyed 3 or 4 handles of beer after work , by pushing a bill to cut alcohol limits for drivers. National were forced to lower the limit against their will, something that wasn’t lost at the booths.
Eh? NZ lining up with the rest of the developed countries in their driving/alcohol limits was not an issue for anybody at the election. I like a beer or three myself, but I cut my consumption to match the new limit if I’m driving. Simples.
I note that brewers are brewing to the new laws. My favourite brewery now puts out a 2.4% golden ale which is very enjoyable but far less destructive than my favourite tipple of theirs which is 7%- basically three times the strength. My own Friday night drinking mates hoe into the 2.4% with no complaint.
Yes my local watering hole has started putting out a superb 3% pilsner, usually have 3℅ triple hops pilsner at home, 2 stubbies = 2 standard drinks. Friends visiting know where they stand if driving afterwards.
And I’ll bet they charge you as much, if not more, for the ‘New legal limit’ beer.
No thanks. I’d rather take the Full tasting and Full Alcohol beers home, to enjoy them where I won’t be ripped off over the price of Beer, finger foods or soft drinks/water. The last time I went to the Pub they wanted $9.00 for a stubbie of Heineken, I said no went to the Supermarket and bought a dozen for $23.00 and went home.
I had a close look at skinny’s numbers with the same concern. Four 500 ml handles at 4% equals six standard drinks which would put an 85kg male on the doubtful limit after two hours drinking at the old 80 mg limit.
There was nothing wrong with the old limit. Drinking sensibly with a bite to eat, knowing your limits up to the legal limit. Very few road deaths were recorded up to and under the old limit. Tourist’s account for far more road fatilites. Alcopop’s and the young not a good mix. Fast cars green drivers, the list goes on.
Cocaine will do that for you. You can drink a bottle of vodka and the next morning do a line of coke and go to work totally straight as an airline pilot or whatever. Drugs are good!
I didn’t think there was anything wrong with the old limits. They were difficult to exceed by accident. The new ones aren’t, and therefore raise more revenue.
Do they think this is the way to protect Andrew Little?
Waitangi, 6 February 2015
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/AUDIO-Andrew-Little-on-Waitangi-day-and-ISIS/tabid/506/articleID/70576/Default.aspx
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06022015/#comment-964230
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-30082011/#comment-369467
and you have used the term “illegally” a few other times when referring to this incident.
Were they evicted from the grounds of Waitangi?
Or did some suits simply stand between them and the camera?
Rude, certainly, but illegal?
Were they evicted from the area?
or did some suits simply stand between them and the camera?
Rude, certainly, but illegal?
which then got taken up and became law.
, by pushing a bill to cut alcohol limits for drivers. National were forced to lower the limit against their will, something that wasn’t lost at the booths.
So you condone drunk driving then, as long as you’ve had a hard day at work?