Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Why don’t they condemn it, if it were true?

The Green Party has nailed it’s colours to the mast – and they are dripping red, the red of Maoism and the red of the blood lust from the Police affidavits which they refuse to condemn in content.
^
Instead, Keith Locke is waging war against the Dom Post on the grounds that it jeopardizes the right to a fair trial by those facing the firearms charges. The affidavits do not reveal individuals, but there is an argument to be made on this – and again, it will be up the judicial system to decide.
^
However, to claim the Greens are neutral on this is a lie. The desire for an independent inquiry implies a belief the Police acted wrongly and excessively. The affidavit reported by the Dom Post indicates that there is, at least prima facie, cause for concern.
^
The real eye opener is the stony eyed silence of Locke and the Green Party on the allegations. Would it hurt to say “if the evidence in the affidavit is true, then it is disturbing and the Green Party wholeheartedly condemns those willing to use violence for political ends”. Apparently so. After given the Greens already called them “Maori, peace and environmental activists”, it would appear there is evidence that being a peace activist may also mean cheering about murder.
^
Idiot Savant simply condemns the publishing for the same reason as Keith Locke, but although he doesn't roundly condemn the content of the evidence, his comment on Jamie Lockett does indicate that view.
^
The Maori Party remains silent. Big surprise given how they nailed their colours to those accused being angels.
^
So, once again - will those who have roundly condemned the Police for the raids, those who have supported those arrested, condemn the sentiments in the affidavits? Will the Green Party and Maori Party in particular wholeheartedly declare abhorrence to anyone who wants to bring political violence to New Zealand?
^
or is this about supporting your mates?
^
On a final note, would you counter protest the "peaceful" looking Tuhoe hikoi? Do they look as if they would quietly and peacefully tolerate views expressed on this blog, or by other advocates of western capitalist liberal democracy? Or is looking tough, intimidating and threatening just a coincidence? and when the far left (which this lot clearly represent) protest in an intimidating manner, why aren't they condemned as much as Brian Tamaki and his goons when they do something not that far different? I don't agree with Idiot Savant that the Hikoi is just another public protest. It isn't Grey Power, they are intimidating - and it wouldn't be a surprise if any in the Hikoi possessed a firearm. In fact, I do think if it were an all caucasian protest by white supremacists the Police would and should respond in kind. Let's face it, what are the far left of Maori nationalists if not just a bunch of racist thugs?
^
UPDATE 1. Pita Sharples has at least said "Make no mistake - we are absolutely and categorically horrified by the threatening language we have read in the paper today" . However, he is more often a voice of some reason than others in the party.

3 comments:

Anon said...

Your posts on this issue have been excellent.

In fact you are the only libertarian I know who has a zero tolerance for violence. I recall your post on S59 - even though you didn't agree with the legislation, like I did, you stood up and said violence and smacking had no place in libertarian thought, and you never held that awful 'horse-whip woam' up as a paragon of parenting, like some libz did. I've remembered that.

Also I've noticed you are one of the few men with the balls to stand up to the odious fraud who is Elijah Lineberry on SOLO.

You're a good man, Charlie Brown.

Anon said...

That's horse-whip woman ;-)

libertyscott said...

I wasn't aware that I had stood up to him.