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.

Peace loving people of the Tuhoe "peace movement"

The Dominion Post's report on the evidence amassed against those arrested on firearms charges makes sobering reading. All of the claims that the police investigation was anti-Maori and the like look like what they are - the opportunistic kneejerk reaction of those who sympathise with the far left. The 156 page affidavit submitted to Manukau District Court includes all sorts of delightful statements. How about the bugged phone conversation on 17 August that went "Get someone to assassinate the prime minister, the new one, next year's one. Just been in office five days, bang ... Yeah, John Key ... just drop a bomb ... Just wait till he visits somewhere and just blow them ... They won't even find you."

^

Lovely types them, I guess it wouldn't matter if he was democratically elected, and wouldn't matter what innocent civilians were near them eh?

^

If this cannot be universally condemned, then those who refuse to condemn do not deserve to be in Parliament or part of the democratic process. They are friends of those willing to murder for political ends.

^

So besides assassinating John Key, bugged conversations told of:

• Calls to kill police and evict non-Maori farmers;
• Talk of using a sniper's rifle to assassinate US President Bush;
• Making nail bombs and napalm;
• How to throw Molotov cocktails;
• Blowing up power stations, gas plants, Telecom, petrol stations and the Waihopai Spy Station.

^

The Dom Post lists of many more of the bugged conversations tells us even more:

• "Kill Pakehas" for practice;
• Wanting to emulate the IRA;
• Using the "Al Qaeda manual" on terror tactics.

^

It's all bloody frightening, and indicates a desire to engage in an orchestrated campaign of killings, bombings and to create enormous economic damage and carnage. The motive is clear, to divide the country - to try to lead a sectarian Maori uprising against the entire liberal democratic system and capitalist economy. Indeed, sectarian is the word - this is Tuhoe against New Zealand. The Maoist background of Tame Iti doesn't look too out of place here, and those uttering those statements are thugs, the same sort of thugs that wouldn't look twice at shooting you if you got in the way.

^

Now the bigger question is this. Do those who have thrown around their slogans and accusations that the police action was racist, fascist, unjustified and politically motivated sympathise with what their "friends" said, or are they too going to react with horror and dismay. After all, this Labour Government is hardly a tool of the liberal right, and Helen Clark has fairly solid leftwing credentials. If HER government can be appalled, then you might ask exactly how the Maori Party, the Green Party and the sycophants of the far left who automatically assumed the Police were being racist and fascist feel about it now?

^

The Dom Post editorial clearly points out:

"The police have been accused of over-reacting, and of being racist. Supporters of those accused have argued there is nothing to justify the operation the police mounted, that notions of domestic terrorism are as insubstantial as the Urewera mist, and that those arrested are the victims of some sort of vendetta. They argue that those the police arrested are blameless. Their claims have not been tested in any meaningful way till now. "

^

As the editorial further points out, the Police had a duty to act " Police needed to treat that seriously and needed to investigate. To do anything less would have been to fail in their duty to protect New Zealanders. We believe that the police were right to act. "

^

Go on, it's time for Keith Locke to express his view, as a self proclaimed peace campaigner now that evidence is out. It is time for the Maori Party to decide what it believes in - do you oppose political violence? Do you oppose murder? Do you oppose mass vandalism to destroy the economy? Do you oppose violent evictions of farmers from their private property? Or is your support for peace about as skindeep as your support for freedom? At least Maia inadvertently may be quite true in her post, as a friend of the fascist left.

^

oh and when you see the hikoi supporting those who support terrorism, you might tell them what you think of them. Methinks those on the hikoi might go home and reflect on who their friends are.

Government department boycotts advertising

So MED - the personal department of Jim Anderton has boycotted buying TV advertising during TV3's viewing of the show "Californication" because it's naughty, according to the NZ Herald.

^

Here's an idea, MED should stop buying TV advertising. Meanwhile ratings for Californication will no doubt improve as a result - as telling anyone something is naughty, just makes it all the more attractive.

Gordon Brown's "hard headed" internationalism

Gordon Brown's speech at the Lord Mayor of London's banquet yesterday was about foreign policy. The Times reports the highlights were:

• Giving Iran a clear choice, stop pursuing its nuclear programme without IAEA inspections and stop supporting terrorism, and transform its relationship with the world, or face tougher sanctions, including bans on investment in its energy sector and financial sanctions. He will lead for tougher EU and UN sanctions. (not quite military action, but he didn't rule it out);
• The USA is the UK's most important bilateral relationship "I have no truck with anti-Americanism in Britain or elsewhere" he said (good!);
• Urged President Musharraf of Pakistan to respect the constitution, free political prisoners and step down as army chief (good);
• Proposed an international standby civilian intervention force, of police and judges to restore civil law and order in failed states (good luck on that one!).

He also wants to reform the UN Security Council, which of course is a perennial, but which nobody can ever agree on. So what does this all mean? A clear message that there is business as usual from the UK as regards terrorism, Iran and the USA. However, a call for an international civilian intervention force is an interesting one - and where would you stop!! Imagine being a cop in Iraq, you better be fluent in Arabic for starters, but while perhaps laudable it is - in fact, a form of temporary colonisation. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and would be useful for Iraq, but where else? Are British taxpayers and soldiers going to be mercenaries to save states all over the place?

Pacific Blue's domestic launch sees others raise the bar

Good on them, more competition on domestic air routes. It reminds me again of the debates in the 1980s when old Labour (yes before 1984) fought AGAINST deregulating the domestic airline market - and then in power opened it up to 100% foreign owned competition.

^

Something Jim Anderton and Winston Peters opposed vehemently, because they loved old fashioned state owned Air NZ. Of course Air NZ is new fashioned mostly state owned now (albeit a publicly listed one).

^

The domestic airline market has gone through a full cycle. Before 1987 and Ansett NZ, there was next to no service and fares were expensive. Ansett saw more discount fares, but also saw airline lounges, airbridges, business/first class and hot meals appear on domestic flights. I recall a column by Chris Trotter who saw domestic business class being some sort of class divider between the "haves" and "have nots". I never figured why people who flew were ever "have nots". On top of that, who the hell ever flew domestic business class unless they were:

a. Connecting to a long haul business class flight, so it was part of the ticket;

b. Using a free upgrade voucher which you got as a Gold/Gold Elite airpoints member; or

c. A politician (Rodney Hide used to say he had to fly Business Class to meet his constituents, but Laila Harre also regularly flew business class between Auckland and Wellington).

^

Then Ansett became Qantas NZ, then Qantas before Air NZ dropped business class and hot meals a few years ago, to go no frills. Qantas followed suit. Now Pacific Blue is coming in with no frills, Air NZ is responding by introducing a few rows in the front with around 4-5 inches more legroom for "premium customers " (likely Gold Elite/Gold status frequent flyers, full fare passengers and passengers connecting to business class international flights). Qantas has also announced it is upgrading NZ domestic lounges and installing upgraded interiors, more food service and a free evening bar service on flights.

^

S0 you might get a good deal on Pacific Blue, but frankly I'm looking forward to sitting at the front end of Air NZ with international long haul economy class legroom, or getting fed for free again on domestic flights. No doubt Chris Trotter will bemoan this as representing a new bastion of the class struggle!