Today I saw the small gathering of activists in Midland Park, as they warmed up to protest against the arrest of the Urewera 17. In an interesting karmic twist, the weather in Wellington did not seem to approve of their gathering.
Groups marched all over the country as part of a unified plan set up by such groups as Civil Rights Defence. Which is an interesting example of how a fringe group of activists continue to spread misinformation to rally global support. This is a manipulation of sympathies and political capital. It is interesting to note their messages of support - there is no place for dissent with their view, no attempt to reasonably debate the issue at hand. Most concerning is how they have deliberately misrepresented events so that genuine groups overseas will voice support without having any true information about proceedings.
It sickens me to see educated people who claim to be looking out for our civil rights acting in what seems to me to be a very self-serving agenda. Very few of the people I have seen support the Urewera 17 have come across as genuinely concerned about the rights of New Zealanders - they all seem to be more concerned with looking like they care about the rights of New Zealanders.
They tend to be of that set of people who become vegetarian and eco-friendly so that they can lord it all over everyone else about how morally superior they are. It's kind of perverse.
Worst still, they are making wild speculations based on police actions over twenty years ago. Not forgetting that the people in charge now are different people, and that the laws of the land have changed to prevent such events happening again. But then activism is rarely reasonable. It's passion and belief that makes people become activists.
The problem is when you don't really have a cause to fight for. Most of these people have had to rely on amnesty international causes to support - writing stern letters and essays.
Now they have something they can stand up for - it seems to me that nobody cares whether the Urewera 17 are actually guilty or not. They have been wanting to blame someone for something - yay! Now the police are picking on activists. It's Pol Pott! It's Nazism! It's Police State!
But wait. The police weren't targetting activists in general. Nobody has stopped these protests or tried to break them up. Nobody burnt any activist literature or closed down any sites.
Now Myanmar - that's a police state where they shut down access to the internet across the country, imprisoned anyone who protested and abducted people in the middle of the night for no reason. Nobody is allowed to voice an opposing opinion.
Let's get this very clear. We do not live in a police state. Our civil rights are firmly entrenched in law. Even now the government is not 100% comfortable with the proposed anti-terror laws and they are doing what is expected of them - measuring up how important it is to place them into law or not. There have been plenty of opportunities to speak on it, and many have.
The police did not commit these arrests on some flimsy charge. If they had, the courts would have thrown out the cases and the Urewera 17 wouldn't be in jail. Unless you buy into some BS conspiracy theory. The reality that Civil Rights Defence needs to grow up and face is that the Urewera 17 may just actually be guilty as sin. They should wait to see if the courts deem them guilty, which the Police must prove. The 17 don't have to prove their innocence, just defend themselves against any proof that the police present.
Given the stupidly flimsy excuses that Jamie Lockett has spouted, I'm very curious to know what the police evidence is. The fact that it is so sensitive to the cases that judges have deemed that it must remain suppressed until the cases go to trial gives me reason enough to believe that it is likely to be very damning evidence.
Activism has its place in society - we do need people to watch out for tyrants and liars. But when those people become such manipulative, emotive liars themselves - it is a bad day for this country. Until Police start arresting protesters, shooting into crowds of innocents and shutting down sites that question their actions - then Civil Rights Defence is living a lie.
These people were arrested for legitimate reasons. They broke the law. The fact that they were hiding in activist groups does not equate to the police deliberately seeking to quiet activism. Given that these groups had not been particularly vocal in the last year or so, hell most of us were unaware of them until the raids, suggests to me it had nothing to do with the groups and everything to do with the individuals arrested.
But then I'm passionate about being reasonable and rational. And about thinking of others and not my own selfish need for moral validation - which I feel some of these people are quite guilty of.
Conan
Currently Reading: Sidereals
Currently Playing: naught
Mood: Not impressed with some activist groups hysterical hyperbole.
Groups marched all over the country as part of a unified plan set up by such groups as Civil Rights Defence. Which is an interesting example of how a fringe group of activists continue to spread misinformation to rally global support. This is a manipulation of sympathies and political capital. It is interesting to note their messages of support - there is no place for dissent with their view, no attempt to reasonably debate the issue at hand. Most concerning is how they have deliberately misrepresented events so that genuine groups overseas will voice support without having any true information about proceedings.
It sickens me to see educated people who claim to be looking out for our civil rights acting in what seems to me to be a very self-serving agenda. Very few of the people I have seen support the Urewera 17 have come across as genuinely concerned about the rights of New Zealanders - they all seem to be more concerned with looking like they care about the rights of New Zealanders.
They tend to be of that set of people who become vegetarian and eco-friendly so that they can lord it all over everyone else about how morally superior they are. It's kind of perverse.
Worst still, they are making wild speculations based on police actions over twenty years ago. Not forgetting that the people in charge now are different people, and that the laws of the land have changed to prevent such events happening again. But then activism is rarely reasonable. It's passion and belief that makes people become activists.
The problem is when you don't really have a cause to fight for. Most of these people have had to rely on amnesty international causes to support - writing stern letters and essays.
Now they have something they can stand up for - it seems to me that nobody cares whether the Urewera 17 are actually guilty or not. They have been wanting to blame someone for something - yay! Now the police are picking on activists. It's Pol Pott! It's Nazism! It's Police State!
But wait. The police weren't targetting activists in general. Nobody has stopped these protests or tried to break them up. Nobody burnt any activist literature or closed down any sites.
Now Myanmar - that's a police state where they shut down access to the internet across the country, imprisoned anyone who protested and abducted people in the middle of the night for no reason. Nobody is allowed to voice an opposing opinion.
Let's get this very clear. We do not live in a police state. Our civil rights are firmly entrenched in law. Even now the government is not 100% comfortable with the proposed anti-terror laws and they are doing what is expected of them - measuring up how important it is to place them into law or not. There have been plenty of opportunities to speak on it, and many have.
The police did not commit these arrests on some flimsy charge. If they had, the courts would have thrown out the cases and the Urewera 17 wouldn't be in jail. Unless you buy into some BS conspiracy theory. The reality that Civil Rights Defence needs to grow up and face is that the Urewera 17 may just actually be guilty as sin. They should wait to see if the courts deem them guilty, which the Police must prove. The 17 don't have to prove their innocence, just defend themselves against any proof that the police present.
Given the stupidly flimsy excuses that Jamie Lockett has spouted, I'm very curious to know what the police evidence is. The fact that it is so sensitive to the cases that judges have deemed that it must remain suppressed until the cases go to trial gives me reason enough to believe that it is likely to be very damning evidence.
Activism has its place in society - we do need people to watch out for tyrants and liars. But when those people become such manipulative, emotive liars themselves - it is a bad day for this country. Until Police start arresting protesters, shooting into crowds of innocents and shutting down sites that question their actions - then Civil Rights Defence is living a lie.
These people were arrested for legitimate reasons. They broke the law. The fact that they were hiding in activist groups does not equate to the police deliberately seeking to quiet activism. Given that these groups had not been particularly vocal in the last year or so, hell most of us were unaware of them until the raids, suggests to me it had nothing to do with the groups and everything to do with the individuals arrested.
But then I'm passionate about being reasonable and rational. And about thinking of others and not my own selfish need for moral validation - which I feel some of these people are quite guilty of.
Conan
Currently Reading: Sidereals
Currently Playing: naught
Mood: Not impressed with some activist groups hysterical hyperbole.
1 comment:
It is worth noting that a number of media commentators have been arguing that the move towards removing liberties is behind these events.
While some of the law under debate does raise some concerns, that is not what lies at the heart of the Urewera arrests. There is a claim that it is a gathering of the usual suspects, but I again draw attention to the court response to the evidence.
See, for the police to convince the court that bail should be denied, they need to give a strong case of evidence to suggest that it is serious enough for trial and that the accused may try to skip bail.
There clearly has been enough evidence for the courts to be concerned.
I remain sceptical that there was nothing going on. I don't believe these guys are terrorists - but I do think that they were involved in illegal activities and were arrogant and stupid enough to draw police attention.
Tame Iti and Jamie Lockett strike me as men who are potentially capable of many things to try and grab a headline. I don't believe that either man is as altruistic as they would like the public to believe. I sense that there is more to their actions that is not so noble as they want us to believe.
They need to learn that their actions do have consequences. There are better ways to protest, and I don't believe they are actually interested in resolutions.
Post a Comment