Daily review 11/08/2023

74 comments on “Daily review 11/08/2023 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. adam 1

   11 August 2023 at 5:40 pm

   France West Africa = Neo-imperalism with all of the bells and whistles of jingoism.

   We can count our selves lucky they only bombed one rainbow boat here. Not like them flying over your cities just to intimidate the population.

   Leaving behind nuclear waste from mining

   And just generally being froggy.
2. Joe90 2

   11 August 2023 at 6:23 pm

   Ya gotta love how Peskov insists he was misquoted and nek minit, confirms that Russia's presidential elections are little more than a formality.

   .

   Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told The New York Times that Russian President Vladimir Putin will be re-elected with 90 percent of the vote in the 2024 Russian presidential election.

   Peskov was quoted by The New York Times as saying “our presidential election is not really democracy, it is costly bureaucracy. Mr. Putin will be re-elected next year with more than 90 percent of the vote.”

   […]

   Later, Dmitry Peskov told RBK that American journalists “misquoted” him “as usual.” He clarified that he, personally, is confident that Putin will be elected, “based on the level of consolidation around Putin.” He added that “the question was about the elections and the answer was that elections are what a democracy demands and Putin himself decided to hold them, but theoretically, they don’t even have to be held. Because it’s clear that Putin will be elected.

   https://meduza.io/en/news/2023/08/07/kremlin-spokesman-says-putin-will-be-re-elected-with-over-90-percent-of-the-vote-later-clarifies-this-his-personal-opinion
   • adam 2.1

     11 August 2023 at 8:03 pm

     With the major chunk of those under thirty not in the country, or locked up.

     Putin is a shoe in.

     Drunk Russians vote for the strong man.

     He does not even have to rig it.

     The propaganda ministry has already done all the ground work.
3. pat 3

   11 August 2023 at 8:01 pm

   "This is not a cheerful conclusion. I was struck that when Meates left his job at the CDHB he was not immediately recruited by the Ministry of Health for his expertise; neither has he been involved in Health New Zealand. We have a system which rewards conformity rather than achievement.

   Given the number of low talent generic managers that tells you a lot about how the centre works. Generic management is too entrenched to admit its failures and seek a better way focused on culture, professionalism and trust."

   https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/there-are-wider-lessons-to-be-learned-from-the-failures-in-the-management-of-the-health-system
4. joe90 4

   11 August 2023 at 8:55 pm

   Tl;dr – the post civil war 14th Amendment says that because tRump “engaged in” “insurrection or rebellion” and gave “aid or comfort” to others engaging in such conduct……..he is no longer eligible to the office of Presidency, or any other state or federal office covered by the Constitution.

   .
   Will Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, two eminent conservative legal scholars, have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming University of Pennsylvania Law Review). Here is the abstract:

   Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

   https://electionlawblog.org/?p=138047
5. Belladonna 5

   12 August 2023 at 10:29 am

   Not debating the rights or wrongs of the current court case involving the man who has admitted assaulting the elderly woman at the Posy Parker event.

   But looking at the media coverage which is constantly associating this with the incident where a protester threw tomato juice over Parker.

   I feel this is a dangerous conflation of two completely different actions.

   It is entirely possible to argue that the juice-thrower was engaging in a protest activity (albeit a rather juvenile one) – in that juice has no inherent power to injure, and indeed PP was not injured (although she may have been frightened and upset).

   There is no possible way that you can argue that the charming gentleman with name suppression has done anything other than carried out an assault (indeed, he has admitted doing so).

   https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300948135/man-admits-hitting-elderly-woman-at-posie-parker-protest

   It rather looks like a journalistic attempt to draw the mantle of legitimate protest over a plain physical assault.
   • Molly 5.1

     12 August 2023 at 10:39 am

     "It rather looks like a journalistic attempt to draw the mantle of legitimate protest over a plain physical assault."

     Both are physical assaults. The choice of liquids for physical assault, and saying it is a political protest for justification – does not negate the fact it is physical assault.

     Given context – it is well known that Kellie Jay Keen Minshull receives what police have called 'credible death threats'. A written threat was posted under her hotel room door in Auckland before the event.

     Corrosive liquid attacks are more frequent in certain countries but have occurred in western ones. Most often the victims are girls and women.

     https://www.asti.org.uk/a-worldwide-problem.html

     The psychological impact of unknown liquids being thrown is very real, and is known by those who choose to use this method of "protest".

     As you say, there is a difference in both incidents, but they do both indicate a propensity for justification for violence in order to silence women.
     • Shanreagh 5.1.1

       12 August 2023 at 11:01 am

       As you say, there is a difference in both incidents, but they do both indicate a propensity for justification for violence in order to silence women.

       Of course what is not being explicitly condemned is that throwing anything whether it be a fist or liquid is the coward's way of settling differences or making a point, I'd also put the heckler's veto in with that.

       We, as people in NZ where we have an unacceptably high rate of violence and particularly in the context of domestic violence (male/female), are the last people in the world that should be trying to excuse the violence on the grounds of difference in weapon. Notably both attacks come into the arena of male against female, though perhaps with the liquid it is male identfying as female.
       • Molly 5.1.1.1

         12 August 2023 at 11:20 am

         "Of course what is not being explicitly condemned is that throwing anything whether it be a fist or liquid is the coward's way of settling differences or making a point, I'd also put the heckler's veto in with that."

         I agree. It is assault whether by liquid or body contact.
       • Belladonna 5.1.1.2

         12 August 2023 at 3:45 pm

         Of course what is not being explicitly condemned is that throwing anything whether it be a fist or liquid is the coward's way of settling differences or making a point,

         This point has notably not been made when it is male politicians being the targets of things being thrown.
         Indeed it's been seen as rather amusing (especially where it is right politicians being targeted). A look back at the comments on TS re the Steven Joyce incident is illuminating.

         And, the Springbok tour protests were notable for a level of violence which hadn't previously been experienced in NZ (the flour bombs could well have resulted in injury or death, and the broken glass on the field was inexcusable)

         https://nzhistory.govt.nz/flour-bomb-test-ends-springbok-tour

         Unless you want to make the anti-feminist argument that women are rare and precious creatures, needing to be protected from the harsh winds of political life; you have to either condemn all political protest which uses any form of violence (either explicit or implied) – or accept that both men and women engaging in political activity are equally subject to political protest actions.
         • Molly 5.1.1.2.1

           12 August 2023 at 5:50 pm

           "Unless you want to make the anti-feminist argument that women are rare and precious creatures, needing to be protected from the harsh winds of political life; you have to either condemn all political protest which uses any form of violence (either explicit or implied) – or accept that both men and women engaging in political activity are equally subject to political protest actions."

           I'm going to ignore your assumption of an argument I have not made, and repeat the question:

           What were the protestors protesting, Belladonna?
     • Belladonna 5.1.2

       12 August 2023 at 3:34 pm

       Both are physical assaults. The choice of liquids for physical assault, and saying it is a political protest for justification – does not negate the fact it is physical assault.

       I think there have been many incidents of non-damaging objects (eggs, tomatoes, etc.) thrown at politicians over the years – during a range of political protests. While a very juvenile method of self-expression – it doesn't seem to be, either in intention or result, an activity resulting in long-term harm. I see the PP juice-flinging incident as one more of the same.

       Regarding the object-flinging as 'assault' was not the case, in the journalistic narrative, or, I think, the popular one, over the flinging of a dildo at Steven Joyce.

       Indeed the protestor wasn't even charged (much to her reported glee)

       https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/76604655/steven-joyce-hit-by-sex-toy-thrown-by-protester-at-waitangi

       Given the popular opinion that flinging liquids or objects as a form of political protest, is a minor transgression (cf the Steven Joyce incident); coupling it with an actual physical assault, with the implication that this, too, is a legitimate protest – is both dangerous and wrong.

       I think that a physical assault (punches to the head) is a very different thing. The venue for the offence should be irrelevant: whether it occurred at a bar, in the street, or at a public park during a protest – doesn't excuse the action.

       Indeed – taking the two actions out of a political context – and putting them in a bar (for example) – highlights the difference. Throwing a drink over someone may get you tossed out of the bar – or even start a fight (depending on the kind of locale you frequent), but it's not going to result in the police being called, and charges laid. Whereas, repeatedly punching someone in the face, will, indeed result in police charges.
       • Molly 5.1.2.1

         12 August 2023 at 4:59 pm

         Your comparison to drinks thrown in a bar from someone you may be in a heated exchange with, is not comparable to liquids thrown at you in public from an unknown person.

         Further context was the legacy media rhetoric, and the personal death threats, and the known use of corrosive liquids as a method of violence.

         It is a form of assault.

         Definition of assault from the Crimes Act 1961:

         https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM327394.html?search=sw_096be8ed81d369a9_assault_25_se&p=1

         "assault means the act of intentionally applying or attempting to apply force to the person of another, directly or indirectly, or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another, if the person making the threat has, or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she has, present ability to effect his or her purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning."

         Does anyone have a link to the actual charge against Eliana Rubashkyn, to see how the prosecution has interpreted the Act?
         • Belladonna 5.1.2.1.1

           12 August 2023 at 5:06 pm

           The bar situation seems like a pretty reasonable parallel to me – both public places where a liquid is thrown by someone you don't know.

           You don't have to be engaging in a heated exchange with someone in a bar – for liquids to be thrown. It could happen for a whole range of reasons – everything from mistaken identity, through to 'stop flirting with my boyfriend'.

           I note you haven't commented on the direct parallel of male politicians having objects thrown at them. Historically not regarded as assault – by the police, by the media or by the TS commentariat.

           It seems like a case of special pleading to me.
           • Molly 5.1.2.1.1.1

             12 August 2023 at 5:41 pm

             "I note you haven't commented on the direct parallel of male politicians having objects thrown at them. Historically not regarded as assault – by the police, by the media or by the TS commentariat."

             For the record, I consider that assault as well. Can't recall ever not doing so.

             Luckily, the TS commentariat is not a hive mind, AND people can change perspectives over years.

             The choice of a staining liquid (tomato juice) also has an aspect of criminal damage, as permanent staining will be the result on clothing.
             • Belladonna …

               12 August 2023 at 5:53 pm

               Minor staining on clothes, compared to concussion – with potential ongoing significant brain injury/impairment (just because it hasn't happened today, doesn't mean there is no effect – we're seeing significant impacts of concussion occurring years later). Really, there is a reason that society regards 'assault' as a serious crime.

               However, glad that you are consistent in regarding throwing objects at male politicians as assault as well. Assume this also means that you regard suffragettes and Springbok tour protesters, who carried out similar 'assaults' as well as actual violence – as equally culpable. After all – perspectives change over the years…..

               Unfortunately, your opinion appears to be in the minority in society in general, as well as on TS.
               • Molly …

                 12 August 2023 at 5:59 pm

                 I have participated in public protests – non-violently – and always had a clear message on my placard.

                 I've never – however – gone to disrupt someone else's gathering – but if I did – I would also have a clear understanding of what I was protesting.

                 What is your understanding of what the protestors were protesting at that LetWomenSpeak event in Albert Park (including those that did not engage in violence or intimidation)?
                 • Belladonna …

                   12 August 2023 at 6:08 pm

                   I believe that they were protesting the presence of Posy Parker.

                   I've certainly seen some very muddled signs at protests in my time – but not sure why this is at all relevant….. Protesters are not a hive mind, ether. And there may be many strands of opinion present at a single event.
                   • Molly …

                     12 August 2023 at 7:31 pm

                     So, your understanding is a crowd of approximately 2000 were protesting:

                     A woman's presence?

                     How did her presence infringe on anyone else?
                 • Belladonna …

                   12 August 2023 at 7:47 pm

                   I don't get to decide how or why protesters feel moved to protest. Nor do you.

                   If you are claiming that the protest was in some way 'invalid' and therefore there is no legitimate reason for protest action by the juice-flinger – I think you are seriously reaching!
                   • Molly …

                     12 August 2023 at 8:17 pm

                     "I don't get to decide how or why protesters feel moved to protest. Nor do you."

                     I don't know what the protest was about, and I am inquiring if you do. You appear to also be in the dark.

                     Your suggestion is that the protest was about a woman's presence – and imply that is reason enough.

                     I personally consider what happened at the event a form of silencing, intimidation and violence towards women. Not a counter-protest – because there was no protest to counter – just an event.

                     "If you are claiming that the protest was in some way 'invalid' and therefore there is no legitimate reason for protest action by the juice-flinger – I think you are seriously reaching!"

                     On the contrary – you are the one claiming a legitimate – but undefinable reason for protest action – not only by the "juice-flinger" by the other approx 2,000 people who turned up.

                     Yet you appear to be unable to actually give a reason. I wonder how many of the 2,000 will be in the same boat.

                     Can you perhaps reach out to some of them and find a coherent reason for the protest action?
                   • Muttonbird …

                     12 August 2023 at 9:21 pm

                     Not a counter-protest – because there was no protest to counter – just an event.

                     This seems wilfully naive. The 'event' is a protest against self-ID and no debate. Keen-minshall flies all over the world to stage these protests.
                   • Molly …

                     12 August 2023 at 10:09 pm

                     @Muttonbird

                     Kellie Jay Keen Minshull was invited to NZ by women who felt (in some way) unable to hold such an event under their own names.

                     KJK acts as MC.

                     The content is unknown because participants are not curated and it is an open mike event.

                     17 Australian women got to speak in Melbourne, zero NZ women in Auckland:

                     https://twitter.com/EdgeWatching/status/1637296808622985216?s=20
                   • Belladonna …

                     13 August 2023 at 2:24 pm

                     Your suggestion is that the protest was about a woman's presence – and imply that is reason enough.

                     Well, yes, there have been plenty of protests over the years over a particular speaker.

                     You might want to familiarize yourself with the rights to protest in NZ.

                     https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-4-activism/protesting-and-organising-fundamental-rights/

                     Note, none of them say anything about any requirement for some kind of validity-test for the cause for which you are protesting. If you want to protest for the rights of aliens to land flying saucers in the local council carpark – you can go right ahead. Nothing says the cause has to pass the 'Molly sniff test' to be legitimate.

                     There would, I'd venture to say, never have been a protest at which 100% of the protesters were in agreement over *exactly* what they were protesting. The protest organizers were entirely clear that they were protesting the presence of PP at a speaking event in NZ. And, given that the crowd were chanting "Go home, Posy" – it would seem that the majority were on board with this reason.

                     https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/486680/posie-parker-rally-hundreds-counter-protest-at-albert-park

                     The fact that you don't agree with the stated cause, is entirely immaterial. Nor is it anyone's 'job' to find out the 'true reason' for their protest.

                     I don't have any issue with the pro-trans groups protesting the PP event. There have been many, many, protests held in NZ where both sides have been agitated, noisy and got their point across – without violence.

                     The issue with the PP event was the failure of the police to keep the two groups apart. If they had done their job – and kept the protesters separated from the PP event – there would have been no issue. No assaults. Both sides would have been able to have their say. Nothing would have been resolved (neither side have any interest in convincing the other) – but it would have been a better outcome for democracy.

                     Saying that PP should have been allowed to speak – is very different from saying that the Trans group should not have been allowed to protest.

                     Quite frankly, your special pleading for your cause – is incredibly dangerous.

                     Do you really want to have some kind of political control over which protests are 'allowed'? That's the beginning of a very slippery slope – and is not something that I would expect any 'leftie' (the parties which are traditionally homes of protest movements) to be arguing for.
                 • Belladonna …

                   13 August 2023 at 2:43 pm

                   Your suggestion is that the protest was about a woman's presence – and imply that is reason enough.

                   Well, yes, there have been plenty of protests over the years over a particular speaker.

                   You might want to familiarize yourself with the rights to protest in NZ.

                   https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-4-activism/protesting-and-organising-fundamental-rights/

                   Note, none of them say anything about any requirement for some kind of validity-test for the cause for which you are protesting. If you want to protest for the rights of aliens to land flying saucers in the local council carpark – you can go right ahead. Nothing says the cause has to pass the 'Molly sniff test' to be legitimate.

                   There would, I'd venture to say, never have been a protest at which 100% of the protesters were in agreement over *exactly* what they were protesting. The protest organizers were entirely clear that they were protesting the presence of PP at a speaking event in NZ. And, given that the crowd were chanting "Go home, Posy" – it would seem that the majority were on board with this reason.

                   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/486680/posie-parker-rally-hundreds-counter-protest-at-albert-park

                   The fact that you don't agree with the stated cause, is entirely immaterial. Nor is it anyone's 'job' to find out the 'true reason' for their protest.

                   I don't have any issue with the pro-trans groups protesting the PP event. There have been many, many, protests held in NZ where both sides have been agitated, noisy and got their point across – without violence.

                   The issue with the PP event was the failure of the police to keep the two groups apart. If they had done their job – and kept the protesters separated from the PP event – there would have been no issue. No assaults. Both sides would have been able to have their say. Nothing would have been resolved (neither side have any interest in convincing the other) – but it would have been a better outcome for democracy.

                   Saying that PP should have been allowed to speak – is very different from saying that the Trans group should not have been allowed to protest.

                   Quite frankly, your special pleading for your cause – is incredibly dangerous.

                   Do you really want to have some kind of political control over which protests are 'allowed'? That's the beginning of a very slippery slope – and is not something that I would expect any 'leftie' (the parties which are traditionally homes of protest movements) to be arguing for.
                   • Molly …

                     14 August 2023 at 8:32 am

                     Political protests are part of democracy.

                     What you are excusing is an act of intimidation and violence towards a group of women gathering to speak – who have no political power or authority – and equating it to a political protest.

                     That is the error in your reasoning.
                   • weka []

                     14 August 2023 at 9:08 am

                     the error in your reasoning is to assume that political protest and acts of intimidation can’t happen in the same place/time.
                   • Molly …

                     14 August 2023 at 1:55 pm

                     @weka

                     Provide the reason for the political aim of the protest against a disparate group of women and I will accept that it can.

                     Until you do, at least acknowledge it was a protest against freedom of speech, and now I think of it – freedom of association.

                     Authoritarian and intimidation tactics that I would hope anyone who considers themselves a progressive would shun, rather than dismally excuse.
                   • weka []

                     14 August 2023 at 3:45 pm

                     I have always said it was a thug response. This doesn’t preclude it being a protest. Please see my earlier replies to you, including where I addressed the political aspect of the protest,

                     .https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-11-08-2023/#comment-1964228
                     .https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-11-08-2023/#comment-1964238

                     I do think it was an action against freedom of expression, that’s the whole point of the noise. Probably also against freedom of association, we already know there were activists who wanted KJK banned from entering NZ, and the narrative afterwards was of success in shutting down the event.
                   • Molly …

                     14 August 2023 at 2:09 pm

                     @weka

                     "Until you do, at least acknowledge it was a protest against freedom of speech, and now I think of it – freedom of association."

                     In fact, now I review this statement, even this doesn't apply.

                     Because the event was not a event in support of free speech and freedom of association, so the protestors could not be against something that was not occurring.

                     So, we are left with intimidation, violence and mob thuggery.
                   • weka []

                     14 August 2023 at 3:50 pm

                     I think you are arguing an abstract and intellectually convoluted argument here. Whether something is or isn’t a protest isn’t determined by abstract ideas about purpose or the purpose of one’s political opponents. They had politics and actions that fall well within the nature of other political protests in NZ. What is new is the noise, and the violence against citizens. Violence within political protest in NZ is usually between citizens and police. I can’t think where noise has been used like that before in NZ, apart from Mallard at the Parliament protests which likewise set a precedent.
                   • Molly …

                     14 August 2023 at 4:53 pm

                     @weka

                     Agree. We seem to be discussing semantics, which is of no purpose really.

                     I view political protests as a specific action, with important criteria (of my own) which I don't feel was met.

                     You hold a different view. We can leave it there.
                   • weka []

                     15 August 2023 at 9:49 am

                     I don’t think it’s semantics, it looks like differences in how we understand what protest is. I would have less of a problem with your argument if you said ‘This is how I think protest should be defined’ rather than ‘this is what protest means’.
               • Anker …

                 14 August 2023 at 4:23 pm

                 https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-shameful-persecution-of-posie-parker-in-new-zealand/. Brendon O Neil writing about what he refers to as the shameful persecution of PP in Albert Park.

                 I am not quite sure what is being debated here. Overall the scenes at Albert Park were disgraceful and show the extent to which the trans rights activists will go to to shut women down. Many NZders saw this with their own eyes.

                 Both the juice throwing and the punching of the elderly women were assaults. Both need to be handled by the court.
                 • Belladonna …

                   15 August 2023 at 12:26 pm

                   The point I was trying to make, and with which Molly disagrees, is that the juice-flinging is on the continuum of activist protests – which have generally not been regarded as assault (although they might technically fit that definition). The Steven Joyce incident at Waitangi is a fairly recent (within the last 10 years) example.

                   The actual physical assault – repeatedly punching someone – is *not* in that category – and should indeed be dealt with through the courts (although I fear, not very effectively, in this case).

                   In addition, I feel that her argument that there is some kind of 'legitimacy' test that a protest must meet – is profoundly dangerous for democracy.
                   • weka …

                     15 August 2023 at 12:45 pm

                     I agree about the continuum. However Joyce had good political reasons for not laying a complaint about the dildo throwing. Myself, I thought it wasn't a good political action precisely because it legitimised throwing stuff at people.

                     There's a reason why Just Stop Oil protests work. They are designed to gain attention, they cross a legal line, but they don't actually damage the paintings.

                     Throwing stuff at people crosses a different line as well as the basic legal one. It changes what is acceptable.

                     Are liberals going to be ok with pouring unknown liquids over MPs now? What if it's being done by anti-mandaters? At what point does the purpose move on from simple humiliation and disruption, to intimidation? Given KJK had already been on the receiving end of threats of violence, and women at such events had already been attacked, I think we're at the point now where it's reasonable to be afraid of what might be being tipped over one's head. Natural instinctual response. Esp since the liberals and media basically denied that there was a mob.

                     To reiterate, the issue isn't that the sauce tipping is equivalent to punching the elderly woman. It's that it stands on its own as a political act that now needs push back from society. Even if one doesn't care about KJK, that stands.
                   • Molly …

                     15 August 2023 at 1:23 pm

                     "In addition, I feel that her argument that there is some kind of 'legitimacy' test that a protest must meet – is profoundly dangerous for democracy."

                     No, I my argument is that it was NOT in any way shape or form, a political protest.

                     If there is no criteria for a political protest, any thuggery can be hand-waved away as "legitimate" protest. Such as you – along with many others – are doing now without any kind of self-awareness.

                     For example: are the co-ordinated looting actions happening across the world, also "protests"? They can be excused as such – using your current perspective of no identified political authority target, or universal form of protest content. If that doesn’t meet your own test, what if they carried placards with “No Capitalism” or “Down With This Sort of Thing” – would that then make it a protest?

                     "Profoundly dangerous" for democracy is political, media and public approval of violence and intimidation used to shut down free speech and freedom of association.

                     That however, requires some self-reflection which is becoming rarer and rarer for some.
                   • weka []

                     15 August 2023 at 3:04 pm

                     No, I my argument is that it was NOT in any way shape or form, a political protest.

                     Yes, but your argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You want it to not be a protest, but by NZ standards it clearly was.

                     If there is no criteria for a political protest, any thuggery can be hand-waved away as “legitimate” protest. Such as you – along with many others – are doing now without any kind of self-awareness.

                     This doesn’t make sense. Just because an action is a protest, doesn’t make it legitimate protest. The protest at LWS tipped over into illegitimacy. Look at this way. If they had stayed behind the barrier, it would have looked like any other kind of similar protest.

                     For example: are the co-ordinated looting actions happening across the world, also “protests”? They can be excused as such – using your current perspective of no identified political authority target, or universal form of protest content. If that doesn’t meet your own test, what if they carried placards with “No Capitalism” or “Down With This Sort of Thing” – would that then make it a protest?

                     There are overlaps between protest and looting. If a protest goes out of control and looking ensues that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a protest. Looting can be a reaction to political issues too. But anyone can see the difference between an organise protest and a situation happens where looting breaks out.

                     “Profoundly dangerous” for democracy is political, media and public approval of violence and intimidation used to shut down free speech and freedom of association.

                     When did you lose your ability to think in both/and?
                   • Molly …

                     16 August 2023 at 11:00 am

                     @weka

                     I didn't lose my ability to think… , I'm just very careful with language use.

                     Since you have made the distinction – with which I agree – let's have a closer look at "legitimate" protest, which means complying with the Bill of Rights Act 1990, amongst others.

                     There is a good outline here, where it is apparent the protest did not meet the Bill of Rights clauses, and so became strictly speaking "illegitimate".

                     One clear breach is under the Summary Offences Act 1981 s 37:

                     You should take care not to infringe on the right to freedom of expression of any other protest groups. It’s also a criminal offence to unreasonably disrupt a meeting in a public place.

                     Now, if you have a look there are more breaches that occurred, but in reality only ONE is required.

                     This breach was the only stated intention of the protest that took place at Albert Park on March 25th 2023.

                     Now, many may think the action – even if not protected under the right to protest – was "justifiable", "warranted", or "excusable". That's their perspective.

                     However, as you point out, due to the breach it cannot be reasonably called "legitimate".

                     I will not personally use the word protest in this case, when it was stated repeatedly that the sole purpose was to breach Section 37 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 – without any other stated goal or political outcome in mind.

                     I will utilise (for me) the more accurate term "act of intimidation and violence".

                     If you like, replace it with "intended breach of Section 37 of the Summary Offences Act 1981" which is the most precise and neutral language I can write:

                     eg. The 2,000 plus crowd at Albert Park on March 25th were intent on breaching Section 37 of the Summary Offences Act, and were effective in doing so.
         • SPC 5.1.2.1.2

           12 August 2023 at 5:26 pm

           Has any prosecutor ever claimed that tomato juice is a corrosive liquid?

           And has any prosecutor made the case that anyone who is part of a protest action is guilty by association with death threats made by others?

           You are certainly elaborating the meaning of "over-reach".
           • Molly 5.1.2.1.2.1

             12 August 2023 at 5:47 pm

             "Has any prosecutor ever claimed that tomato juice is a corrosive liquid?"

             I don't know. But what I do know, is that I haven't made that claim.

             Since you asked – as an acidic compound it will have some corrosive properties, but that wasn't a claim I made. I referred to the unknown aspect of the liquid thrown in the context of the death threats received, AND the known use of corrosive liquids as a form of attack.

             https://www.asti.org.uk/a-worldwide-problem.html

             "UNITED KINGDOM

             Per capita the UK has one of the highest rates of recorded acid attacks in the world. In 2018, in London alone, corrosive substances were used in 310 crimes, compared to 456 in 2017, and so we have seen a substantial drop according to London Police Figures. However, nationwide there has been an increase in acid attacks with 452 reported crimes in 2017 and 501 reported crimes in 2018. "

             I've repeated the link provided above that shows that in the UK – where Kellie Jay Keen is from – this is a common form of assault against women:

             The deliberate use of thrown liquid is not benign given the context.
             • Belladonna …

               12 August 2023 at 6:01 pm

               I don't think that anyone is regarding the juice-flinging as 'benign'.

               It was a political protest, designed to cause embarrassment and inconvenience to PP – as well as potentially damage her image (I'm quite sure that propaganda pictures of the bespattered PP were circulated)

               I think that you'll find that the majority of the acid attacks are restricted to a cultural/ethnic minority in Britain. One to which PP does not belong.

               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_attack#Motivation_of_perpetrators

               Nor, based on your own figures, can it be regarded as a ‘common’ form of assault. Fists continue to be the most common tool used in assaulting women.
               • weka …

                 13 August 2023 at 1:45 am

                 designed to humiliate her too. Of course the damage to her image aspect worked in her favour, she now uses a photo of her drenched in tomato juice in her social media to good effect and as a rallying call.

                 Re the protest generally, to my mind it crossed from freedom of expression to intimidation and probably worse. I wouldn't call it terrorism yet, but certainly women now feel more afraid to speak than before. There were men there that day that found the mob terrifying too.

                 Whether that kind of intimidation is legitimate in principle or not I don't know. My test is to consider how I would feel if an action were being done by climate activists. eg I think the occupation of parliament grounds was legitimate, but quite a bit of the behaviour wasn't.

                 The noise as a way of drowning out speakers in a public place doesn't seem legitimate either, the only way it makes sense if you believe that KJK is an actual fascist. This is more complicated because she is moving more rightwards including doing public work with the far right, but then how much of that is because of how she has been treated by the left? That's not an issue of blame/blamelessness so much as strategy.

                 No Debate left a vacuum and KJK arose in that vacuum. If progressive GC people had been allowed to speak more freely, we would have a range of left wing voices on gender/sex instead of a major focus on a right wing populist around whom many RW and FR people are now gathering.

                 We can see this in the recent announcement by antifa aotearoa that they are not going to protest LWS in Sept at the court case, because they understand that doing so gives KJK more power and causes more damage to GNC people. They've also said they don't support other people protesting. They're late to the party in understanding this, but at least they are starting to get it.
                 • Belladonna …

                   13 August 2023 at 2:33 pm

                   Re the protest generally, to my mind it crossed from freedom of expression to intimidation and probably worse. I wouldn't call it terrorism yet, but certainly women now feel more afraid to speak than before. There were men there that day that found the mob terrifying too.

                   I've witnessed other protests which were also intimidating and frighting. Going right back to the Springbok Tour.

                   If the police had done their jobs – and kept the two groups well separated – none of this would have happened.

                   Both groups had a right to be there [NB: of course I don't mean in exactly the same space]. I don't support cancel culture, nor do I support some form of limitation on the right to protest. In a well-functioning democracy, all views have the right to be expressed. The fact that this failed, needs to be laid at the door of the group which is supposed to ensure that freedom of expression doesn't infringe on the rights of others (i.e. the police – and ultimately the government). Both failed.
                   • weka …

                     14 August 2023 at 12:00 am

                     This is my position too, that what the police chose to do on the day is central and indicates a failure of democracy.

                     It's own goal territory for liberal lefties too. If we establish that that kind of intimidation plus police turning a blind eye is ok, then we won't have any political defence when it happens to us.

                     What were examples from the Tour? There were obviously many clashes between police and protestors, but that's a different thing.
                   • Molly …

                     14 August 2023 at 8:02 am

                     If you listen to those involved in the event, the police not only failed to act – they colluded with those whose strategy was mob intimidation, false rhetoric and justified violence.

                     Comparing it to political protests against government oppression such as apartheid is a form of protest-washing.

                     You – and others – have been unable to provide a coherent reason for the crowd to form at a women's speaking event.

                     So you call it a protest, rather than accept the reality that it was a politically, and media sanctioned mob that sought to stop women from speaking.

                     If any protest I was involved in had acted with such lack of clear messaging, or self-discipline I would immediately call it out for the poorly organised thugfest it has evolved into.
                   • weka []

                     14 August 2023 at 8:30 am

                     I agree it was a thug fest. It was also hypocritical and damaging to democracy and protest.

                     However, where you say,

                     You – and others – have been unable to provide a coherent reason for the crowd to form at a women’s speaking event.

                     KJK is broadly perceived among TRAs and trans ally liberals to be transphobic and to be courting the far right. There is reasonable evidence for the first bit and good evidence for the second.

                     Some also believe that she poses an existential threat to trans people.

                     I don’t believe that last sentence, but I do think she is actively contributing to a regressive culture around gender non-conformity including trans people, and this does in fact present a problem for people who are social liberal, progressive, or just give a shit about what happens to marginalised people.

                     In other words, there is something there to protest despite the inanity of their positions on No Debate, or women’s sex based rights.
                   • Molly []

                     14 August 2023 at 8:38 am

                     KJK and the silenced NZ women have no political authority or agency.

                     Thus equating it to the democratic action of protest is an error.

                     It should be rightly recognised as an action AGAINST free speech, because that it what it essentially boiled down to.

                     Women gathered to speak – and a mob was determined to stop them.

                     The failure of progressives to see this clearly continues to surprise.
                   • weka []

                     14 August 2023 at 9:06 am

                     KJK and the silenced NZ women have no political authority or agency.

                     Sure they do. KJK has a massive reach through social media and public meetings.

                     NZ women have continued to do public events in various places since Auckland LWS. A political party has been formed by some of the women from the Ak LWS event. Organisers of LWS have been active on social and MSM. The elderly woman who was assaulted has been supported and has spoken out to media. The protest was bad enough, let’s not cede the power and agency we do have.

                     You said,

                     You – and others – have been unable to provide a coherent reason for the crowd to form at a women’s speaking event.

                     I provided coherent reasoning for the protest, which you have ignored.

                     You’ve now come back with another set of assertions, which I will counter, but is there any point if you are going to ignore the arguments against your position?

                     Thus equating it to the democratic action of protest is an error.

                     Trying to delegitimise protests we disapprove of is anti-democratic. This is a mistake made by liberals (Parliament occupation, LWS), it’s disturbing to see you running similar lines.

                     It should be rightly recognised as an action AGAINST free speech, because that it what it essentially boiled down to.

                     Which I just did. But it’s both/and.

                     Women gathered to speak – and a mob was determined to stop them.

                     The failure of progressives to see this clearly continues to surprise.

                     I’m a progressive and I see it clearly. The challenge is how to present a convincing argument to change other progressive’s minds, not about KJK, but about women’s rights. KJK herself is a block to that, because of her anti-trans rhetoric, her working with the far right, and her strong anti-left and anti-feminist positions.

                     Women in NZ could instead adopt progressive positions when fighting for women’s sex based rights, and work from there. There are good strategic reasons to do this as well as politically ethical ones.

                     ,
                   • Molly …

                     15 August 2023 at 2:22 pm

                     "The challenge is how to present a convincing argument to change other progressive’s minds, not about KJK, but about women’s rights. KJK herself is a block to that, because of her anti-trans rhetoric, her working with the far right, and her strong anti-left and anti-feminist positions.

                     Women in NZ could instead adopt progressive positions when fighting for women’s sex based rights, and work from there. There are good strategic reasons to do this as well as politically ethical ones."

                     I think you are unable to look through the KJK involvement, and see that this is sheer intimidation and thuggery.

                     The use of the words "far right" to me indicate a failure as great as the use of "far left". They are meaningless – unless those using them take time to outline their personal definitions before going further.

                     The impact on women's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association are not just on progressive women, but all women – conservatives and right-wing as well. I defend all women's right to gather and speak, as should all supposed progressives.

                     Kellie Jay Keen Minshull doesn't have political authority in NZ, as you well know. Many would have been unaware of her before her visit was amplified by politicians, activists and media. Vilification – including by some women, ensured that her visit was politicised insofar as to ensure that NZ women clearly understood what they would face if they sought to gather and publicly share their opinions.

                     Progressives and conservative women alike got that message loud and clear.
                   • weka []

                     15 August 2023 at 2:57 pm

                     I think you are unable to look through the KJK involvement, and see that this is sheer intimidation and thuggery.

                     In this thread, I already said “I have always said it was a thug response” and “Re the protest generally, to my mind it crossed from freedom of expression to intimidation and probably worse”.

                     Do you not believe me?

                     The use of the words “far right” to me indicate a failure as great as the use of “far left”. They are meaningless – unless those using them take time to outline their personal definitions before going further.

                     Just because you don’t have a political analysie of far right and far left, doesn’t mean no-one else does. Far right is pretty easy to describe and point to. Why are you unwilling to differentiate between conservatives and those on the right that seek to remove democracy and instead want to impose fascism? Do you think fascism isn’t rising in democratic countries?

                     I don’t call TRAs far left because I think left still has political meaning and what they are doing doesn’t fit into that. They are the neoliberal left, often libertarian, sometimes authoritarian, mostly I call them liberals for simplicity because when they are making their identity politics claims they are practicing individual rights not collective responsibility. Some of them still hold left wing political views no doubt, but to be far left they would need to centre their politics in that, and I don’t see that often. . But if you want to call them far left, I’m going to probably still understand who you mean and no be in denial of them.

                     Whatever, it’s still pretty easy to demonstrate that KJK works with people that sit to the right of what we in NZ consider conservatives, people who have seriously problematic political positions. You can choose to be ok with that, but denying that it’s real is daft and the denial is one of the reasons that feminists have abandoned GC politics. Let me know if you want the references.

                     The impact on women’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association are not just on progressive women, but all women – conservatives and right-wing as well. I defend all women’s right to gather and speak, as should all supposed progressives.

                     I will absolutely oppose the platforming in NZ of women that support someone like the man who murdered people in the Chch mosques. I’m using that as an extreme example to demonstrate the limits of ‘all women’.

                     Obviously conservative women can speak. I’m fast losing patience with you implying that I oppose that. I’ve long supported the concept of LWS. That I critique KJK doesn’t negate that.

                     I’m also on record for condemning the protest at LWS, so please stop speaking to me as if I am not.

                     Kellie Jay Keen Minshull doesn’t have political authority in NZ…

                     So? What’s the point of this sentence?

                     Vilification – including by some women, ensured that her visit was politicised insofar as to ensure that NZ women clearly understood what they would face if they sought to gather and publicly share their opinions.

                     yes. What’s your point? We already are on the same page on this. That being true doesn’t negate anything else I have said here.

                     The criticisms of KJK don’t mean conservative women should never speak. If you think the issue is lw women trying to suppress all rw women’s speech, then you really don’t know what is going on .
                 • Belladonna …

                   15 August 2023 at 3:21 pm

                   Sorry Weka – I'm running out of nested comments here.

                   re Springbok tour protests. Violence was widely reported between the pro-rugby and anti-tour protesters – entirely separate from any police activity.

                   Here are a selection of photos:

                   https://digitalnz.org/records/31927383/protesters-and-rugby-fans-in-conflict-1981?from-story=5e6e8c176d390900083a6751

                   https://digitalnz.org/records/40759996/rugby-supporter-attacking-protesters-during-springbok-tour-protest?from-story=5e6e8c176d390900083a6751

                   https://digitalnz.org/records/23168677/anti-springbok-tour-demonstrators-overturn-a-car-auckland-new-zealand-photo?from-story=5e6e8c176d390900083a6751

                   It was widely regarded as being the issue which divided a nation – there was passion and hatred ignited on both sides (I don't think I'm using too strong a word here, decades later there are still families who are divided over the protests)

                   https://digitalnz.org/records/43184/divided-loyalties-springbok-tour-cartoon?from-story=5e6e8c176d390900083a6751
                   • weka …

                     15 August 2023 at 3:41 pm

                     yes, I remember the divide, it happened in my family too.

                     Were the clashes between anti-Tour protestors and counter protestors? Or anti-Tour protestors and people watching rugby?
                 • Belladonna …

                   15 August 2023 at 3:59 pm

                   "Were the clashes between anti-Tour protestors and counter protestors? Or anti-Tour protestors and people watching rugby?"

                   The pro-rugby supporters were much less organized, I believe. So I don't believe that there were organized counter-protests. Many of the violent incidents happened when access to the ground was blocked by anti-tour protesters, and or/when protesters invaded the pitch. But the approaches to the stadiums were not safe places for anyone – especially towards the end of the tour.
             • SPC …

               12 August 2023 at 6:09 pm

               So you are arguing that the pouring juice over someone is serious offence, if the victim of the stained skin, hair and clothing is from the UK, but not otherwise?

               Is there any evidence that ER knew of the death threats to KJ-K while she was here? And if not, what is the relevance? They are both victims of death threats.
               • Molly …

                 12 August 2023 at 6:16 pm

                 My view is that direct violence against persons, and intimidation are not justifiable forms of protest against an individual, or an event in the way it was conducted in Albert Park on March 25th 2023.

                 There is also an assumption that there was something to protest against – which has not been proven or actually put forward as an argument.

                 LetWomenSpeak events are coordinated by Standing For Women, and MC'd by Kellie-Jay Keen or others, but the majority of the event is local women taking the microphone and speaking.

                 So, what was the protest about?
                 • SPC …

                   12 August 2023 at 6:28 pm

                   The protest? There were two groups each with different protests, the term counter-protest has been used …
                   • weka …

                     12 August 2023 at 6:56 pm

                     Let Women Speak isn't a protest.
                   • Muttonbird …

                     12 August 2023 at 9:27 pm

                     Let Women Speak isn’t a protest.

                     Is it not a protest against self-ID and no debate?
                   • weka []

                     12 August 2023 at 10:24 pm

                     nope. It’s an event to literally let women speak in public. It’s broadly focused on women’s sex based rights, but women can speak about whatever they want so long as it is legal. Men can speak too, they just have to wait until the women have finished.

                     https://www.standingforwomen.com/events

                     It’s rooted in the UK tradition of Speakers’ Corner.

                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner
                   • weka []

                     13 August 2023 at 1:32 am

                     Here’s another way to understand it. When I’ve put up women only posts on TS, and the ensuing discussion has been largely about women’s sex based rights (for a number of reasons), is that post and discussion a protest? No, it’s not. It’s a space for women to speak in public and these are the topics that women want to talk about.
                   • Molly …

                     12 August 2023 at 11:03 pm

                     @Muttonbird

                     It's as weka describes it.

                     Occasionally, someone who describes themselves as a trans ally will get the mike.
             • Sabine …

               15 August 2023 at 1:30 pm

               the vicitms of these attacks are also for the vast majority women.

               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_attack

               An acid attack,[1] also called acid throwing, vitriol attack, or vitriolage, is a form of violent assault[2][3][4] involving the act of throwing acid or a similarly corrosive substance onto the body of another "with the intention to disfigure, maim, torture, or kill".[5] Perpetrators of these attacks throw corrosive liquids at their victims, usually at their faces, burning them, and damaging skin tissue, often exposing and sometimes dissolving the bones. Acid attacks can lead to permanent, partial, or complete blindness.[6]

               The most common types of acid used in these attacks are sulfuric and nitric acid. Hydrochloric acid is sometimes used but is much less damaging.[7] Aqueous solutions of strongly alkaline materials, such as caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) or ammonia, are used as well, particularly in areas where strong acids are controlled substances.[8][9][10]

               The long-term consequences of these attacks may include blindness, as well as eye burns, with severe permanent scarring of the face and body,[11][12][13] along with far-reaching social, psychological, and economic difficulties.[5]

               Even just throwing juice or yoghurt is to humiliate and render 'dirty' the person who is attacked, thus forcing them to go home and change, being covered in shit for all to see.

               this happened in Iran to two women who were engaged in wrong think and the idea that they had the right to be out without covering their hair. The 'reasoning' for the attack might be 'religion' or 'authority' the intend is the same. To publicly shame women, to make them feel afraid of righteous males who will take it upon themselves to chastise women for their wrong doing, and to compell them to either submit to the demands of these men or to scare them into staying home.

               No difference between the person assaulting Posie or the male in Iran assaulting two women going about their life. They are both cut from the same women hating cloth.
               • Sabine …

                 15 August 2023 at 1:33 pm

                 And also nothing new in NZ, here in 2021 a female cop got doused in hot water.

                 https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300303578/boiling-water-thrown-in-face-of-police-officer-in-dunedin

                 “While in attendance an officer received facial injuries and was taken to hospital.”

                 Senior Sergeant Craig Dinnissen confirmed it was boiling water thrown in the face of the female officer.

                 The officer had since been discharged and was ‘'recovering from home’’.

                 A woman, in her 40s, was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

                 I take a dildo being trown at my face any day over liquids. the dildo may brake my nose, or a chip a tooth, or i could just duck and it misses me altogether, but liquids? They can do real damage.

                 But i guess its ok when you are from the Transcaste, then everyone, but specially women need to submit, shut up, suck that transdick and be kind.
                 • Molly …

                   15 August 2023 at 2:11 pm

                   The constant deliberate downgrading of the assault (because it is Kellie Jay Keen Minshull?) is astounding to me.

                   Apparently, uppity (or yappity) women deserve it all – especially if we can call them far-right, or some other form of bollocks that means they are fair game.

                   Ungrateful wench that she is, she probably hasn't even posted some form of gratitude on Twitter after this occurred for the grade of this assault, and its legimate use in democratic protests. I mean the intensive crush afterwards, perhaps triggered by this brazen assault, should have rendered this particular incident unimportant, surely?

                   Perspective – people – perspective…

                   Apparently, the real victim is the one on charge for a Clayton's assault that may have to face real world consequences for their own decision making.

                   Who would've guessed that we'd come so far?
         • Molly 5.1.2.1.3

           12 August 2023 at 6:10 pm

           According to this Herald article the charge regarding Kellie Jay Keen is one of common assault;

           https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/posie-parker-juice-thower-eli-rubashkyn-en-route-for-new-york-after-arrest-claim/OBCY2CCNPJAULNQOHSQVCXX6Y4/

           The protester who doused controversial British speaker Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull with tomato juice at her Auckland rally has been charged with assault.

           In a statement, police confirmed a person has been summoned to appear in the Auckland District Court on a single charge of common assault.

           It is understood the accused is activist Eli Rubashkyn.

           Common Assault in the Crimes Act 1961:

           https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329385.html?search=sw_096be8ed81d369a9_%22common+assault%22_25_se&p=1&sr=1

           Another later Herald article says there are two assault charges, one with an unknown victim:

           https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/woman-accused-of-throwing-juice-over-womens-rights-activist-posie-parker-pleads-not-guilty/QI24T5Z5BBCG5GDEDAP6I7KIEI/

           The woman accused of throwing tomato juice at British speaker Posie Parker has pleaded not guilty to two charges of assault.

           Eliana Golberstein, also known as Eli Rubashkyn, 34, did not seek bail or name suppression through her lawyer.

           A court registrar confirmed she entered her pleas by notice yesterday and her attendance was excused.

           Her next court appearance is in July.

           She is charged with assaulting Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, aka Posie Parker, in Auckland on March 25, 2023.

           She faces a second charge of assaulting another person on the same day.

           The charges each carry a maximum term of six months’ jail and a $4000 fine.
   • SPC 5.2

     12 August 2023 at 12:45 pm

     I know, we're approaching a time when water pistols will be banned to prevent their use to "assault" children.

     Of course politicians, and other public figures involved in campaigns, who have been "lamingtoned or egged" were of the olden times of York'shire – when children walked to cold in gumboots when it was wet (and splashed in puddles) and only avoided bull rush in the middle of winter (because they were banned from bringing mud into classrooms) And suffragettes who poured tomato juice to bloody their victim were called Miss Pansy Wansy goody two shoes.

     But to be aware of any of this is to challenge the narrative and become part of the oppression.

     But of course each and every over-reach (from whatever side) will eventually result in a natural corrective reaction.

     Though I do not think it a conflation to mention both cases in the news update. If they had not, they would have linked to a the most recent coverage about the other case anyhow.
6. Molly 6

   12 August 2023 at 1:15 pm

   "But of course each and every over-reach (from whatever side) will eventually result in a natural corrective reaction."

   What "over-reach" was enacted by mostly middle-aged women gathering to speak and/or listen?
   • SPC 6.1

     12 August 2023 at 1:50 pm

     Of itself none, it's part of (democratic society) freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

     Of course that then entails an acceptance that others can also organise in the same way. And on the same day and at the same place.

     And thus some risk of a larger group using either noise or numbers to kettle another groups event. Which can be seen as an over-reach.

     To use a well-known example, back in 1981 there were events planned and others gathered to obstruct them from going ahead. On that occasion police acted to prevent that, if not protest at the event occurring.

     Thus presumably, the complaints made as to whether police have an obligation to ensure an event can be held – secure the perimeter for an event, or not (should there be a counter-protest planned – to keep the peace).
     • Molly 6.1.1

       12 August 2023 at 2:03 pm

       "Of itself none, it's part of (democratic society) freedom of assembly and freedom of speech."

       This is the most relevant part of your comment.

       The fact it is then skipped over after referring to it as "over-reach" with abstract musings indicates a narrative approach to questions of violence and intimidation.
       • SPC 6.1.1.1

         12 August 2023 at 2:20 pm

         The fact it is then skipped over after referring to it as "over-reach" with abstract musings indicates a narrative approach to questions of violence and intimidation.

         Balderdash. First, I referred to the larger group's over-reach, not the smaller one. A misrepresentation used to throw shade – question any approach to the issue not on the "right side".

         Third the issue of (mutual) rights is relevant, not abstract musings.
         • Molly 6.1.1.1.1

           12 August 2023 at 2:31 pm

           "But of course each and every over-reach (from whatever side) will eventually result in a natural corrective reaction."

           "Balderdash. First, I referred to the larger group's over-reach, not the smaller one"

           Unclear from your original comment – (from whatever side).

           "Third the issue of (mutual) rights is relevant, not abstract musings."

           It is abstract at this moment because it does not specify what rights you are talking about. Just musing about the rights to protest, and comparing it to the Springboks protests that were about apartheid.

           What rights ARE you talking about?
           • SPC 6.1.1.1.1.1

             12 August 2023 at 2:43 pm

             Very clear in the comment made to which you were replying to

             And thus some risk of a larger group using either noise or numbers to kettle another groups event. Which can be seen as an over-reach.

             The rest is semantic twaddle. Done with it.
             • Molly …

               12 August 2023 at 4:45 pm

               Despite the numbering the comment I was replying to was this one:

               https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-11-08-2023/#comment-1963946

               Obvious, because I used quotes to copy your sentence from it:

               ""But of course each and every over-reach (from whatever side) will eventually result in a natural corrective reaction."

               You then modified in a following statement (in order to not have to answer the question?)

               "The rest is semantic twaddle. "

               The rest was another simple – but clumsily avoided question – which I will repeat "What rights were protestors protecting?"

               "Done with it."

               Of course you are. Another relevant question, best avoided by those with no coherent answers.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS