Daily Review 12/06/2015 #CampbellLives

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 pm, June 12th, 2015 - 27 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

Protest class war

Slightly redesigned in support of #CampbellLives.

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standarnistas the opportunity to review events of the day.  The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other.

27 comments on “Daily Review 12/06/2015 #CampbellLives ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. maui 1
    12 June 2015 at 7:19 pm

    It took an Australian to stand up for our rights and our nature (our kauri), good on him. The scary thing is he could have been jailed for doing what’s right.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11464234

    • weka 1.1
      12 June 2015 at 7:39 pm

      Vernon Tava was his lawyer (recent GP co-leader candidate). They’re both working from the politics of Nature Rights. This is going to be raised more and more.

      Mr Tavares, who remained up the kauri for three days in March, said he stood by his actions.

      “It was only through my action outside the law that this tree was able to have a voice,” he said.

      “Because the tree, and the rights of nature, has no standing in a court room in New Zealand, my lawyer was not able to speak for the rights of nature or the rights of that tree so I had no option but to plead guilty in this case.”

      http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/276093/kauri-campaigner-convicted-of-trespass

    • mickysavage 1.2
      12 June 2015 at 9:18 pm

      I have had the pleasure of meeting Michael and a more genuine decent human being you could not hope to meet. Strange that standing up for nature should be criminalised.

      • Lanthanide 1.2.1
        12 June 2015 at 10:19 pm

        He was criminalised for trespassing, not “standing up for nature”.

        Just like the guy (Bruce Emery) who stabbed a teenager that tagged his fence was criminalised for “manslaughter”, not “protecting his property”.

        The courts don’t have any problem with people “standing up for nature” (whatever that means). They do have problems with people trespassing on private property.

        • mickysavage 1.2.1.1
          12 June 2015 at 10:36 pm

          Weird. He set up home in an ancient tree hopeing to save it. He did not stab someone.

          • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1.1
            12 June 2015 at 10:41 pm

            And yet he broke the law.

            Are you ok with people who break the law, as long as it’s a law you don’t agree with? Or does it depend on the circumstances? Slippery slope…

            Thankfully, this is why judges have discretion when it comes to convicting, as well as sentencing. The woman who accidentally killed her kid in the hot car was convicted but received no (judicial) sentence.

            • weka 1.2.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2015 at 10:49 pm

              The point is that the law doesn’t allow for people to protect nature. If it did, then what Tavares did wouldn’t be criminal.

              And yes, some laws should be broken, where they are immoral or are causing harm. This is how society changes and becomes better.

              • Lanthanide …
                12 June 2015 at 10:52 pm

                The law allows for people to protect nature as much as they want, while doing so *within the law*. That’s more or less a tautology.

                The law doesn’t allow people to do whatever they want using whatever means they want.

                In this case whatever-they-want means “standing up for nature” and whatever-means-they-want means “trespassing”.

                Other such ways of “standing up for nature” would be to “murder everyone who comes within 10m of this tree”.

                Now clearly, murdering people in order to protect a tree is a disproportionate response. But it’s still as much of a crime as trespassing is (in the binary sense of “law is broken” or “law is not broken”). Which again, is why judges and courts have discretion when it comes to conviction and sentencing. I think the correct balance was struck in this case.

                Most people break laws most days, but they’re not charged or convicted for them.

                • weka …
                  12 June 2015 at 11:41 pm

                  You’ve misunderstood. It’s not about peple doing whatever they want (no matter how much you try and frame it that way).

                  Other such ways of “standing up for nature” would be to “murder everyone who comes within 10m of this tree”.

                  I think I agree with you now that you don’t know what standing up for nature is.

                  You think the law should be inviolate. I don’t. Slavery, women’s suffrage, land rights, medical marijuana etc etc etc laws got broken and rightly so. Sometimes the people are ahead of the law in terms of societal change, and nature rights is one of those times.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    13 June 2015 at 9:13 am

                    “I think I agree with you now that you don’t know what standing up for nature is.”

                    Considering I never claimed that I don’t know what standing up for nature is, you can’t “agree with me” that I don’t know that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, though, always a sign of an honest and fair debate.

                    I’m simply arguing against micky, who said he was criminalised for trying to protect nature. He was not. He was criminalised for trespassing. There are other ways he could have tried to protect nature that would not have involved trespass. Whether they would have been as effective in achieving his outcome is irrelevant to the point I am making – he broke the law for *trespass* and was convicted for *trespass*.

                    You can try and dress it up with whatever other motives and euphemisms that you want, but it doesn’t change what he did, the law he broke, or why he was in front of the court.

                    Like I said before, this is basically a slippery slope – you approve of someone trespassing to protect a (supposedly) ~500 year-old tree, but you may not approve of someone trespassing to protect a 2-year old tree. Yet both are trespassing. It’s up to the courts to take all factors into consideration when convicting and sentencing someone, not the public.

                    “Slavery, women’s suffrage, land rights, medical marijuana etc etc etc laws got broken and rightly so. ”
                    If you’re trying to say the existing laws were broken, that lead to law changes, then yes, that is what happened. I agree that this man broke the current law by trespassing. What may or may not happen in the future with regards to environmental protection laws is rather irrelevant to the case at hand – he was convicted and criminalised for the act of trespass, nothing else.

                    • weka …
                      13 June 2015 at 10:18 am

                      You said, upthread, The courts don’t have any problem with people “standing up for nature” (whatever that means).

                      I think it’s clear that you don’t know what it means. Which is fine, it’s going to be a new concept for a lot of people. I just think this conversation might have been more productive if we’d started with that (what it means).

                      I get the rest of what you are saying, but it’s essentially a literalist argument that misses much of the intent of what other people are saying.

                    • Lanthanide …
                      13 June 2015 at 12:01 pm

                      @ weka: I used the term “whatever that means” in the sense of “there are many things that can count as “standing up for nature” and I’m not going to try and limit it to a discrete list”.

                      “I get the rest of what you are saying, but it’s essentially a literalist argument that misses much of the intent of what other people are saying.”

                      Or rather, other people are missing that I am making a literalist argument (as I often do), and are trying to argue general points against me. Then they claim that I’m redefining the debate.

            • Weepus beard 1.2.1.1.1.2
              13 June 2015 at 2:27 pm

              The woman who accidentally killed her kid in the hot car was convicted but received no (judicial) sentence.

              -Lanthanide

              Rubbish. She was discharged without conviction. If you are going to be so sure about goings on with regard to the law, I suggest you do be sure that you have your facts straight.

        • maui 1.2.1.2
          12 June 2015 at 10:45 pm

          In the court’s eyes most forms of protesting are illegal.

          • Lanthanide 1.2.1.2.1
            12 June 2015 at 10:47 pm

            Yip, that’s true. But it’s also true that most protesters are never convicted of anything.

            Edit: actually, the majority of protests in NZ are peaceful protests in public places, for example the protests against the TPP during Prince Harry’s public walkabouts. Nothing illegal about them. Nevertheless, the vast majority of protesters are never convicted.

            It’s a pity that micky seems to think he was convicted for “standing up for nature”, and not for trespassing, which is what he was actually convicted for. And plead guilty to, btw.

            I thought micky was a lawyer?

            • maui 1.2.1.2.1.1
              12 June 2015 at 11:23 pm

              Marching down streets and blocking traffic, loud shouting (breaching the peace) I think would all classify as illegal – although I don’t know the ins and the outs of the law on this.

              His intent was to stand up for or protect a tree, his intent wasn’t to access someone else’s property (although that is what he did). So in my view the law doesn’t relate to the actions that he took, they’re like an irrelevant framework. Say if on your property I can see you’re pumping raw effluent into the creek I should be able to go over there and shut that shit down. I shouldn’t have to ring 5 different numbers and eventually wait for someone to address the problem via the law.

              • Lanthanide …
                13 June 2015 at 9:24 am

                “Marching down streets and blocking traffic, loud shouting (breaching the peace) I think would all classify as illegal – although I don’t know the ins and the outs of the law on this.”

                Yes, large organised marches are likely to be breaking laws. However large organised marches generally notify the police first, who in turn choose whether to charge the protesters.

                The particular example I gave of the TPP protests during Harry’s visit didn’t involve any marches (I don’t think), instead they were limited to sign waving and gathering at the public events Harry was attending. As such it is unlikely any laws were broken.

                “Say if on your property I can see you’re pumping raw effluent into the creek I should be able to go over there and shut that shit down.”

                So you’re in favour of vigilantism.

                “I shouldn’t have to ring 5 different numbers and eventually wait for someone to address the problem via the law.”

                That’s how things are done in a law-abiding society. Society extends privileges to particular institutions to enforce the law, and in all but extreme cases, it is those institutions that should carry out the enforcement.

                Also your example is not really an analogy, as the ‘pumping of raw effluent into a creek’ is almost certainly illegal, so for you to take potentially illegal action to prevent further commission of a crime could sometimes be warranted by the circumstances. In this tree case, the owners of the property had the legal right to fell the tree and it was the protester that broke the law by interfering in the exercise of their legal rights on the property they own (hence, trespass).

                • Sans Cle …
                  13 June 2015 at 9:38 am

                  Were members of the Christchurch public, who went in with bare hands to rescue people out of collapsed and damaged buildings on the afternoon of Feb 22nd 2011 guilty of trespass?
                  I don’t think the question was raised, as people were doing compassionate and humane deeds.

                  • Lanthanide …
                    13 June 2015 at 10:13 am

                    People are only guilty of crimes if found to be so by a court. It’s not for me to say whether people who entered other private buildings in the aftermath of the CHCH earthquakes are guilty of anything.

                    • Sans Cle …
                      13 June 2015 at 10:58 am

                      Agreed – the practice of the law is dependent on the court and police systems. However the action or motivation of the potential perpetrators can be similar. I raised the Chch example as moral compunction leads people to behave in certain ways: Chch to save lives. Michael Tavaeras had same drive to save the life of a tree. I think the law doesn’t apply equally in all situations, and that raises more issues. The right to life vs the right to private property.

                    • dukeofurl …
                      13 June 2015 at 5:38 pm

                      First its not a crime. The trespass isnt listed in the crimes act.

                      The council can be a complete travesty, I know a homeowner who had all consents for a new house, it had a set of stairs leading to basement but while under construction was threatened with dire action unless the consented stairs removed by concreting the opening in floor.
                      When it suits them, they will still ignore any consent6s

  2. Draco T Bastard 2
    12 June 2015 at 7:58 pm

    Talking about Labour:

    The philosophy was that as the money was created for productive purposes no loss could occur if it were not repaid from one department to another. Meanwhile, during construction, tradesmen had been paid wages which had been spent and absorbed into the economy. But it was solid money backed by the creation of assets. People had been kept fully employed while the government built homes for the people.
    Tom Skinner;
    “While Joe spoke I began suddenly to grasp the Labour philosophy related to the creation of credit. It set me off thinking about money and what it meant to the economy. The Government, figuratively speaking, could rub a state house debt out of the books because a building stood in its place. But money created by the banks in order to gain profits in the form of interest was the other side of the coin. It was unproductive, inflationary creation of money if unmatched by equivalent goods and services…..”

    Labour have done the Chicago Plan before and it worked. Time to do it again but this time we need to keep it.

  4. Tautoko Mangō Mata 4
    12 June 2015 at 8:39 pm

    The brightest spot of the day- Don McGlashan’s uplifting music on rnz.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/nzlive/audio/201758202/nz-live-don-mcglashan