Firestarter

Written By: - Date published: 9:01 am, September 10th, 2009 - 51 comments
Categories: activism, crime - Tags:

r0b’s post on John Key’s ‘uprising’ comment (which was written last night) seems grimly ironic in light of this morning’s news. Someone has thrown some kind of incendiary device, like a molotov cocktail, through a window of Key’s electorate office.

Obviously, such actions are to be condemned and it’s good to hear the damage is limited.

There’s no word on any motive for the attack but it’s never too early for a bit of idle speculation. I suspect it will be something to do with the supercity – either the Maori seats or the inclusion of half of Rodney in the new council against the people’s will (the electorate office is near, if not in, Rodney). I’m sure this wasn’t the kind of response Key expected when he said a ‘community response’ could get him to reconsider carving up Rodney.

Let’s hope the person responsible is found promptly and dealt with appropriately.

51 comments on “Firestarter ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. outofbed 1
    10 September 2009 at 9:24 am

    Probably someone just upset the the house went into urgency again for no good reason

  2. Danyl Mclauchlan 2
    10 September 2009 at 9:28 am

    I don’t think the sort of person who is upset about the boundaries of Rodney is the sort of person to firebomb an electorate office in the middle of the night – and if they were I think they’d bomb Hide’s. It could have been motivated by anything – or nothing – but if I had to pick a reason I’d go for the smacking referendum.

  3. outofbed 3
    10 September 2009 at 9:30 am

    or, fuck supplementary member .. take that

  4. Pascal's bookie 4
    10 September 2009 at 9:33 am

    English language pedants are mad and they’re not going to take it anymore.

    A note has been found saying “Overtly concerned yet? Talk betterer”

    • Izzy 4.1
      10 September 2009 at 11:32 am

      Love it 🙂

    • Ari 4.2
      10 September 2009 at 6:44 pm

      Hey, being “overtly concerned”* is a perfectly good phrase. It’s the people who want Key to say what he actually means that should be worried, not the English language pedants 🙂

      *as opposed to “covertly concerned”, like he is about MMP.

  5. Tom Semmens 5
    10 September 2009 at 9:45 am

    Quick! Round up the usual suspects! Tim Selwyn, Tame Iti, Redbaiter and *cough* the rowdystudentstwohousesupfrommewhohadanotherpartylastnight *cough*

    Waterboard the truth out of em’ I say!

  6. Jenny 6
    10 September 2009 at 9:58 am

    Who wants to bet that despite modern forensics and the best efforts of our police force and Security Intelligence organisations, the arsonist will never be caught.

    (That the culprit is never caught is typical symptom of a right wing provocation, to try and discredit their opponents when all their arguments fail).

    I will put up $20

    • Craig Ranapia 6.1
      10 September 2009 at 11:06 am

      Jenny:

      Seriously, WTF? Perhaps you watch too many CSI-style television shows, but “modern forensics” isn’t magic. I know its really hard to avoid taking cheap partisan shots, but if the culprit isn’t caught and prosecuted there’s no other reason than because a case just couldn’t be made NOT that the Police are tools of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

      • roger nome 6.1.1
        10 September 2009 at 11:35 am

        I’ve often seen you rail against ‘paranoia’ in politics. As if a mistrust of people in power isn’t a healthy thing.

        I suggest you read the following book as a first step on your path to redemption.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_Denial

        • Craig Ranapia 6.1.1.1
          10 September 2009 at 11:44 am

          I rail against “paranoia”, because its a seriously disordered and irrational thought process that has no place in grown-up politics. Doesn’t stop the wing-nuts on the rabid right or the loony left, but since when do I give a shit what they’ve got to say about anything?

          I’m all for a healthy distrust of those in power, Nome. Coming up with some fanciful conspiracy theory that the Police are tools of the VRWC is many things but “healthy” is not among them.

  7. illuminatedtiger 7
    10 September 2009 at 10:02 am

    The actions of “good parents” no doubt ;).

  8. Jeremy 8
    10 September 2009 at 10:05 am

    The office is, indeed, in the Rodney District, however, it’s in the part that will remain part of Auckland – in fact, the entire Helensville electorate will remain in Auckland. I don’t think that was a motive, to be honest.

    I think this was petty vandalism or an anarchist (or both :-P). I doubt there was any specific motive towards this other than Key being in a position of authority.

  9. infused 9
    10 September 2009 at 10:06 am

    It was me!

    yes, no 🙂

  10. Spectator 10
    10 September 2009 at 10:09 am

    This was an action of vermin, just as the vandalism of the former Prime Minster’s office a few years ago was an action of vermin; and this case should be prosecuted as fully as that case was.

    • snoozer 10.1
      10 September 2009 at 10:22 am

      The charge in that case was sedition and that was one of the reasons the offence was repealed. Still, there’s clearly other offences that the person could be charged with.

  11. gobsmacked 11
    10 September 2009 at 10:20 am

    We can officially rule out left-wing student extremists.

    The report on the Stuff website has a picture of the electorate office. Next to the broken window there is a large photo-poster of John Key.

    Crucially, this has not been adorned with an Ad*lf Hit*er moustache, which is 100% compulsory at all student demos against the Nats.

    I think we can all agree that is conclusive evidence.

  12. snoozer 12
    10 September 2009 at 10:28 am

    Hey, looking at the pic on stuff, they’ve thrown it in the window of the room where Key had his meeting with the exclusive brethren. Shots of it were in some doco, maybe the Hollow Men film?

    A TV crew had been following Key around for the day but had to leave that room when the EB guy insisted the meeting be secret.

  13. Killinginthenameof 13
    10 September 2009 at 10:28 am

    Well several people on kiwiblog said if key didn’t listen to the referendum there would be armed uprising.

  14. outofbed 14
    10 September 2009 at 10:36 am

    today electorate offices
    tomorrow abortion clinics

  15. roger nome 15
    10 September 2009 at 10:47 am

    I heard that it was the deformed love-child of Simon Barnett and Christine Rankin. He/She is said to sloth around Helensville during night-time hours covered only by a tattered cloke. The poor hate-filled creature is a new testament to why smacking is bad parenting.

  16. vto 16
    10 September 2009 at 10:52 am

    Its obviously someone from the left. Naughty.

  17. roger nome 17
    10 September 2009 at 10:54 am

    No vto – the said hunch-back is definately a Family Party voter.

    • vto 17.1
      10 September 2009 at 3:40 pm

      I think you are wrong mr nome. I reckon it was Chris Trotter – after all, he went on last year about how he remembered where he found some explosives when he was a kid and then garbled on about the means justifying the ends at times with the very real implied threat of explosive action. Police should go knock on his door.

  18. Bill 18
    10 September 2009 at 11:02 am

    Noticed that the glass fragments indicate the window was smashed from the inside? Suggesting that John was merely frantically trying to get rid of his flaming pants.

  19. roger nome 19
    10 September 2009 at 11:03 am

    No VTO – the said hunch-back is certainly a Family Party voter.

  20. roger nome 20
    10 September 2009 at 11:10 am

    I wonder – would the perpetrator be liable for prosecution under the Terrorism Suppression Act? Anyone know?

    • Jenny 20.1
      10 September 2009 at 6:29 pm

      Q. I wonder would the perpetrator be liable for prosecution under the Terrorism Suppression Act? Anyone know?

      A. I doubt it, as our chief terrorist hunter is too deeply sunken into the leather upholstery of chauffeur driven limo, Probably exhausted from spying on all those Maarees to have any time to watch for real terrorists.

  21. The Voice of Reason 21
    10 September 2009 at 11:34 am

    Surely it’s a property developer testing the new red tape free RMA? As put through under ‘urgency’ in a mostly empty debating chamber last night. If it was so fucken urgent, why wasn’t anyone there?

  22. felix 22
    10 September 2009 at 11:47 am

    Not cool. Someone could’ve been hurt.

    Not John, obviously – he lives in Parnell – but still not cool.

    • Tim Ellis 22.1
      10 September 2009 at 11:50 am

      Just like how it would seriously not be cool if either thing happened to Mr Goff or Mr Cunliffe’s electorate offices as somebody might get hurt. Not Mr Goff or Mr Cunliffe obviously since they don’t live in their electorates either, but still not cool.

      • The Voice of Reason 22.1.1
        10 September 2009 at 12:14 pm

        Interesting point about MP’s living outside their electorates, Tim. I wonder if the Dipton Volunteer Fire Brigade are on standby? Or maybe they live in Wellington, too?

      • felix 22.1.2
        10 September 2009 at 12:14 pm

        Should’ve probably targeted English’s electorate office, just to be extra safe though.

        edit: snap

        • Tim Ellis 22.1.2.1
          10 September 2009 at 1:00 pm

          As shocking as this thing is, I suppose the fortunate thing was that it wasn’t at anybody’s actual home.

          There have been a few events in the last few years around protest groups targetting politicians homes. One example was when a fathers’ coalition crowd, if I’m correct, protested outside Helen Clark’s house. That was disgraceful in my view. So too was the protest from a left wing group outside John Key’s house, which I believe was promoted here at the Standard. I think as soon as you make a person’s private home a legitimate place of protest, you are encouraging escalation to disgraceful acts like this.

          • felix 22.1.2.1.1
            10 September 2009 at 1:11 pm

            Absolutely agree about politician’s homes.

            (There are possible exceptions but the situations are so extreme and unlikely they don’t warrant mention.)

          • gobsmacked 22.1.2.1.2
            10 September 2009 at 1:12 pm

            I don’t support protesting outside any politician’s home, but there’s a pretty clear difference between those wanting to be visible (daytime, photographed, identified, open etc) and the cowardly arson attack at 3 a.m.

            I doubt the perpetrators needed any encouraging, so let’s not muddy those waters.

            • Tim Ellis 22.1.2.1.2.1
              10 September 2009 at 3:51 pm

              I agree GS, there is a big difference.

              I think there’s a spectrum though. It ranges from protesting outside an office, protest marching etc which is perfectly legitimate and legal. Protesting outside a private home is probably perfectly legal but in my view and your view, from the sounds of it, unacceptable. Then illegal acts against an office where nobody is likely to get hurt, totally unacceptable. Then illegal acts against a person where somebody is likely to get hurt.

              I think as long as we start to accept unacceptable behaviour, even if it is legal it does give some license to others to go further.

  23. Hieronymous 23
    10 September 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Ah, the masses are finally stirring.

    Give them a few more Key’isms .. and a few more weeks.

  24. Scott 24
    10 September 2009 at 5:45 pm

    Osama Bin Laden?

  25. jabba 25
    10 September 2009 at 9:09 pm

    hey, lets not joke about fire bombing anybody .. this sort of shit starts of slowly and soon we will wonder what the hell happened. It really isn’t funny.
    gee counties up 37 .. 16 with 3 mins to go

  26. Jared 26
    13 September 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Might I ask why the houses of politicians are off-limits for protest when the state has the right to bust into any of our own homes, at any time, and by any means?

    Also, it’s interesting to note everyone’s love of property on this site — the state uses real violence on people 24 hours a day, yet when an empty office gets damaged everyone cries foul..

    Don’t take this as support for this particular act, but just a few prompts to think about…

    • vto 26.1
      13 September 2009 at 12:52 pm

      I completely agree.

      The state is the only entity with the right of physical sanction against a human.

      There is something not right about that given the abhorrence of it in any other part of life in NZ.