Simon Bridges – pants on fire

Written By: - Date published: 6:06 pm, July 16th, 2013 - 119 comments
Categories: Politics - Tags:

It looks like it’s not just workers’ rights, and health and safety that Simon Bridges has truth issues with…

Pants on Fire

119 comments on “Simon Bridges – pants on fire ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. weka 1
    16 July 2013 at 7:33 pm

    Is that real?

  2. rosy 2
    16 July 2013 at 8:10 pm

    Love that it’s over Banks shoes. Nice name association there.

  3. Yes 3
    16 July 2013 at 8:14 pm

    gosh all the skyline pollution – wonder how much petroluem was burned to print that poster and all the vehicles…good Simon Bridges has been honoured. Lets not forget the big head office renovation going on at the moment for the heavyweughts at the top of greenpeace.

    • weka 3.1
      16 July 2013 at 8:20 pm

      What’s your point?

    • IrishBill 3.2
      16 July 2013 at 8:21 pm

      That’s the best you can do? You’re barely literate, son.

      • Yes 3.2.1
        16 July 2013 at 8:46 pm

        Greenpeace have no proof at all. that’s my point – I gather Simon bridges cant either – so what a waste of energy on a billboard.

        Bet you a dollar the Greens supported this!

        • IrishBill 3.2.1.1
          16 July 2013 at 8:51 pm

          Simon bridges cant

          Cant indeed.

        • weka 3.2.1.2
          16 July 2013 at 9:14 pm

          “Greenpeace have no proof at all.”

          That Bridges has been accused of misleading parliament over whether he met with oil industry bods?

          Or that he says we can clean up oil spills?

          Or the fact that we can’t?

          I think all three of those are pretty easy to prove. Am pretty sure Greenpeace believe that too and aren’t expecting a libel suit any time soon

          • Yes 3.2.1.2.1
            16 July 2013 at 9:25 pm

            Lying lying lying…all these lying MP’s so how come we top anti corruption stakes. Greenpeace is only good for shooting themselves in the foot. Good to see on the news tonight USA about to be bigger than the Arabs on oil production. So much for peak oil. However people dying in china from pollution and getting cancer. Then the lefts want to tax fuel for Auckland roads and raise toll money.

            I remember this argument about how tv causes violence etc etc. P.S. There was no tv during world war one or the napoleanic wars…people just make stuff up and on here is some real shape shifters but I enjoy the debate.

            And before someone gives me a lecture on ww1 Its my pet subject so have some pretty dam good links between millions of death and sesame street if you are going to claim tv is the cause for violence. The was no tv.

            I digress…oil production has another 200 years to go and by that time we would of landed on mars.

            • weka 3.2.1.2.1.1
              16 July 2013 at 9:37 pm

              *facepalm* So much stupid in one comment.

              Peak Oil is about peak production, and the relationship between oil and the economy (it’s not about how much oil is left in the ground). Show me some evidence that Hubbert was wrong (about the timing, as I assume even you understand the basics of physics involved in non-renewable resources).

              Corruption is cultural. The corruption we have in the current govt is culturally sanctioned corruption, as opposed to the corruption we look at in other countries which doesn’t fit our ideas about what is ok.

              Violence… am pretty sure the violence in WW1 was because countries with lots of soldiers were at war with each other. Citation needed for anyone ever saying that TV caused WW1.

              btw, I take it from your lack of response to my comment that you reCant your statement about Greenpeace having no proof.

              • wtl …
                16 July 2013 at 9:48 pm

                Re: the violence comment. I think Yes is saying that if someone suggests that TV leads to higher violence then ALL violence must be caused by TV. Therefore, if one can find an instance of violence that was not preceded by TV (e.g. WW1), then it would disprove the hypothesis.

                I know it makes absolutely no sense, but is consistent with other comments Yes has posted so far. Draw your own conclusions from what this says about his/her ability to think.

            • felix 3.2.1.2.1.2
              16 July 2013 at 9:38 pm

              I had a blue one once. But the second wheel fell off and it never tasted so good.

              That’s giraffes for you though!

              Spectacles.

            • Arfamo 3.2.1.2.1.3
              16 July 2013 at 9:44 pm

              Lying lying lying
all these lying MP’s so how come we top anti corruption stakes.

              Actually, we don’t:

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

            • Paul 3.2.1.2.1.4
              16 July 2013 at 10:05 pm

              Ignorance personified, yes.,..

            • McFlock 3.2.1.2.1.5
              16 July 2013 at 10:09 pm

              just… wow

            • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.2.1.6
              17 July 2013 at 12:26 am

              So much for peak oil.

              You really have NFI WTF you’re talking about do you? Peak Oil happened for conventional oil in 2005/6. That and the massive price jump for crude drove development of uncoventional oil. The problem with unconventional oil is a) that’s it’s EROEI is far less and b) that it peaks a hell of a lot faster. So, what’s really happening is that we’re bumping along the bumpy plateau of Peak Oil now, sooner or later, we’ll start going down the other side and demand still isn’t decreasing.

              NZ will be one of the first countries priced out of the oil market and that includes our own oil. That latter part really shows the shear delusion of the free-market – we apparently can’t afford our own resources, resources that we already own.

              oil production has another 200 years to go

              Nobody who knows anything about Peak Oil hasn’t said otherwise. What they said is that production won’t match demand.

              Then the lefts want to tax fuel for Auckland roads and raise toll money.

              Actually, that seems to be The Consensus-Building Group.

            • muzza 3.2.1.2.1.7
              17 July 2013 at 8:05 am

              Too much madness in your post to address, but the below requires more.

              digress
oil production has another 200 years to go and by that time we would of landed on mars.

              Do you actually believe that your family/offspring are going to be part of any *deep space* plans for colonization, I mean are you completely deluded, or have you been *promised* a seat on the starship enterprise?

              You write like someone who genuinely does not give a toss, but your style betrays your fear.

              If you seriously believe what you write, then I have a single question for you.

              – What do you hope to achieve, and what are your preferred outcomes for NZ, and humanity in general!

              Don’t hold back, I would like to understand where your bigger picture is heading!

              • Yes …
                17 July 2013 at 8:09 am

                I want a country where politicians don’t be make rubbish up. That simple

                • tracey …
                  17 July 2013 at 9:19 am

                  No you don’t or you wouldn’t spend most of your time on here defending those found to be misleading the electorate.

            • Jackal 3.2.1.2.1.8
              17 July 2013 at 9:35 pm

              Yes!

              I digress
oil production has another 200 years to go and by that time we would of landed on mars.

              Yes! Because Mars gets as close as only 54.6 million kilometres from Earth, we already know how to travel to the moon (363,104 kilometres), we will be able to terraform entire planets by shooting friggin laser beams at them and StarTrek is real…it’s REAL I tells ya!

              With such an unsurpassed intellect, have you ever thought about working for Simon Bridges yes?

          • Yes 3.2.1.2.2
            16 July 2013 at 9:51 pm

            Neither greenpeace or bridges can prove each other wrong because hither know?

        • Outofbed 3.2.1.3
          16 July 2013 at 9:16 pm

          You owe a dollar

        • Sable 3.2.1.4
          16 July 2013 at 10:04 pm

          Actually there is some pretty compelling evidence that we are not equipped to deal with a major oil spill. Keys and co are well aware of this but greed is good, so there you have it.

          • s y d 3.2.1.4.1
            17 July 2013 at 9:24 am

            Compelling eveidence alright – walked on the beach last night – still polluted from Rena, plastic beads all up on the high tide line, keep getting oil spots on the surfboard after a few waves..can’t even clean that up nearly 2 years on…and this geezer is my ‘local’ MP….

    • tracey 3.3
      17 July 2013 at 9:15 am

      You’re right Yes, imagine though how awful it would be if Bridges had signed something for charity that he hadn’t painted. Now THAT would be heinous…

  4. AmaKiwi 4
    16 July 2013 at 8:24 pm

    Nice work, Greens.

    We won’t get changes until we start publicly embarrassing dishonest MPs.

  5. Frank Macskasy 5
    16 July 2013 at 9:03 pm

    Brilliant!!!

    Next – a billboard listing all of Key’s lies and broken promises.

    Only thing though… is there a billboard big enough?!

  6. infused 6
    16 July 2013 at 9:05 pm

    Accused… lol.

  7. Sable 7
    16 July 2013 at 10:07 pm

    Yes indeed Greenpeace NOT Greens. I just received their blurb in the mail and not ONE WORD about dismantling Keys spy network. Can’t say I’m much pleased with this given Norman’s renunciation of Keys actions.

  8. Sable 8
    16 July 2013 at 10:08 pm

    Maybe the Greenpeace party? They could have my vote.

  9. Saarbo 9
    16 July 2013 at 10:23 pm

    Awesome…this is the sort of hard arsed tactics needed to expose this National Party, the MSM aren’t doing their job of exposing the truth so you just have to find another way…MORE PLEASE!

  10. Santi 10
    17 July 2013 at 6:55 am

    Greenpeace is as credible as Grant Robertson denying a leadership coup. Nothing to see here.

  11. IrishBill 11
    17 July 2013 at 7:49 am

    Classic headline:

    “Simon Bridges denies his pants are on fire”

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbpol/1742280717-simon-bridges-denies-his-pants-are-on-fire

    • s y d 11.1
      17 July 2013 at 9:28 am

      sigh….that article contains another glib lie – he ain’t a boy from Tauranga, just a national party blow in from Te Atatu…they just keep rolling off the tongue

  12. vto 12
    17 July 2013 at 8:16 am

    .
    Bridges bullshit

    Bridges bullshit

    Bridges bullshit

    Bridges the bullshitter

  13. Lefty 13
    17 July 2013 at 9:25 am

    Great job Greenpeace.

    It does make me wonder though: whatever happened to the fine old tradition of political graffitti.

    It is truly a sad measure of our lack of political engagement when the only signs of dissent are in paid advertising.

    In countries where there is still a strong sense that things can be changed every available blank public space is filled with political messaging.

    Its probably been partly replaced by Facebooking but this alone is not enough, the message needs to be in the face of the enemy.

    • Rosie 13.1
      17 July 2013 at 10:22 am

      Agreed Lefty. There has been long absence of clever political art, satire and graffiti in this town. The creative and free expression that used to be around has just disappeared over the years, along with any fight we once had in us. It needs to be there as a counter to the insipid and framed messages that people derive from the MSM. It needs to be there to challenge people’s belief they have in the lies they are told and it needs to be there to be a direct challenge to those who tell those lies.

      Speaking of MSM framing, heres a classic pro govt headline from stuffed.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8928503/Pants-on-fire-attack-on-minister

      So, Simon Bridges has been “attacked”. Do they ever say anything about Bridge’s attacks on democracy and his attacks of workers? No they don’t. They are apologists for this govt.

      Come back street artists. There’s no better time than now.

    • Draco T Bastard 13.2
      17 July 2013 at 2:51 pm

  14. Santi 14
    17 July 2013 at 9:31 am

    Didn’t Greenpeace say it was an apolitical organisation?
    No surprise the Charities Commission revoked its tax-free status, since they are an arm of the Green Party.

    • tracey 14.1
      17 July 2013 at 9:38 am

      Actually they won at the Court of Appeal.
      http://www.charities.govt.nz/assets/docs/registration/judgments/GreenpeaceNZIncmediarelease.pdf

      Can you cite some sources for “they are the arm of the Green Party”. Is the Employers federation an arm of the National Party? Or the Round Table? Notice how quiet the BRT is when National is in government?

      Santi do you support Ministers lying or misleading the electorate?

      • Veutoviper 14.1.1
        17 July 2013 at 10:25 am

        Well said, Tracey.

        As an aside, the Business Roundtable is no more. In 2012 it merged with the NZ Institute into the “New Zealand Initiative”.

        • framu 14.1.1.1
          17 July 2013 at 12:32 pm

          also – apolitical and charity are two completely different things

          you can be a charity with political leanings/affiliations

          you can be a lobby group that is apolitical

          can you see the difference santi?

  15. tracey 15
    17 July 2013 at 9:34 am

    When you’re leary
    Feeling pall
    When doubt is in your eyes
    I will lie to you all

    I’m on your side
    When polls get rough
    And truth just can’t be found
    Like a Bridge over polluted water
    I will lie me down
    Like a Bridge over polluted water
    I will lie me down

    When you’re down and out
    When you’re on the street
    When wages fall so hard
    I will lie to you

    I’ll make up a part
    When oil spills come
    And birds lie all around
    Like a Bridge over troubled water
    I will lie me down
    Like a Bridge over troubled water
    I will lie me down

    Drill on Corporate Oil,
    Drill on down
    Your time has come to scour
    All your profit is on the way

    See how they refine
    If you need a friend
    I’m lying right behind
    Like a Bridge over troubled water
    I will ease your way
    Like a Bridge over troubled water
    I will lie your way

  16. tracey 16
    17 July 2013 at 9:43 am

    “On a more serious note, he has denied any conspiracy and says he was not lobbied by anyone to change the law.”

    Note he doesn’t actually address the lie that the billboard raise, of him meeting with the oil industry.

    • Chris 16.1
      17 July 2013 at 10:11 am

      He is directly addressing it – he is accused of misleading parliament because he said he never meet with anyone from the oil industry to discuss the changes about protesting at sea. It then emerged he had met with Shell a couple of weeks before introducing those changes. His argument is that the meeting was not about those changes but about something else.

      If he can prove that that meeting did not discuss those changes there is no lie.

      Also, while it is likely that they did discuss it, it is also likely that nothing will come of the misleading parliament charge as the accusers will need to prove that he did discuss that with Shell and I can’t see how they will do that.

  17. Not a PS staffer 17
    17 July 2013 at 10:04 am

    Fomm the NZ Herald

    Bridges said he was “chuffed” about the billboard.

    “As a boy from Tauranga, I’ve always wanted my name up in lights in the big city. Now it’s happened and I managed to get Greenpeace to pay for it.”

    Another lie.
    Bridges has claimned to be a boy from Te Atatu and there was a billboard of him and Tau Henare for a public meeting about the “Local boy done well” story.

    Bridges is well done now

  18. tracey 18
    17 July 2013 at 10:20 am

    Chris, can we agree that it is highly unlikely he was not lobbied by anyone to change the law? I must say when Mr Key promised in 2008 to be transparent and to even answer questions he wasn’t asked (Paul Henry interview on Breakfast), I hoped we were seeing a turning point. We weren’t.

    “If he can prove that that meeting did not discuss those changes there is no lie.”

    And he hasn’t. He has denied the accusation which is different. Politicians denying accusations of lying or misleading the public is like a tour de france winner saying he is as appalled by other people taking drugs as everyone else but he is clean..

    As long as we, the public accept that if it is our “team’ doing the misleading, well, what can we do. As long as we see our government of preference about being on the winning or losing team, we are sunk.

    Family First says the decline in children being born into wedlock is a danger warning, I say accepting misleading, obsfucation and lie as “normal” behaviour in ALL our politicians we are sunk.

    • Chris 18.1
      17 July 2013 at 10:50 am

      I completely agree it is highly unlikely. The timing is all too convenient. I don’t agree with what he has done at all. My post was more to try and point out that the lie he is accused of was not that he met with petrol company representatives, he has already admitted that he did.

  19. tracey 19
    17 July 2013 at 10:28 am

    From wikipedia

    “Early life

    Simon Bridges was born in October 1976 in Auckland, the youngest of six children. His father, a Māori of Ngāti Maniapoto descent, was a Baptist Minister, and his mother, a NZ European from Waihi, was a primary school teacher. He is also related to former Labour Cabinet minister Koro Wētere.[1]

    Bridges grew up in Te Atatu, where he attended high school at Rutherford College. There, he was taught by future Labour Education Minister Chris Carter, and also became Head Boy of the college.[2][3] He went on to complete a BA in political science and history and an LLB (Hons) at the University of Auckland.
    Legal career

    Bridges began his legal career as a litigation lawyer at a major Auckland law firm, Kensington Swan.[2] He moved to Tauranga in 2001 to take up a position as a Crown prosecutor in the District and High Courts. During this time, he took leave to travel to the United Kingdom to study at the London School of Economics, and later to complete a postgraduate law degree at St Catherine’s College, Oxford; he also worked as an intern in the British House of Commons.[2] As a Crown prosecutor in Tauranga, Bridges mainly worked on jury trials.[4] Bridges ended his legal career in 2008, when he was nominated by the National Party to stand for election to the New Zealand Parliament.[5]
    Early political career

    Bridges became a member of the Young Nationals at the age of 16 and was elected Deputy New Zealand Chair in 1997. He was active in National’s West Auckland organisation as a member of Brian Neeson’s electorate team, whom he supported at the 2002 general election against a challenge by John Key for the National Party candidacy to contest the new seat of Helensville.[2] In the following years, he held several senior positions within the party, including sitting on the National Party rules committee and chairperson of the Tauranga National Party.[5]”

    • Veutoviper 19.1
      17 July 2013 at 12:55 pm

      “…During this time, he took leave to travel to the United Kingdom to study at the London School of Economics …”

      LOL. I wonder whether he studied under Prof Robert Wade, Bill English’s new “bestie” as discussed in the Truth Makes Them Angry post here?

      I somehow doubt that they (Bridges/Wade) share the same views!

    • muzza 19.2
      17 July 2013 at 1:23 pm

      One can see how the young agents life pans out, while receiving the obligatory rinse along the road.

      They are a familiar journey, one which inevitably leads back to home base, ready to take the order they were given, and having way cleared for them, to rule!

      Bridges actions betray NZ, that much is well established!

  20. Darien Fenton 20
    17 July 2013 at 10:40 am

    Brian Neeson. Pffffft! Says it all really.

  21. Steve Wrathall 21
    17 July 2013 at 10:55 am

    Being accused of telling porkies by Greenpeace is deep irony

  22. tsmithfield 22
    17 July 2013 at 12:34 pm

    Nonsense and misinformation is being propagated about the nature of the ban on protesting. For instance, from the article:

    31 March (Easter Sunday): Bridges publicly announces an amendment to the Crown Minerals Bill to ban protests at sea.

    What utter nonsense. Protesting at sea isn’t banned. Greenpeace can still go and protest in probably 99.999% of the sea without restriction.

    • McFlock 22.1
      17 July 2013 at 12:45 pm

      And the protests in the other 0.001%?

      Banned.
      Those protests would be at sea.
      So… well, you know the rest.

      • tsmithfield 22.1.1
        17 July 2013 at 12:48 pm

        As I understand it, protests can take place outside of 500 metres from a drilling site. That seems sensible from a health and safety perspective alone, and is still close enough to be seen making a point.

        I can well imagine that if a protester got injured or killed on a drilling site, then the very same people bleating about the current ban would start bleating that the government hadn’t passed any law to stop them getting into harms way.

        • Winston Smith 22.1.1.1
          17 July 2013 at 2:02 pm

          Oi! Don’t be bringing that kind of logic into this arguement.

          • McFlock 22.1.1.1.1
            17 July 2013 at 2:29 pm

            Indeed. Idiot’s logic.

            If protesters are close enough to endanger safety of themselves or others, this is covered by maritime law, OSH, and the crimes act. No arbitrary “500m”. And the RICO-esque seasoning on the law is clearly aimed at prosecuting organisations when there is absolutely no evidence that the organisation incited or participated in the “offence”.

        • Te Reo Putake 22.1.1.2
          17 July 2013 at 2:14 pm

          Quite right, TS. They’re allowed to protest as long as they don’t do so effectively. Very sensible.

          • tsmithfield 22.1.1.2.1
            17 July 2013 at 3:16 pm

            The problem is that such protests have impeded organisations from engaging in lawful activities in the past. Seems strange to me that they should be complaining about the government limiting their right to act lawfully when they attempt to do the same to other organisations. Hypocrites much.

            • Colonial Viper 22.1.1.2.1.1
              18 July 2013 at 6:23 pm

              Protests are a form of civil disobedience. Suck it up mate, that’s just the way it is.

        • Lloyd 22.1.1.3
          17 July 2013 at 9:26 pm

          And the ship can go anywhere it likes. The 500 metres keeps shifting. In other words the entire ocean is out of bounds for protest.

      • Bob 22.1.2
        18 July 2013 at 11:22 am

        So we have an Alcohol ban in NZ because some local councils have liquor bans in public areas?
        Pull your head in.

        • Murray Olsen 22.1.2.1
          18 July 2013 at 6:16 pm

          Even with all our earthquakes, local council areas move around a little less than ships at sea. Not a sailor, are you Bob?

    • felix 22.2
      17 July 2013 at 3:05 pm

      I’m getting tired of all the “nonsense and misinformation” being propagated about it being illegal to take mind altering drugs in this country.

      People complain that they’re only affecting their own body and mind so what business is it of anyone else.

      What nonsense. Substances aren’t banned. People can probably still partake of 99.999% of all the consumable substances in the world without restriction.

      • tsmithfield 22.2.1
        17 July 2013 at 4:02 pm

        Except your logic doesn’t follow. I was objecting to the claim that protests had been banned at sea, which is clearly not the gase.

        To follow logically, you would need to say:

        I am getting tired of all the “nonsense and misinformation” being propagated about consuming substances being banned in this country.

        Perhaps you would like to reword your argument starting at that position.

      • tracey 22.2.2
        17 July 2013 at 4:10 pm

        Yes. People must only protest unlawful activity

  23. captain hook 23
    17 July 2013 at 2:22 pm

    I haven’t seen so much grease on a billboard since the last close up of Elvis Presleys hair do.

    • Santi 23.1
      17 July 2013 at 2:37 pm

      I believe it’s excellent propaganda for Bridges, who will easily win the seat (again).
      Keep at it Redpeace, sorry, Greenpeace.

  24. Penny Bright 24
    17 July 2013 at 3:55 pm

    GREAT work Greenpeace!

    Well done.
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    Our #PantsOnFire billboard has caused quite a stir in Wellington .. but Simon Bridges MP has so far failed to clear his name in response to allegations that he mislead Parliament and New Zealand over his dealings with Shell regarding the controversial Crown Minerals Bill amendment and law changes around protest at sea … http://act.gp/18mj1DH

    And he says that we can deal with an oil spill. We can’t.

    He also said that he thought the photo was good and he was chuffed to have his own billboard in Wellington… http://goo.gl/ygdSw

    #AnadarkoAmendment
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    This is a form of ‘corrupt practice’ known as ‘State capture’ – where vested interests lobby for the legislation that serves their interests at the ‘policy’ stage, before the legislation is passed.

    In my considered opinion as an ‘anti-corruption’ campaigner – this is a form of ‘grand’ corruption which is endemic in corrupt, polluted tax haven – New Zealand (aka ‘the least corrupt country in the world’ ).

    (Check out the Regulatory Impact Statements / Reports and see who has been ‘consulted’? )

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption /anti-privatisation’ campaigner

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

  25. tsmithfield 25
    17 July 2013 at 4:21 pm

    I really don’t understand all the whining and bleating about the law being changed to limit protest.

    Organisations such as Greenpeace display very little regard for the law when it comes to inhibiting the rights of others to engage in lawful activity. So why complain and bleat about it when the government acts to limit the lawful right of protest? Surely its just a case of them not liking it when the boot is on the other foot.

    Since these organisations often display little regard for the law anyway, then why not just ignore the 500 metre law and accept the consequences? All this whining and bleating doesn’t impress me at all. Or is it just that we have fairweather protestors here who will only protest when everything is in their favour?

    • richard 25.1
      17 July 2013 at 4:31 pm

      I really don’t understand all the whining and bleating about the law being changed to limit protest.

      That is the whole point.
      – The law is being changed to limit protest.
      – The law is being changed to try to limit the effectiveness of protest.
      – The law is being changed to try to muzzle protest.
      – The law is being changed to try to limit peoples’ rights to defend the values they believe in.

      • tsmithfield 25.1.1
        17 July 2013 at 4:36 pm

        Yet organisations such as Greenpeace are very happy to do the same in trying to limit the ability of other organisations to go about their lawful activities.

        You are making a lot of assumptions about why the government has changed the law in this respect.

        Perhaps the government is trying to ensure the rights of organisations to act lawfully are properly balanced, so that the rights of one doesn’t infringe on the rights of the other. Do you think?

  26. Frank Macskasy 26
    17 July 2013 at 4:58 pm

    Yet organisations such as Greenpeace are very happy to do the same in trying to limit the ability of other organisations to go about their lawful activities.

    “Lawful” does not always make it right, TS. A bad law can have dire consequences for all of us – you included.

    • tsmithfield 26.1
      17 July 2013 at 6:16 pm

      Absolutely. But the rights to protest are already balanced against the rights of others. For example, I couldn’t lawfully break into your house to protest against something. So, there isn’t anything particularly unusual about legislating to ensure that competing rights are balanced equitably.

      • MrSmith 26.1.1
        17 July 2013 at 7:28 pm

        “I couldn’t lawfully break into your house to protest against something.”

        Good comparison TS Not.

        This law change is just another attack on people/organizations being able to organize a protest, but you know that TS.

      • Frank Macskasy 26.1.2
        17 July 2013 at 8:31 pm

        “Breaking into my house”?!

        Not a good comparison at all, TS. (Unless my stereo is blaring at 3am in the morning and Noise Control is nowhere to be seen.)

        And really, when you’re refering to “the rights to protest are already balanced against the rights of others”, that’s code for neutering the ability of protesters to carry out effective protest.

  27. Viv K 27
    17 July 2013 at 7:38 pm

    ‘I couldn’t break into your house’. Not a valid comparison. What if you were arrested for going within half a km of someone’s house. Being arrested for protesting in a neighbouring suburb.

    • tsmithfield 27.1
      17 July 2013 at 8:02 pm

      So, should the line be drawn anywhere so far as protest against legal activities is concerned. If so, where?

      • Frank Macskasy 27.1.1
        17 July 2013 at 8:34 pm

        Now that’s an excellent question, Ts.

        And to be honest with you, it’s not an easy one to answer…

        All, I can say is that it depends on the situation. Personally speaking, I doubt I’d be involved in any protest that involved violence that threatened peoples’ lives.

        • tsmithfield 27.1.1.1
          17 July 2013 at 8:40 pm

          So, it seems we both agree the line should be drawn somewhere. The answer is therefore going to be a subjective one. So, a 500 metre limit isn’t necessarily wrong. As you say, it depends on the situation.

          There are other instances where boundaries are set for protests. For instance, when protestors are kept behind barriers when visiting VIPs visit and the like. So, it is not without precedent.

          • felix 27.1.1.1.1
            18 July 2013 at 6:43 pm

            The onus is always on those who want to curtail freedom, not the other way around.

      • Armchair Critic 27.1.2
        17 July 2013 at 8:46 pm

        Making legal protest illegal needs to be justified. Whether the protest is against something that is legal or illegal, undertaken by individuals, companies or government is irrelevant. If there is no reasonable basis for changing the status of legal protest, then it shouldn’t be changed. Pretending that the target of the protest has something to do with it is at best misleading.

        • tsmithfield 27.1.2.1
          17 July 2013 at 9:06 pm

          It seems that the 500 metre limit is a secondary offence that seems related to the tendency of some protesters to sabotage and interfere with legitimate activities. I don’t believe that sort of activity would qualify as legal protest, especially if it compromised safety.

          So, perhaps the protesters have brought the 500 metre limit on themselves due to past behaviour.

  28. Lloyd 28
    17 July 2013 at 9:30 pm

    One could argue that the protests haven’t been effective enough so the stupid behaviour they are protesting about continues and sane people have to continue to protest. In this case its the stupid behaviour that has caused the draconian law to be introduced.

  29. Foreign Waka 29
    17 July 2013 at 9:53 pm

    Sad to watch a country being internationally admired for its will to stand up against terrorists that blew up the Rainbow Warrior, introducing anti nuclear legislation, having designated National Parks that are the envy of so many, being a bacon of sanity – albeit sometimes hard fought for. And then, within a relative short time, such reputation is not just diminished but by will of individual interest a country is fast moving towards something quite unimaginable – spying on people, corporate sponsorship of gaming halls, legal synthetic garbage, collaboration with international corporations to amend civil liberty laws etc.. sad, really sad.

  30. tsmithfield 30
    17 July 2013 at 9:55 pm

    I guess that a justification for protest is that it wins the hearts and minds of the public. It seems that the more extreme versions of protest haven’t achieved that objective.

Links to post