Trotter still promoting riots

Chris Trotter continues to promote riots and other actions in another suggestive and provocative post at The Daily Blog, while trying to build blame of the police in advance.

A “Menu” Of Protest: Confronting Riot Police shouldn’t be the only protest option on 4 February

BUT…

He suggests some non-violent alternatives but first details a number of Springbok tour protest actions.

For the most militant, there were “Special Ops”. Some of these involved small bands of protesters taking out the television signal relay-stations essential to broadcasting the games live. Other groups blocked motorways, ran onto airport runways, and immobilised the public transport services essential for getting Rugby fans to the match venue.

This could be seen more as suggestions for the next week or two more than reminiscing about the past.

Perhaps the most famous of these “Special Ops” came on the final day of the Tour when a light aircraft made repeated runs over the Third Test, at Eden Park, dropping flour-bombs on Springbok and All Black alike!

Participants in these operations knew and accepted the risk of being arrested, tried and convicted. The flour-bomber of Eden Park, Marx Jones, spent eight months in prison for his spectacular protest. John Minto was sentenced to six months jail for blockading Rotorua Airport. Special Ops were not for the faint-hearted!

Trotter may think it was spectacular but it was also illegal and quite dangerous. There had been attempt to crash a light plane earlier in the tour.

The most militant opponents of the Tour were able to plan and execute radical protest actions of which HART remained entirely ignorant.

There is probably insufficient time for the anti-TPPA movement to develop a similar menu of protest actions against the signing of the TPPA on 4 February. “It’s Our Future” appears to be a much less structured organisation than HART, which boasted its own National Council for determining the anti-Apartheid movement’s strategic and tactical priorities.

There seems to be quite a bit of signalling and promoting here of ‘radical protest actions’.

Some consideration should, nevertheless, be given to the problem created by the Police’s announcement that it has been engaged for some time in “Public Order Training” – a.k.a. Riot Control. There will be many “Middle New Zealanders” reconsidering their level of commitment to the anti-TPPA cause in the light of this information. Very few will want to risk either themselves of their families by participating in a demonstration where that sort of heavy-handed policing is in prospect.

It only takes ‘very few’ to do something stupid and dangerous.

And Trotter along with others appears to be trying to build blame of the police for anything violent that might occur, while trying to promote an opportunity to “execute radical protest actions”.

Something for Jane Kelsey and her comrades to think about. Because, this time, it’s not the rights and freedoms of Black South Africans that New Zealanders are fighting for – it’s their own.

The TPPA is nothing like apartheid – although some are trying to promote a racial divide.

Trotterski appears to long for protests of the past to be rise again and precipitate his revolution. Even mild writers can provoke dangerous actions, or try to.

The TPPA protests are quite different to rugby supporters versus apartheid protesters.

Discrimination against blacks in South Africa was seen as vile by many people – even by many rugby supporters.

A trade agreement is hardly going to provoke the same emotions, despite the provocations of old campaigners like Trotter.

Leave a comment

66 Comments

  1. henry

     /  26th January 2016

    Trotter is an idiot, anything to stay relevant .

    Reply
    • Timoti

       /  26th January 2016

      Thank god we are relevant, Henry. The thought of being a fading star like Trotter is horrible to contemplate.

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  26th January 2016

        Trotter yearns for ‘the good ole days’ when poverty was real & not manufactured, people didn’t have the internet to better inform themselves on so-called ‘news’, and the country was held to ransom by crook unions.

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  26th January 2016

        why on earth do you think being an ‘Uncle Tim’ makes you relevant?

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  26th January 2016

          Relevant to what ?

          Reply
          • Timoti

             /  26th January 2016

            Bloser is upset. Relevant to Trotter. Guess whose more relevant? And by inference Bloser worked out he’s also worthless. Crash goes the ego.

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  26th January 2016

              I doubt that-someone in his position (I assume that by Bloser you mean Groser and fear that this not very funny play on words, if it can be dignified with that descriptiion, is going to be used over and over until it dies of old age) is not going to take much notice of an unknown blogger like you.

              Something can’t be more relevant-it needs to be relevant to something. By itself the word is meaningless.

  2. Blazer

     /  26th January 2016

    ‘it only takes ‘very few’ to do something stupid and dangerous.’…it sure does…Key,Groser and the compliant Nats should be ashamed of themselves.

    Reply
  3. Oliver

     /  26th January 2016

    The TPPA is much much bigger then apartheid. That’s not to say that that the people that protested weren’t heroic(the should be given recognition for their acts of bravery) but tppa will be a fight for freedom. We will undermine the TPPA with courage and integrity. Our grandfather’s didn’t fight for freedom only to have corporatist take it away.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  26th January 2016

      Might pay if you actually use your own mind Oliver and research some FACTS in how the TPPA does/doesn’t affect us rather than just repeat mindless leftie spin and rhetoric……..(by the way that 2nd bridge we have organized for you is almost ready for your purchase…..2nd coat just needs to dry).

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  26th January 2016

        oh the irony!What ‘facts’ are you referring to?

        Reply
      • Oliver

         /  26th January 2016

        If you want to understand the TPPA then I suggest you listen to Jane Kelsey. She is one of the very few people who has read the trade agreement, and being a lawyer she can comprehend the content better than most. She is also neutral unlike MSM repeater stations who can’t even comprehend what’s written in the book “spot the dog” let along a legal document.

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  26th January 2016

          Oliver: “She is also neutral” – If you believe that statement regarding far-left wing Prof Kelsey then we better get a third bridge ready………

          Take her Wikipedia page for instance: “She is a key member of the Action Resource Education Network of Aotearoa (Arena), and is actively involved in researching and speaking out against the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, free trade and corporate-led globalisation”.

          Yep – she’s ‘neutral’ when reporting on the TPPA……..

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  26th January 2016

            She doesn’t have any financial interest in this deal and that’s what makes her neutral. She has nothing to gain nothing to loose. Unlike the corporatist who control the corporate media and the corporate government, who have lots of money to gain and lots of money to loose. Think about the big picture. Don’t let your political preferences cloud your judgement.

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  26th January 2016

              Kelsey’s whole life’s work & career has been built on opposing things like the TPPA and you think she has nothing to gain or lose if the TPPA goes through and she is proven to be wrong in all her assumptions & propaganda?? Please…….Kelsey was against the TPPA BEFORE she had any information about it – hardly neutral then is she.

            • Blazer

               /  26th January 2016

              Ford Motor Co in the U.S.A are against it too….whats their excuse?

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  26th January 2016

              Ford motor co? Protectionism obviously……..what about that highly esteemed & prominent New Zealand left-winger Helen Clark being pro-TPPA eh? Her opinion doesn’t count?

            • Blazer

               /  26th January 2016

              Clark as previously mentioned has ambition and needs to be onside with yanKey and the U.S. re Ford the issue is currency controls.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  26th January 2016

              So Aunty Helen’s opinion doesn’t count, even though she is a former PM of this country who the left-wingers loved as ‘straight-up’ and honest, due to the fact she is now a liar………funny that

            • Blazer

               /  26th January 2016

              Clark being in favour does not make her a liar.Her endorsement was conditional on ‘benefits’ to NZ as I guess you know.No benefits,no support.

            • kittycatkin

               /  26th January 2016

              How ingenuous (or not) to declare that because someone has no financial interest in something, that means that they are neutral. It doesn’t follow at all.

        • Rob

           /  26th January 2016

          IMHO, We need a bipartisan group who can go through this and give honest and open iterpetations in laymens terms so that those of us who have a genuine interest can understand and perhaps come to our own reasonable conclusions as to what it means to us all. We really need to stop the bickering over something that most can not really understand.

          Reply
        • Timoti

           /  26th January 2016

          “If you want to understand the TPPA then I suggest you listen to Jane Kelsey”

          Oliver, you are around the twist. Oliver Twist?

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  26th January 2016

            Jane Kelsey professor of law who has read and has the expertise to understand what’s written. And you? Still struggling with the lunch menu. Why don’t you tell us what’s in it and where she is misleading us because you’re giving us the impression that because she is a ‘leftie’ she has some reason to lie about it.

            Reply
            • Timoti

               /  26th January 2016

              Lol.. “Still struggling with the lunch menu”

            • Rob

               /  26th January 2016

              And? Gonna read it and tell us what it’s all about? Or are you still looking for the potatoe on the menu. C’mon Timoti, you’re big noting telling us how the lefties are full of shit. Educate us with your expertise. Please

            • Timoti

               /  26th January 2016

              Now you are becoming rude. Pour a cool one and stop snivelling. Glad to see you spelt potatoe right. Try putting a full stop at the end of please…although it looks like an after thought. Probably like you.

            • Rob

               /  26th January 2016

              C’mon big noter. Put your money where your mouth is.

            • Timoti

               /  26th January 2016

              Rob, the whole day there have only been three people on this site. I don’t big note until I have an audience, or am bored. Do you honestly think I would waste unnecessary space on you? Have a makeover, and go back to Whale oil or the Standard.

            • Rob

               /  26th January 2016

              Got nothing have you. Go figure.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  26th January 2016

              What were you two fighting over again??

            • Rob

               /  27th January 2016

              @ Timoti
              “Rob, the whole day there have only been three people on this site.” I count at least 8 in this thread alone. You can’t count?

              Is this you?

            • Timoti

               /  27th January 2016

              TIMOTI SAID I ONLY HAVE A FACE MY MUMMA COULD LOVE, AND A SPLIT PERSONALITY THAT TALKS TO ITSELF FOR RELEVANCE. HA, WHAT WOULD HE KNOW?

              ANYWAY, I LEAST I KEEP A TRACK OF HOW MANY THREADS THERE ARE… BET THAT DUMMY DOESN’T.

            • Rob

               /  27th January 2016

              you’ve got a split personality? I never would have guessed.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  26th January 2016

              Put it simply:

              1. The only treaty Kelsey has ever liked is the ToW.

              2. If she was really an expert on trade agreements she would have been roped into the negotiating team.

            • Rob

               /  26th January 2016

              I’m not she’s an expert. What I’m saying is she understands the legal language she is reading. Misinterpretation? Perhaps, but I’d personally like to know, as would many I’m sure, what it is we are getting ourslves into. Trust? Well…..

            • Rob

               /  26th January 2016

              I’m not saying she’s an expert. Need an edit button.

            • I think we need to know more, but Kelsey isn’t an independent source. It would be good to get a balanced explanation and analysis.

            • Rob

               /  26th January 2016

              “…..a bipartisan group who can go through this and give honest and open iterpetations in laymens terms….” is what I’d like to see.

            • There’s no way a bipartisan group would do anything but play politics. From all the accounts I have seen in the likes of NBR it is a modest step forward and few adverse impacts are likely.. Details: http://beehive.govt.nz/sites/all/files/TPP-Q&A-Oct-2015.pdf
              And: http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/Trans-Pacific%20Partnership%20National%20Interest%20Analysis,%2025Jan2016.pdf

            • Blazer

               /  27th January 2016

              neither of those statements is factual or logical…quelle surprise!

    • kittycatkin

       /  26th January 2016

      I would have thought that the fight against apartheid was as much of a fight for freedom as any one is likely encounter-TPPA doesn’t come into that category at all. Under apartheid, one race had virtually no rights in their own country. Read about it, and then decide if free trade is anything like this when it comes to freedom.

      Reply
  4. Peaceful protest – sounds great. Winding up the less controlled among the anti TTP brigade in this manner is bordering on incitement. its all very cute and as we know the ends justify the means for dedicated revolutionaries.

    I just hope no one does anything dumb, pushes the coppers to far and gets a baton to the head. But judging by the rabble Sue Bradford mobilises I suspect some claret will be spilt.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  26th January 2016

      What you end up with is like the Springbok tour when a whole lot of people join in, not for the cause, but for the fun of having a riot/fight a few cops/vandalise something etc

      Reply
      • True PDB – a bit violence turns some people on.

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  26th January 2016

        yes the vehement condemnation of those brave protesters against apartheid was shameful.History proved how righteous the protesters were and here we go again…courage against surrender to U.S hegemony.

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  26th January 2016

          Your reading comprehension isn’t too good Blazer – I wasn’t saying the real anti-apartheid protesters didn’t have a reason to protest, what I was saying however was that a lot of people jumped on the bandwagon to have some fun and bash a few cops. I saw with my own eyes gang members hitting the streets to have some ‘fun’ and was in-and-around groups who couldn’t care less about apartheid but did enjoy a good old riot & a chance to ‘stick it’ to authority and/or the govt. Was there any reason to overturn cars and damage private property of innocent people?

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  26th January 2016

            about as much ‘reason’ as bashing members of the public with truncheons I dare say!

            Reply
  5. mrMan

     /  26th January 2016

    http://www.michaelgeist.ca

    A Canadian professor of law, looks at the TPP, a different topic everyday until it’s signed. Up to day 16. Read and learn.

    Reply
  6. Oliver

     /  26th January 2016

    There has been talk of MP’s doing a walk out in parliament in protest to the undemocratic way John Key has handled the TPPA. I think things are about to get very interesting over the next few days. I will be stocking up on supplies.

    Reply
    • Rob

       /  26th January 2016

      There was a vid posted in here awhile back about the TPP and the TPPA. if I remember it was from wikileaks. Anyone got the link by chance.

      Reply
  7. Goldie

     /  26th January 2016

    Oliver/Rob:

    I am trying to work out exactly what it is that is so bad about the TPP – and from what I can tell from your comments it is fear of rapacious global corporations.

    I assume you are consistent and also advocate New Zealand withdraw from the China FTA, the Korea FTA, the Australia CER, and the Chile-Singapore FTA (who have big corporations which could considered even more rapacious and aggressive than US corporates)?

    And if you are opposed to corporations, what do you do about some New Zealand corporations? If you are a Canadian dairy farmer, Fonterra is a global corporation that threatens Canadian jobs. If you are a Japanese beef farmer, New Zealand meat exporters are aggressively competitive large scale corporations. Xero is a New Zealand corporation which has put out of work thousands of accountants. What do you intend to do about these NZ-based corporations?

    Or is it that there is something uniquely awful about the US? If so, what is so horrible about the US in particular?

    Reply
    • Rob

       /  26th January 2016

      My comments? I haven’t seen nor read read the document and I’m not prepared to ‘pick a side’ so to speak without understanding the connotations. As I’ve said i’d like to see a bipartisan report in laymens terms. I think that is a fair compromise from all sides. Telling me she’s a leftie doesn’t cut it. Have you read and UNDERSTOOD The TPPA? If not then you can form an uninformed opinion but that’s all.

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  26th January 2016

        I think what this shows is that certain people automatically assume that a National govt is not working in the country’s best interests in any trade deal. This to me is outrageous – I’m no fan of Labour but never have I assumed that a Labour or National govt has ever signed any foreign agreement that was detrimental to it’s citizens. Wild conspiracy theories about the USA influencing us etc doesn’t cut it. New Zealand’s (and Australia’s) highly-trained negotiators would have got the best deal they could utilising ALL the available information. You either have faith in them and our democratic system or you go the other route that says all govts (including ours) are corrupt and can’t be trusted. I know whose side I am on.

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  26th January 2016

          It would surely be political suicide for ANY government to deliberately sabotage their country-and it should be. What possible motivation could they have ? It would be easier and cheaper to just not stand in the next election, they might as well-no matter who they were, National, Labour or anyone else.

          Reply
        • Rob

           /  26th January 2016

          I think people are worried about corporations getting to much say in the law of the land so to speak. There was a vid posted that shows what happened when some govts wished to package smokes in plain packaging for instance. Supposedly because of an agreement such as TPPA they couldn’t and were successfully sued by tobacco cos to stop them. If I remember correctly. Wasn’t paying attention as I was busy. Need to find the vid. Just an example.

          Reply
      • Rob: “I think people are worried about corporations getting to much say in the law of the land so to speak. ”

        1. Foreign corporations do not get a say in the law of the land. Laws are passed by a democratically elected parliament.

        2. Governments can still introduce policies for legitimate public interest. The NZ government can bring in anti-tobacco laws if there is a legitimate public interest basis – the key is they cannot discriminate between domestic and foreign companies. An example was the recent government decision to reject an application by a Chinese company to purchase land. The Chinese company had no basis to sue the NZ government under the terms of the FTA, because the decision was made according to open public interest criteria and not according to whether the applicants were Chinese. Do you understand?

        3. Investor dispute processes are standard in all FTAs – FTAs would be pointless without them. The investor dispute process explicitly states that an unsuccessful plaintiff bears the full costs, which acts as a huge deterrent. In any case, most businesses avoid pissing off governments.

        4. NZ has never had a foreign company take a case against the government under a FTA. Internationally such cases are very rare.

        5. The TPP in no way undermines NZ sovereignty. A future government is free to leave the TPP.

        Reply
        • Goldie

           /  27th January 2016

          For those who downticked me – can you please point to which of my 5 points is factually incorrect?

          Has opposition to the TPP become so unhinged?

          Like so many ex-Labour liberals, I find myself shaking my head and walking away from the craziness that grips the left these days. If you really believe that TPP undermines our sovereignty, you either (a) do not know what the word means; (b) are like Grant Robertson and being unprincipled to rark up the base; or (c) batshit insane.

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  27th January 2016

            Some idiots come in and down vote everything. Losers.

            Reply
          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  27th January 2016

            “5. The TPP in no way undermines NZ sovereignty. A future government is free to leave the TPP”

            This here is the key fact that undermines all of the anti-TPPA rhetoric – even once signed we can always pull out of the TPPA at any stage for any reason.

            If Labour/Greens are so anti-TPPA why don’t they just come out and say if elected next year they will just pull out of the agreement? Surely if the weight of public opinion is behind them then such a policy is a ‘slam-dunk’ in terms of winning the next election?

            Problem for Labour is that they actually support the TPPA but their own self-interests stop them openly supporting anything a National govt does. This was further shown in Andrew Little’s disastrous interview on red radio where he repeatedly failed to answer the simple question as to whether he supported the TPPA or not. Little even suggested that being in opposition meant you should always join in stirring up debate regardless if you were ultimately ‘for’ the thing you were protesting about.

            Once signed the TPPA will be a non-issue as nothing bad will happen & people will remain unaffected. Instead the stories will be all about reduced tariffs and new business opportunities for New Zealand business. This is why Labour are ultimately in favour of the TPPA as being against it in election year will see them with egg on their face.

            Reply
          • @ Goldie – “can you please point to which of my 5 points is factually incorrect?”

            Sure can! 1) Foreign corporations do not get a say in the law of the land. Laws are passed by a democratically elected parliament.

            I think this is about the most politically naive statement I’ve seen in ages, including several I have made myself! I cannot prove it – you haven’t specifically asked for proof – but I firmly believe foreign corporations get a say in the law of New Zealand, BIG TIME! They may have always done? They certainly have since 1984 IMO.

            @ KCK – “the fight against apartheid was as much of a fight for freedom as any one is likely encounter-TPPA doesn’t come into that category at all. Under apartheid, one race had virtually no rights in their own country”.

            Below is what I think the concern is, and I freely admit it is very difficult to define exactly and may be impossible to prove. What we do know, eg from “The Shock Doctrine” and many other critiques of “neoliberalism” is before neoliberalism average CEO in England earned 10 times the average wage, afterwards 100 times. In the USA, 43 times before, 400 times after. So many statistics like this, while low wages remain static or decrease, inequality and poverty increase worldwide. Hence –

            The fight against Global Corporate Totalitarianism is as much a fight for freedom as anyone will ever encounter, every bit as much as the fight against apartheid – and TPP fits into this category perfectly. Under Global Corporate Totalitarianism, ONE CLASS – the international neofeudal “peasant” worker – has virtually no rights on THEIR OWN PLANET.

            At the end of “The Shock Doctrine” Naomi Klein says, “We must make them change”. She does not mean rioting. She means making the Social Democratic argument too strong to resist. Rioting has never achieved anything except to give the incumbent “authorities” – the expanded “security State” – the excuse they need to “clamp down” or declare a “state of emergency”. In other words, the perfect excuse to invoke “disaster capitalism” and use “the shock doctrine” on their own citizens. Te Whiti, Gandhi and others knew this. Violence around the TPP signing can only make things worse.

            @ Goldie – “If you are a Canadian dairy farmer, Fonterra is a global corporation that threatens Canadian jobs. If you are a Japanese beef farmer, New Zealand meat exporters are aggressively competitive large scale corporations” – Absolutely correct. We might recall that these were the very industries in the very countries that held out til the very last in TPP negotiations. What a terrible thing to try to protect your own country’s farmers? I wonder why we don’t do that? (Because our local market isn’t large enough, we are dependent on exports, right?)

            And I wonder what changed Canada and Japan’s minds?

            Now we will absolutely have to stay “competitive” right? And when all other costs are minimized, all efficiencies implemented and as many tasks as possible mechanised – reducing labour demand – there will only be one cost left to cut, the cost of New Zealand labour? (Whatever requirement of it remains?)

            TPP will get signed. It may be a positive or negative thing or a non-event.
            I don’t know. We will find out, won’t we? This is certain.
            But I CAN ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, that’s all I’m saying.

            Reply
        • Blazer

           /  27th January 2016

          For a start this is NOT a Free Trade Agreement.Why do you think it is?There are 30 chapters…how many deal with ‘free trade’?

          Reply
      • Rob: “Have you read and UNDERSTOOD The TPPA? ”

        Read it yourself Rob. Text is available at: http://tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text, and a reasonably intelligent person can understand it. Chapters 2-8 and 25 are the guts of it.
        If you want a good summary, have a look at: https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_factsheet_Goods-Market-Access.pdf

        I hope this helps.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s