by Russel Norman
Just had a call from the Police.
They say the Chinese Government delegation won’t cooperate with their investigation into the Chinese security service’s assault against me so the police won’t press charges, at this point. The Chinese delegation refuse to identify the individuals involved so the police won’t charge anyone.
The Chinese Government delegation leave the country in the morning.
So when the police say they have “insufficient evidence” it is because the Chinese Government delegation refuse to talk to the police and to assist them in identifying the individuals involved.
Update – looking at this photo below it is pretty clear that one of them is grabbing me while the other is grabbing the flag, and it’s not that hard to identify them.
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Featured by Russel Norman on Fri, June 18th, 2010
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
yah. Provide your reasons please. One would think...
Can’t the Police get their identities from Immigration? Surely they presented passports when they came into the country. :\
Like or Dislike:
6 
8 (-2)
The 12-15 security guards you say roughed you up are nowhere to be seen. The pushing and grabbing of suits looks like it’s mainly coming from you.
During most of the tv footage there was one Chinese official and he had his back to you until you grabbed him by his suit.
You risk a huge amount to NZ trade deals and our countries reputation so you can score points in a cheap publicity stunt.
As for the rediculous charges of assualt and to stop the Chinese leaving the country – you should watch 8 year olds play soccer on a Saturday morning. The scrapes and grazes are far worse than the speck of blood on your hand.
You WERE the green voice of pragmatism and reason – what happened?
Like or Dislike:
29 
26 (+3)
1. Peaceful protest in my view does not include baggering the opposition…
2. Even if the delegation did reveal the individuals I’d probably expect them to be able to get away on diplomatic immunity…or threat of invasion or worse , the end of the FTA deal!
3. You should know what you’re gonna get if you try to tangle with a Politburo Exec and Ceremonial VP of the 2nd( very soon to be 1st) most powerful nation on the Planet…
4. come on Mr Norman MP, I know Tibet is a very fun topic to bagger the Chinese govt with but couldn’t you have chosen a topic where they’d be prepared to sit down and listen? Tibet to China is what Whaling is to Japan really…neither want to give it up…it did look a little embarrassing for NZ to be honest…in both ways…that you got shafted by the Chinese Government while yelling at them on a goodwill mission to their favourite new outpost (think about how this incident might impact any future relations you as a possible future minister may have with China in any capacity) and in the eyes of the world that condones your actions…you didn’t have too much of a show really…they just nicked your flag, coupled with some pushes and went off…and there wasn’t even a nice crowd of protesters to back you…
as I said just some thoughts on how I’ve viewed this incidental unravel…as John Key said, he wasn’t there and neither was I or many others so we have to take your word or theirs or the media, …the Speaker I think is probably telling a little fib on not seeing the scuffle however, maybe for the best though..
Like or Dislike:
17 
14 (+3)
It’s not actually pragmatic and reasonable to place economic interests ahead of the place of human rights in international relations. That is simply the choice that you favour. It’s the short-term option, similar to despoiling the natural environment for profit at the expense of the longer term sustainability. Values are enduring.
For example New Zealand producers pragmatically and reasonably respond to the consumer market in Europe’s concerns about the sustainability of the sources of their products and while Chinese consumers can be easily incited to nationalism (including on Tibet and Taiwan), they would appreciate the right to protest being developed further in their own country.
Like or Dislike:
16 
7 (+9)
Like or Dislike:
10 
5 (+5)
Like or Dislike:
12 
6 (+6)
Me too.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
“We dont have the right. . .”
“They wouldn’t listen . . .”
“They are soooo… powerful”
“They (Tibetans) are better off under Chinese (Oppressive, foreign) rule”
“He’s a dick, he’s a nut” (This is what they call civil rights activists in China too)
“MP’s shouldn’t demonstrate”
Are NZer’s really this passionless?
Like or Dislike:
17 
6 (+11)
Norman – get real you were the aggressor – peacful protest is nowhere to be seen – Your predecessor knew what that meant and did it- you will never be half the man he was and now Fitzy has gone the green party is just a leaderless rabble
Like or Dislike:
13 
22 (-9)
You might like to watch the video footage again.
Like or Dislike:
14 
9 (+5)
Russel, the security that surrounds the VP of China are of the highest level, in this post 9/11 world of terrorist threats. For instance on Thursday women journos were not allowed to take their lip gloss into the VP’s press conference. The security are trained to spot threats & deal with them directly. Not being Kiwis, they would be unfamiliar with most NZ MP’s, not that it would have mattered anyway. Holding any flag infront of yourself in close proximity to the VP would represent the possibility of a concealed threat. I can understand you were shocked by what transpired, as no one wants to be man handled. But your right to protest in NZ is balanced by the VP’s right to be protected by his security.
Like or Dislike:
10 
11 (-1)
One ‘l’ russel imposter boy@10:18
You’re a bore.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6 (0)
Like or Dislike:
12 
9 (+3)
Instead you got what looks to be a light nudge, when screaming from two meters away from one of the most powerful people in the world.
Anyway, the Greens no longer have any moral authority over their support of Human Rights because they vote against them when given the chance.
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/BD654F54-E941-452C-8DAD-DA22CB87665D/141085/49SCES_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL9320_1_A40747_NewZealandLaw.pdf
Like or Dislike:
13 
10 (+3)
Are you the spelling mafia greenfly? that must be quite boring having to correct everybody- My name is spelt how I spell it not how you think it should be spelt get back to destroying roses
Like or Dislike:
1 
8 (-7)
And contrary to what anyone says, peaceful protest dos include badgering the opposition. The supreme court ruled recently after an animal rights protest that protesters had a perfect right to yell things, even things that other people don’t like. If the Chinese number two is so insensitive that he cannot take any criticism then I respectfully suggest he should have chosen another career apart from politics.
While provoking the opposition is not illegal, taking property is. It is called theft. And pushing people around is also illegal. It is called assault.
Like or Dislike:
13 
9 (+4)
Dr Norman’s protest was in contrast to that of the late former co-leader of the Greens, Rod Donald, in 2005 against Wu Bangguo, chairman of the National People’s Congress.
Mr Donald’s was a silent protest and he sought advice from the Speaker at the time about where to stand – some distance from his target.
New Zealand security and police stood with Mr Donald and refused to let Chinese security stand in front of him and the Tibetan flag he was holding.
Dr Norman was jostled as he held the flag aloft and moved chanting towards Mr Xi, arriving at Parliament’s Beehive entrance.
He was a metre or two from him.
One of at least two dozen officials travelling with Mr Xi covered the flag with his umbrella.
Seconds later someone grabbed the flag from him and dropped it.
Dr Norman stopped chanting “Freedom for the people of Tibet!” and started yelling “Give me my flag back” and “Don’t bring your undemocratic practices to our country”.
Like or Dislike:
13 
6 (+7)
Oliver, Are you saying that the confiscation of the flag occured this time because Russel Norman did not have police protection and Rod Donald did. And that the Speaker did not know about the protest this time so could not arrange the said protection?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Oliver, well, you did claim that the Greens voted against human rights whenever they were given the chance.
Your only supporting link was a Law Society submission to parliament, on one issue, in which it conceded asssessing whether something was in breach of New Zealand’s human rights legislation was a matter for parliament.
“The weight of international jurisprudence supports the view that the right to freedom of association includes the right not to be compelled to join an association. Compulsory membership of students’ associations under the Act therefore limits the right to freedom of
association under s17 of NZBORA. Nevertheless, the ultimate evaluation of whether the compulsory membership provisions of the
Act can be demonstrably justified in terms of s5 of NZBORA is a matter for Parliament and, accordingly, the Society does not express a view on the issue.”
However, the Society notes the modern trend towards liberalising statutory requirements for compulsory membership. For example, the Society has previously supported the provisions of
the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 which removed the requirement for a real estate agent to become a member of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 has also removed the requirement for lawyers to be members the New Zealand Law Society. Similarly, the Employment Contracts Act 1991 abolished compulsory unionism in New Zealand workplaces and the Employment Relations Act 2000 contains a prohibition against exercising undue influence on an employee to join a union.”
Perhaps you could say how other political parties voted, if as you claim this issue defines a parties positions on human rights. Perhaps we can examine the way the party which voted against allowing compulsory student association membership voted on other human rights issues.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Not that it excuses the behaviour, but if someone was doing that to me they would likely end up in a far worse situation.
The Herald does have something for once in that this protest can be called immature at best. It does naught but make the party look pathetic.
Like or Dislike:
8 
8 (0)
going off footage unseen, some recorded voice/s only.. and the above observations from folks..
my question would be whether the umbrella was actually used (perhaps opinion exists as to intended use) to conceal the flag or Russell Norman..?
if the first then the Veep’s security detail could reasonably be seen as attempting conceal any possible embarrassment for him..
if the latter then unless it was raining, snowing etc., then it would appear used offensively..
of course one of those actions could morph into the other in the supposed circumstances, but IMO, only the latter would warrant further action from NZ authorities..
If it helps I’d suggest some official acknowledgement be given the possibility in communication/s with the chinese official’s office – or perhaps head-of-state to head-of-state – of over-enthusiastic or over-zealous activity from members of the detail..
I’m far from sure on this but pointing out such a thing to a foreigner whose otherwise successful visit to New Zealand would not constitute contretemps and perhaps add to a mutual sense of concern as to making agreements despite diversity.. help that looks kinda political.. clap..clap.. needs more work.. but i hope the drift is gotten here..
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
You are absolutely right when the law Commission said
“the weight of international jurisprudence supports the view that the right to freedom of association includes the right not to be compelled to join an association.”
Whether it’s demonstratively justifiable is another matter (and that’s not what the moot is) but it does Breach Human Rights according to international jurisprudence.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
He makes good points though!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Oliver
You wrote “Anyway, the Greens no longer have any moral authority over their support of Human Rights because they vote against them when given the chance.”
So when given the chance, is not the same meaning as, whenever given the chance. Really? How does the ever change meaning?
You said (HUMAN RIGHTS) them and did not specify on one issue, only provided supporting evidence from that one issue.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Oliver, do people in Tibet have freedom of association rights …?
Sapient, solidarity with others is of course not the action of someone looking to their own Darwinian survival of the fittest self-interest. So while it means they are not the ideal worker and parent for the age of the global market economy in the eyes of the corporatist, and their order of apologists, it does make them suitable for political life.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Hope that helps
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Oliver, I would put it this way
on one area (from unionism to student associations) issue the Greens themselves have concerns about the implementation of one human rights principle (freedom of association). Probably because they like the idea of group solidarity and common cause and place a higher value on this than on full application of freedom of association. Critics say that some individuals might be better off negotiating employment terms individually or making their own provision for support services while going through study. etc
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
The whole incident sounds like a dreadful attack on our … language!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
SPC,
If Russel wanted to display solidarity he could have done so in a variety of more mature, and more effective, ways which don’t make the party look stupid and don’t show parliament, internationally, as the house of loons that it really is.
As to what makes one suitable for political life, that depends on how one defines suitable. If one defines suitable as up to scratch with the others, then yes Russel passes that incredibly low hurdle. If one defines suitable as being able to rationally make the decisions best for New Zealand and the world, as would be ideal, then he, and most other politicians, fail abysmally.
As to solidarity, the forced solidarity discussed by oliver is little different to that which you oppose in china. The only difference is degree. Not that I really give a frack about the student unions; they are massive wastes of money and massive sources of annoyance as they prop up idiots whom claim to speak for the students and subsidise the carriers of people whom would otherwise be on the street, but ultimately the money is small in comparison to the fees one pays while at uni.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
And once they started to grab me and push me around I started to push back – especially when they umbrella-ed me (never thought of umbrella as a verb before!).
I accept that it looked a bit undignified and that wasn’t ideal, but if I wasn’t to simply let them stick an umbrella over my head and nick my flag then it was hard to avoid it looking a bit undignified!
Especially as I stuggled to get the bloody umbrella off my head, get the guy off me who grabbed me from behind (as in the photo above), and get the Tibetan flag out from under the foot of the Chinese security guy!
Like or Dislike:
19 
9 (+10)
I am left wondering what sort of a Society “we” would be willing to tolerate in the name of “Free Trade” :
(Translation: lots of inexpensive, Chinese-owned-but-outsourced-from-virtual-slave-labour-in-other-developing-countries imported “stuff” among the stuff that we will buy … in exchange for our food products, to be produced here, (increasingly, it seems, on Chinese owned land)?
How many of you REALLY think that it is OK that a New Zealand Member of Parliament can be bullied and roughed up by Foreign gun-toting security people within the Parliamentary precinct? (Our New Zealand Police had to protect him from their actions!)
By all means, let’s discuss Russel Norman’s motives and behaviour,
but PLEASE, PLEASE, LET’S GET IT INTO CONTEXT!
………………………………………………………..
That was timely, Russel! While I was editing and posting my comment,
you spoke.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5 (+8)
Russel,
If you had of stayed as you were at the start of the TVNZ video there would have been no problem. But instead you approached the delegation quite closely, waving the flag and chanting. Approaching so closely could only of achieved one of two things; the first being getting the attention of the diplomat, which would have achieved nothing, and the second being getting publicity in the news media.
I doubt that the guards knew that you were an MP. One must consider that it is the job of the guards to guard those under their protection and you were getting quite close and were obviously hostile. They are justified in their actions, not being able to be sure that you were not planning something more drastic. While within the law, you were in the wrong and it was naught but a pathetic move which makes the party look silly and, if anything, makes people more hostile toward Tibetan matters.
–
Eredwen,
The context? A minister pulls a stupid ploy and is ‘assaulted’ in the word, but not the intention, of the law. Either in a deliberate publicity stunt or a moment of mental retardation.
You have a problem with them protecting their bodyguard? The body guard is charged with protecting the person, or group, in many jurisdictions; trials for such trivial things can be tedious and expensive and are likely to make the bodyguards more cautious where it is better to err on the side of caution. It would be irrational for such a charge to be pursued and may be considered a unwritten extension of diplomatic protection. There is no way that the police would even try to pursue it other than to say “would you like to give us his details?”, politely.
Like or Dislike:
8 
6 (+2)
eredwen, you should look at the post on kiwipolitico made by pablo and the comments there by Chris Trotter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
I would point out that in terms of oppression, the rule of the Lamas was little better than what presently exists.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
@Russel Norman 4:23 PM
Umbrella as a verb? Maybe a neologism created by the Umbrella Corporation in Resident Evil aka Biohazard:
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Those who claim that the Chinese security guards were just doing their jobs, should note the objection to that point of view made here.
Folks
Any notion that this isn’t a carefully rehearsed scrum on the part of the Chinese guards has to be left out.
The security personnel were not reacting as they normally would to an indication of a threat. They FACE a threat, face outwards from their principal to detect threat. In this case they did the opposite and in numbers blocked the view and then seized the flag that Russell was carrying.
All in all a very professionally executed suppression of free speech. Which is to be expected, as they are quite experienced in the practice.
Regardless of the outrage, the issue of whether we have a moral obligation to reject their tainted gelt if they do not mend their practice, is real. I regard the globalization drive to be a failed, well and truly hijacked, enterprise. The effect of it has been to create a race-to-the-bottom in terms of worker’s rights, pay, conditions, and corporate irresponsibility. It doesn’t matter what rules a nation applies, SOMEONE can always be bought.
…and then there is the occupation of a formerly sovereign nation, whose inhabitants have had their rights extinguished, because it was easy and there is nobody to gainsay the Chinese.
Not a good look for our visitors.
respectfully
BJ
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/06/18/russel-norman-roughed-up-by-chinese-vice-presidents-guards/
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
Sapient,
Who are “they” who were “protecting their bodyguard”…
Have you considered (perhaps in hindsight) that the Chinese Bodyguards should NOT have had the authority (and presumably the weapons) they seemed to have?
Last time I looked, this was still Aotearoa/New Zealand.
I believe that our capable NZ Police should have been in charge (perhaps with a Chinese liaison/adviser.
Surely this incident highlights the reasons why!
(Do you imagine a Kiwi delegations in China being able to dictate such terms?)
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
BJ is correct that this is obviously well rehearsed, but it is Russel whom has allowed this to happen. He has given them a legitimate justification for their actions; should he of been more civil they could have done nothing.
As a side note; SPC, your a tool. You consistently make stupid arguments which BJ blows out of the water and now you are using him as the target of an appeal to authority? You might as well admit that your a tard.
Eredwen,
Certainly, the NZ police should have been in charge; they were not.
China is powerful, in politics that means they get what they want.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
Eredwen “I believe that our capable NZ Police should have been in charge”
And if Barak Obama comes to NZ you think he won’t bring his own security????
Like or Dislike:
8 
6 (+2)
Sapient, your claim to be so smart and resort to retard and tard comments (and occasionally are more varied line of putdowns) about the underclass and those taking the side of “lesser people”, or holding opinions, or making aerguments you do not like, is a sign of what exactly … an ambition to frame debate here in your own image by seeing off rival opinion?
Oh my gosh you are training to be a camp psychologist in some gulag. That would explain your solidarity with the security guards …
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
SPC,
Such comments are means of voicing my frustration. They are not arguments in and of themselves but rather descriptions of observed behaviour.
I like arguments contrary to my views, I thrive off of them. You, however, have displayed little sense and little interest in listening to sense. As a result of frequent arguments with you in which you hold blatantly stupid and and self-contradictory opinions, you frustrate me. I admit that your arguments in this tread are not too shabby comparatively, but sometimes it is just too hard not to ridicule you; its too satisfying, though ultimately it may reflect poorly on myself.
A camp psychologist? Nah, try the one who wrote the policy; though I would have been more selective.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Sapient FTW
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
To Russel Norman
You might like to know that, according to China’s Foreign Ministry, the New Zealand government has – quote – “apologised”.
http://www.china.org.cn/world/2010-06/19/content_20297311.htm
This has not been reported in the NZ media. So, question for the Prime Minister: Is it true?
If so, what exactly did our government apologise for? And why?
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
From previous experience here, the USAns tend to be much more cooperative (and very much less confrontational). Our cultures are more similar…
and we have a longer “history” (eg “War of the Pacific” now on TV.)and USARP (Antarctic Research Project out of Christchurch)
Example:
From memory, the last time a President came here, USAns chose to fly-in one of their own special weapon-proof Presidential vehicles … On the other hand, they used our professionals (eg my brother was then a NZAF Reserve Medical CardioRespiratory and Trauma Specialist) to follow the guy around in case of accident or assassination attempts!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Wussel you are a woos. Protesters are embarrased by your pathetic grandstanding. A childish tantrum.
Rod Donald will be rolling in his grave
Like or Dislike:
6 
6 (0)
Who would have thought that sapient, photonz1 and others would be such greasy toadies for the chinese ……….
Naughty Russell made us “lose face” in their eyes.
But speaking as a true New Zealander I tend to view any fellow countrymen who were not offended by the chinese disrespect for our country and our laws as submissive, sell out wimps with no backbones or patriotism.
You lot deserve to go live in china ………………
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
Norman made a good fist of things over this protest and I am proud of him.
This is our Country. We own this Country
Like or Dislike:
6 
6 (0)
Have you been to Tibet? Have you spoken with Tibetan people in India or even in New Zealand? Perhaps New Zealand would be better off under Chinese rule too. That is not the point. A sovereign nation was invaded and placed under a foreign rule, same as Poland was by Nazi Germany. Now Germany was a far superior nation, stronger economy, more powerful in every way. I know many Tibetans and they all want their country back and they want their Dalai Lama back. And they want their loved ones back but alas that is not possible. Maybe you are too uncommpassionate to understand and only economics count at the end of the day. Do you feel for the “small person”? – like the CEO or Chairman of BP.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Sapient, you say I allowed this to happen. I don’t see how this can be true. I actually was standing well back and holding up the flag when the first of the harassment began. I agree from the video it looks like I got closer to the Vice President, of the totalitarian state that kills and imprisons people if they disagree with him, than I originally intended, but that happened in the melee and was difficult to control at the time. I did have a bunch of Chinese security grabbing me and it was actually physically impossible to stand still.
It seems to me that the only way to have avoided it was to not be there; or possibly to have stood at the top of the steps rather than the bottom but even then there was no guarantee that they would keep off me.
Like or Dislike:
10 
12 (-2)
So it seems that prosecution, or at least a police investigation, can be avoided by refusing to talk to the police. It’s a worrying precedent.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
Russel – it seems your facade of pragmatism and reason (which meant many people who were not nercessarily green supporters would at least listen seriously to what you had to say)….has been broken.
Like or Dislike:
5 
8 (-3)
Russel,
Having not been there I can not conjecture further than what the video shows. If what you say is true then fair enough, but the video makes it look like you were pretty damned close.
Regardless, the fact that you stayed in the fray after the car pulled up shows a stunning lack of wisdom unless you were looking for exactly that to happen.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5 (+1)
“Perhaps New Zealand would be better off under Chinese rule too.”
I never said that Tibet should be under the rule of the People’s Republic of China (for the record, I am opposed to the rule of Tibet by the People’s Republic of China). I just wanted to set the historical record straight – in terms of oppression, the rule of the Lamas was little better than exists today.
“Have you spoken with Tibetan people in India or even in New Zealand?”
Ian, people have funny memories of tyrants at times – look at the all the Russians who have fond memories of Stalin’s era; and we all know he was a mass murdering tyrant.
“Maybe you are too uncommpassionate to understand and only economics count at the end of the day.”
Economics doesn’t always count at the end of the day, and to be honest, I don’t think that we as the West should be engaging in economic relations with the People’s Republic of China. They are still a Communist regime, and they are still a threat to our Western freedoms. Lenin once said that the last capitalist would sell the noose that he will be hanged with, and I fear that we are simply selling the noose that will be used to hang us.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
The Chinese do need to be made and kept aware, that their policies toward Tibet cause outrage. So it has to be “in your face” and it has to be done by people who can get close enough to them that they WILL see the message.
Otherwise they isolate themselves from the protest and focus only on the things that reinforce their own views… the word for this in psych escapes me at the moment, but it is a matter of no small difficulty in the psychology of governments.
At the very least some cognitive dissonance needs to be introduced.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
McCarten is correct.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4 (+7)
Why is it “A stunning lack of wisdom” for a Member of Parliament to stand quietly in our Parliamentary precinct holding a Tibetan flag?
The Chinese were guests in this country and guests in that precinct, and as it evolved, our guests behaved VERY inappropriately.
Only at that point did Russell speak and attempt to get his flag back.
(Understandably he was upset and indignant by this time.)
The Chinese guests and their minders should have been briefed about Kiwi protocol by their own people and they should have behaved accordingly.
(The appropriate behaviour would have been to walk straight past the lone protester, preferably with a polite gesture of acknowledgement).
Obviously they did not think it necessary !
Should we all take this as a warning of times to come?
… and remember the saying: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
bjchip says “The Chinese do need to be made and kept aware, that their policies toward Tibet cause outrage.”
Do you not think this protest will have the opposite effect? A SINGLE person screaming “give me my flag back!!! give me my flag back!!! give me my flag back!!! give me my flag back!!! give me my flag back!!! ”
As a friend said – sounded like my seven year old…..four years ago.
This sort of protest probably has the same effect when someone calls tens of thousands of people to protest in a street march and gets a few dozen.
Did Russel bother to weigh up any positive effect his protest would have, against all the negative effects – i.e.
- the protest looked feeble
- could damage international relationships
- embarrassed New Zealand
- made Russel look very undignified – certainly not like a party leader.
- led to cancelled appointment
- less likely for Chinese delegations to visit in the future
- less likely for NZ companies to get new export business through Chinese visits.
- made the Green party look more radical, and less likely to capture votes from middle NZ
- wasted police time
- made Russel look like a liar (with the claim that 12-15 Chinese security guards roughed him up).
- made the who thing look like a political stunt (complaining to police about assault – trying to get the Chinese delegation held in NZ – when a five year olds soccer game is rougher).
The whole fiasco has no positive factors. It is damaging for everyone.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5 (0)
Photonz1:
You are arguing for a do nothing approach to the PRC occupation of Tibet. At least Russel Norman had the guts to stand up against them. Everywhere they go in the “West” they should be given the message by someone – otherwise – soon – Mongolia! We must not tolerate serious human rights violations in or out of China – and we tolerate them by condoning them – and we condone them by believing your apathetic list.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Woops! HELP Please Frog!
I pushed the wrong buttons and then got called away.
The above “Previewed Comment” under my name is a repeat of “photonz” (above)
and definitely NOT my opinions.
e
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ian Hodgson says ‘You are arguing for a do nothing approach…”
I’ve never said that.
In fact I’ve said just the opposite – if you want to make an impact you need to be more organised with more people.
How is that advocating a “do nothing approach”?
What I am advocating is a “do no harm” approach (especially to your own cause and party, as well as New Zealand).
There seems to be a disconnect with reality among some green supporters. They can’t see that it’s actually possible to cause significant damage to their own country, without making any difference to their cause.
Either they can’t see that, or they don’t care.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Point taken. However I would rather Russel have done what he did than no one be there to show the tibetan flag to the Chinese reps.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
BJ,
It is called ‘confirmation bias’. Incidentally, I have a paper on the matter presently in the works. It was a rather interesting series of studies using pilots, maps, eye tracking, and a variety of other interesting toys.
The Chinese do need to be made aware but I would think it incredibly unlikely that they are not aware. Even assuming that they were not aware, or only partially aware, Russel’s actions would not have made the individual any more aware. If anything, thanks to confirmation bias, it would have supported the individual’s views of the action not being strongly opposed as Russel was essentially a solitary figure.
Russel’s protest could never have been anything but thoroughly ineffective on that side. It is questionable as to if even a thousands strong protest or a parliamentary statement would have much effect. These approaches, at least, would raise awareness in our population and would not only be dignified but would garner support for the party broadly. The power of cognitive dissonance is so strong that, assuming they even care about the opinions of other countries, an individual can easily dismiss the evidence as being wrong rather than the view. This is especially profound when one has accomplices to the delusion; I know that you must have witnessed this phenomenon, it is a hallmark of Christianity and most major religions.
This is all assuming that they even care; I would suggest that they do not. They have power far exceeding ours and in all reality they have already defeated America and brought up most of the world. They are the remaining superpower.
Eredwen,
It is not. It is a stunning lack of wisdom for a Member of Parliament to run around waving a flag and shouting at a delegation and then yelling for the return of the flag while looking totally and utterly stupid and petty on nationwide television in his whining Australian accent. More so when he starts moaning about assault and particularly so when his doing this achieves nothing but both risks further harm to the party and dissipates any belief in his one remaining positive aspect.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
photonz1,
Russel could not have known in advance how this would play out. I don’t think his protest has anything to do with the environment and don’t agree with it as a party protest but I admire him for having the guts to do something about standing up to the Chinese leaders and taking the inevitable flak. The police response was despicable.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Tony says “The police response was despicable”
Get real – the police have more to do that waste their time over an “assault” where there were no injuries and Russel himself was grabbing NZ and Chinese security by their suits.
As I’ve said – worse happens at five year olds soccer every Saturday morning.
As for the call to stop them leaving the country because of this – it just makes it look like Russel has lost touch with the real world.
What happened to the reasonable pragmatic leader who had been successful at getting more of middle NZ to listen to what he was saying?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Whether it makes sense to you or not, I would be perfectly happy to make it far more pertinent to them inside chambers in an official capacity. The trade deal and other deals could and should be called to question. Greens don’t have the ability to do that. We’re outside of government. So we can only ask the questions outside.
The thing is that not many people in NZ really CARE that much about this particular issue. Most are (I think) happy to discount the damage to human rights in their pursuit of monetary gain… if they are aware of it at all.
Sapient
As aware as they may be, they are not forced to see it. It can remain invisible in their world and with appropriate orders to their security team, it can remain so, and further removed from their conscience (if they have one) than it ought to be.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
BJ,
Ten people could run at them with knives and I doubt it would make much of a difference; forcing them to see it will make no difference. They can brush it off more easily than we can a fly. The only thing that could graze them would be making them watch the suffering, and even that is questionable as it is based on the presumption that the have empathy when, likely, they would enjoy the power experience.
A better approach would be having documentaries regarding the matter on TV during the holidays or some such. At least that would increase awareness among the citizens of this country. We certainly are not affecting their citizens or politicians.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
bjchip says “Most are (I think) happy to discount the damage to human rights in their pursuit of monetary gain… if they are aware of it at all.”
I think you’re wrong here. Some people simple wouldn’t even know where Tibet is; some (not most) may be as you state above, but many would be of the opinion that you could stop trade deals with China – cause massive harm to NZ (China is our second biggest trading partner) – but make no difference to China.
Stopping trade deals with China would be like wiping out a large part of our economy – if we did that we’d need to masively cut spending on benefits, health education, conservation etc.
Ideals are fine but unless you temper them with realism you can end up hurting your own people without making any difference to your cause.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
photonz, the idea that one person cannot make a difference is little different to the idea that general public protests do not make a difference either. The same line of reasoning is used on peak oil and general resource depletion, global carbon pollution, climate change and national responses, pollution of waterways etc. That individuals and groups have been unsuccessful in making a difference, and that nation states engage the issues at their own cost and without realising global change – so why bother. I guess then that it’s decisions that activists make and their political engagement in challenging current practice that you have a philosophical problem with. Unless it’s an apology for more of the same …
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
If by many you mean more than 50% then you’d be agreeing with me about the numbers. As to the damage to the free-trade deal, I think that would be well done if it were a result. An overrated concept given the effects of globalization. As for stopping all trade with China, that isn’t on the cards, but as ideas go it might be something we should consider.
…and I think you are wrong. I think that they would consider the rebuff for at least a day before deciding to ignore it.
…which makes no difference to our responsibility to try to annoy them.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
photonz, as to free trade, the Americans supply weapons to Taiwan, the Chinese still trade with them. The idea of a risk to trade because of differences on such issues as Tibet is surely not serious.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
photonz1, you misunderstood me. The police might have validly said that the incident was a low priority for them. What was despicable was that they said they couldn’t pursue an investigation because the suspect would not cooperate. Does that seem like a good reason not to investigate a crime?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Well said, SPC. I get frustrated by those who go on about damage to what is an unsustainable economy anyway. It will go down the tubes just like every other unsustainable economy. It’s an economy that cares nothing of resource depletion and environmental damage. Of course, the powers that be also care nothing of these things and so would try to avoid damage to our economy, regardless of any moral issues.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
SPC says ” The idea of a risk to trade because of differences on such issues as Tibet is surely not serious”
The Chinese won’t be in such a hurry to send delegations in the future. They may even cancel visits or meetings – oh that’s right – they already did.
Tony says “Does that seem like a good reason not to investigate a crime?”
What crime?
Russel grabbing a NZ diplomatic protection officer by his suit near his neck?
Or Russel grabbing the Chinese Diplomatic Protection officer by his suit near his neck?
I didn’t see them doing that to him.
In the TVNZ video, Russel is clearly much more agressive than anyone else.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8 (-5)
Ethnocentric – the meaning is lost on Russel.
He used the issue of Tibet to further his political career. Shame. He is not a patch on the man Rod Donald was.
.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Jeez, photonz1, sorry I forgot the word “potential” or “alleged”. What a pedant.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
I’d like to get the opportunity to tear something from photonz1′s hands and trample it underfoot. …………… I bet he’d go squeeling to the police as fast as his little conservative legs could take him.
I guess I’m calling him a hypocrite but then thats hardly news and I think you’ve got to have a big wide hypocrites streak to be comfortable with the Nats’s.
I mean ……
Abused the process of parliment more than labor did ………. correct.
Appoint old party hacks to write up reports which surprisingly advise the nats to follow a right wing agenda …………. all the time
Stacked various boards with political cronies …………. you betcha
Find ways to dish out dollars and favors to party supporters …….. its in the budget.
But once more back on topic …………… If you were not offended by the chinese disrespect for our country and our laws then I can see who would be the treasonous rats amongst us………
You lot should not even call yourself New Zealanders.
Follow your loyalties
Get on a plane and get to china………..
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
Another narrow minded ethnocentric Green. What an obnoxious lot you are.
Google ethnocentric. I’m guessing you need an education.
Norman deliberately tried to disrespect the Chinese. But that’s OK in your books because no doubt you think your culture is ‘right’ and theirs is ‘wrong’.
Good luck with that attitude and the Chinese. I’m betting that you like many of the Greens don’t have a clue about what really happens in China.
I’m betting that you think Tibet was some sort of Utopian paradise under the Delai Lama. Incorrect. Children murdered and raped, 97% of the population slaves for the ruling elite. And then the Delai Lama handed over full control of the region to the Chinese. The documents are available on the internet if you’d care to see them. Actually that’s probably not a good idea – cognitive dissonance is a tough thing for fragile people to deal with.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Tibet-is-free,
Frankly, that is of little relevance. What matters now is how Tibet is at present. Something being worse than present prior to the present state of affairs is no argument against changing the present state of affairs, only against returning to the previous state.
I try not to weigh in on this matter as I am uncertain if I AM able to distinguish the truth from the Chinese propaganda and, frankly, I do not see anything we can do as making the slightest bit of difference prior to the coming wave. But, from a philosophical standpoint, your arguments amount to ziltch. Claiming ethnocentrism does not invalidate an argument; these people have the power to protest and to force their ideas on others and thus they may legitimately do so regardless of cultural differences, just as the Chinese may occupy Tibet legitimately simply because they hold the power. Differences in culture have naught to do with validity, only with the perception of validity within those cultures. Those with the most power, be it in physical force or force of ideas, will ultimately win.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Respect is something you earn by your actions and it is one of the easiest things to lose.
He tried to make the Chinese delegation aware that they are losing respect through their actions. We do not “try” to disrespect the delegation or the regime it represents. We regard their human rights record regarding Tibet as a matter of public shame and deserving of no respect whatsoever.
Dr Norman was merely demonstrating so that SOMEONE might get that message. We scarcely have a brief to do this only for the Chinese. We are quite happy to diss anyone who has power but does not promote peace, justice and equality.
China does a pretty good job with number 1, but on Tibet it is failing badly regarding number 2. The Chinese government is notably selective in what it chooses to see. We do not respect leaders who make such choices.
- a brief independent history –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/6299565.stm
Now it is easy to call people names, but it is pretty foolish to say that about Greens. Moreover we have I think, a far better clue about what is happening in China and Tibet than you might like us to have. Tibet is an absorbed country, much as most of the former USSR was comprised of countries that were unwillingly made part of a greater Russia.
It may be inaccessible and it may wind up being depopulated, but no matter what is done, the violation of the rights of the people of Tibet by the British, Russian and now the Chinese governments, is a matter of record.
The Chinese can do the right thing here or can remain forever disrespected on the subject of human rights. A colonial power, no better than any of the others.
It is not our preference to have to fly the flags that others would trample… but it is our duty to do so as long as we are free, and other people are not.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Sapient.
Pointing out ethnocentrism is not an attempt to invalidate an argument. It’s pointing out the error of Norman’s approach to another culture. Norman feels his ‘culture’ gives him the right to offend and he stated that again on Breakfast this morning. His right to offend outweighs the Xi Jin Ping’s right to be treated with dignity as a visiting ‘dignitary’.
If all the politicians in the world acted that way, where would we be? It’s not a rhetorical question.
And if Norman truly wants to get a result for Tibet, and not appear as ‘I think’ he did, a posturing politician with more concern for his chances of re-election, then he should try to understand the Chinese. But before he could do that he’d have to understand why culture is so important. If he did, he’d understand the concepts of ‘face’, collectivist vs individualist cultures, power distance and context. From that, instead of the grandstanding politician he might become the person that leads the issue and brings about meaningful change. By building relationships with Chinese you put yourself in positions that they will ask, and will listen.
The Chinese will not respond to offensive gestures in the same way we might expect a western politician would. Xi Jin Pings is one Chinese politician who, more than many others, is open to change. He is ‘one of the good guys’. Not that Norman cares. His politics in this context are politics of nationality, and pointless gestures.
“What matters now is how Tibet is at present.”
The point I was making is there are 2 sides to the story of Tibet. The one you would have had read, and the one the Chinese have lived. The Chinese feel they have a right to be in Tibet. I believe they do too. And in terms of the real, material interests and distributions of power, they do. So the notion that you should be telling the Chinese what should be happening in their country is as offensive to them, as the Chinese ‘roughing up’ Norman in New Zealand is to us.
So unless you want to go to war (the ‘force’ you speak of), the only way the issue of Tibet will move towards a better situation for all is if Chinese cooperation is gained. And that can be achieved, but not by stunts like Norman’s.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
bjchip
‘Respect is something you earn by your actions ‘ – another demonstration of ethnocentrism. Well done. In your culture ‘Respect is something you earn by your actions’.
In Chinese culture a visiting dignitary is treated with respect.
The Chinese regard freeing Tibet from a regime that raped and tortured children and women as something different to your view that it is one they should be ashamed of.
Sapient commented “What matters now is how Tibet is at present”. Again if you had or sapient had the understanding of the world that Chinese do, the way your culture viewed time would be completely different to the way you understand time.
I lived not far from Nan Jing when I lived in China. The Chinese still felt the pain of the rape of Nan Jing. 50 – 60 – 100 years is the blink of an eye to a culture that has existed for 5000 years.
In the context of a lived experience, Chinese view Tibet as part of China. The same experience of Western interference in their domestic affairs as happened in the Opium Wars, is as fresh to Chinese as the Rainbow Warrior is to us.
If you and others really want to see change in Tibet, it will not be brought about by lecturing the Chinese or attempts at embarrassing them. Frame things in the context of what is good for China and they will respond. China wants to be a good international citizen. Tibet is a way they can demonstrate the change ‘they want’.
Xi is an ally in that respect. But Norman’s actions would give more power to those that oppose his views on the way forward for China. Another example of the futility and senselessness of Norman’s actions. Had he have tried to understand he might have realised.
.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
tibet-is-under-the-jackboot sounds like a apologist for a communist country and regime which murders its citizens with impunity and despises free speech.
What a lovely lot the defenders of those who would strip us of all our humane rights are ……………….
China: democracy —- No
Freedom of speech ——– No
Crushing of protest ——-yes
Secret police ——- yes
rampant corruption ——– yes
kangaroo courts and show trials followed by execution and organ harvesting —-yes
Keep the dog eaters away would be my advice ……..
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
nz native says “I’d like to get the opportunity to tear something from photonz1’s hands and trample it underfoot. …………… I bet he’d go squeeling to the police as fast as his little conservative legs could take him.”
How wrong could you be.
Back in the real world, no one I know would go to the police unless someone ACTUALLY assaulted them and they were ACTUALLY injured.
I’d die of embarrassment before going to the police with an assault complaint, only to show them video of a toddler hissy-fit – “give me back my flag, give me back my flag, give me back my flag, give me back my flag”
Even regualr political commentators in the media have been saying it reminds them of their three year old argueing with their five year old.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
Just reading a book about a member of the Protection Detail and his extreme concern at the politician kissing babies to get votes. How so easy it would be to hide a weapon behind or under a baby …. how more so a flag. The Chinese were pretty restrained in their response.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Tibet-Is-Free
Just understand me about this.
You can’t apply YOUR rules to me in MY country.
I don’t give a cr@p about the “status” of someone in this government or any other government. This is MY country, and I am free to – and perfectly happy to insult Popes, Presidents, Prime-Ministers and Premiers if I think that they need their noses rubbed in one of their little messes.
I respect people who earn that respect, and it can be earned by people I disagree with strongly, but it is absolutely not available to people who don’t listen to other points of view.
Thinking that who you are provides some protection despite what you do is arrogance. It is not something that you should expect to be taken well in any truly free nation.
Which, by the way, gives us all a little benchmark as to which nations are in fact free.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
bjchips says “Respect is something you earn by your actions and it is one of the easiest things to lose.”
Exactly. And that’s just what happened to Russel in the eyes of many kiwis.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
photonz1 – can you please comment on what it is the Chinese gentleman standing behind Russel Norman in the photo at the top of this thread is doing?
It looks to me that he has his hand on Russel.
Do you see it differently?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
You wont con us in NZ into thinking that Tibet is free. We know the situation in Tibet. We see and hear every day of the atrocities that leak out. Given Chinese secrecy and control that means there are hundreds of violations daily in Tibet. I mean, how pathetic to arrest people for passing on a photo of the Dalai Lama. Yes your advice to check on what really happens in Tibet is good advice for everyone. But don’t rely on Chinese propaganda, like you are trying to push here on this blog.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
“Back in the real world, no one I know would go to the police unless someone ACTUALLY assaulted them and they were ACTUALLY injured.”
I once saw a small teenage girl get taken to court for assault for lightly pushing a tall heavily built man with one hand during a minor altercation in a pub. The ‘victim’ didn’t exactly go to the police, because he was the police, but the court accepted that this was, legally, an assault.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
robertguyton says “It looks to me that he has his hand on Russel.”
oooohh!!!. He has a hand on Russel. Better call in the AOS, stop them from leaving the country. Lock them up. And while you’re at it we’d better arrest every five year old at Saturday morning sport because they do worse than that every week.
And what about Russel in the middle of his toddler-tantrum grabbing a NEW ZEALAND diplomatic protection officer who had done nothing, and just about ripping his suit off.
As to your question on what The Chinese official is doing.
It’s pretty obvious if you look at the picture at the top of this page – he’s giving Russel a hug.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
“I’m guessing you need an education.”
“I’m betting that you like many of the Greens don’t have a clue about what really happens in China.”
“cognitive dissonance is a tough thing for fragile people to deal with.”
…and you feel able to give lectures on the necessity of treating people with respect? Hah!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
And so Photonz1, is it assault?
Try to answer without the hysterics of your previous comment.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
robertguyton – Sue said she wanted the police to arrest parents for giving a like smack because technically it’s assualt.
If you have police complaints about every technical assualt, you’d have to arrest nearly every sports man and woman, boy and girl, vast numbers of rush hour commuters who push past each other to get on and off trains and buses.
It’s pathetic. And complaining to police about something so minor only makes Russel look pathetic.
Either that or he’s trying to falsely exagerate it for publicity.
(i.e. where are the pictures of the 12-15 Chinese Security guards he claimed were roughing him up – or did he lie about that?)
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
So you recognise the situation in the photo as an assault.
Russel reported that this was just one of several.
I believe his account.
He was assaulted.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
I heard a Greens co-leader talking on National Radio two weeks ago about how business friendly the Greens are. Well actions speak louder than words. How irresponsible to act in this way in front of one of our largest trading partners. Protest yes, shoot ourselves in the foot – lets not. Norman made a joke of us on a world stage. The Greens aren’t ready to join a wider political discussion.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
robertguyton says “So you recognise the situation in the photo as an assault.”
No = I personally don’t. However I can see if someone was being really anal they could claim it was technically an assault.
I can also see why someone would CLAIM to be concerned about the “assault” when in reality they only want to use it to grandstand.
If they were genuine about assault, they would have the most concern about Russel grabbing the New Zealand diplomatic officer by the suit and half ripping it off, which was far more serious than a little jostling.
However that you are not concerned about this, that shows us that your “concern” about “assault” is fake.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
The Chinese delegation were thus responsible for their own supposed “loss of face”.
The best outcome for them would be to learn from this experience, and next time have an advisor(s) who understands the customs and values of the country they are visiting.
In AotearoaNZ there would be no shortage of excellent Kiwis of Chinese origin who could fill this role!
(I can’t resist pointing out that this was an entirely male cast of characters …)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Tibet-is-free,
I agree that Russell has approached this in an incredibly stupid manner, I have stated as much on one of the threads regarding this incident; not because he was rude but because he was both impotent for his point and damaging for his side. It is not his culture that gives him the right to offend but his being protected by the force of New Zealand and, by extension, the free world. He has that right simply because the force that the Chinese are willing to utilise against him is less than the force they would encounter in return. Force takes many forms, it does not need to mean war.
If all the politicians in the world acted this way we would be in a poorer state. But, as it is, the only real difference is that they hide behind masks and confront in more subtle ways or fall under the coat tails of the powerful. I think that Russell has shown either utter naivety or a shameless attempt to gain publicity, especially give his academic background.
The position of Tibet will not change, it is not the way of China; Tibet is too much of a strategic position and they will do what they can to hold on to it. I doubt they would do anything to loosen their grip on it even if it meant world war; they seem to be headed that way anyhow.
The Chinese do have a right to be in Tibet, as evidenced by their ability to maintain force over the country without foreign intervention. That does not, however, mean that others may not attempt to challenge that force and thus that right.
Politics is but a game, but it is one where it is incredibly important to hold a good poker face and to understand well ones opponents; it is a game of manipulation and deceit. Culture must be taken into account, but it would seem Russell has no intention of playing politics, only playing ‘zealot’.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
He got a lot of publicity for it – a success of sorts
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Not all publicity is good publicity.
This publicity makes him look like a whinny twat and essentially makes a joke of the party when we most need to be taken seriously.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Whilst I somewhat agree, it is an axiomatic marketing ploy that “any publicity is good publicity” – which means controlling the spin.
But the Dalai Lama has the status of a Rock star (or greater) in Australia and the US where this event will play very well for New Zealand in General, and our ‘green’ reputation particularly.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
And liek a rock star, the Dalai Lama plays to crowds very cleverly. i.e.
Highly supportive of Sea Shepherd when in Australia
High critical of them when in Japan.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“Frankly, that is of little relevance. What matters now is how Tibet is at present. Something being worse than present prior to the present state of affairs is no argument against changing the present state of affairs, only against returning to the previous state.”
Sapient, the only problem is that the man that ruled the Tibet of pre 1950 will be the same man that will rule Tibet if it became independent tomorrow. Even if half the horror stories that have been commented above are true, then the Dalai Lama should be tried for human rights abuses, and not sent back to rule Tibet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
that’s what I mean by ‘controlling the spin’ – a premise the Media (thinks it owns) and uses to put words in peoples mouths – there came a point where I had read too many Big Lies.
When I saw the Dalai Lama in Melbourne, there were maybe 60,000 people there – he performed a traditional bhuddist service – no ‘current affairs’ on the agenda.
To most of his followers, he is primarily a Religeous figure – and yes he does rather go on about tolerance; but then, so does the Pope!
But the tragedy that is modern Tibet is not much in dispute.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
John-son,
Indeed, though I very much doubt that the Lama could get away with reintroducing the Lamaism that parades as Buddhism given that he has spent most of his life hiding the fact and speaking against similar, possibly more mild, practices.
This Lama will never be back at the top of Tibet. Tibet will remain under Chinese control until the modern state of China has been destroyed, or has destroyed all others. The best that one can hope for is the ‘ethnocentric’ imposition of a semi-democratic system. It would be better than present but ultimately it would still be a puppet show; as aforementioned, Tibet is a tactical location.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sapient:
“The Chinese do have a right to be in Tibet, as evidenced by their ability to maintain force over the country without foreign intervention. That does not, however, mean that others may not attempt to challenge that force and thus that right.
Politics is but a game, but it is one where it is incredibly important to hold a good poker face and to understand well ones opponents; it is a game of manipulation and deceit. Culture must be taken into account, but it would seem Russell has no intention of playing politics, only playing ‘zealot’.”
At one level, yes. It is up to the “small” people to oppose that and change that sometimes. That is why freedom of speech is so important to the “small” people and anything we (the “small” people) can do to chip away at the manipulation and deceit is vital to “freedom”. Very hard to do in China- even harder in Tibet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
One may well consider modern China indestructable….one and a half billion people means they don’t need an army – they could just send 100 million tourists (and likely will) at some point.
Our Racial/Religeous wars will become irrelevant once the balance has shifted – one could just as easily say – the Imperial US State will never return – they are scattered too far too thin, and sustained by too many promises – by playing a patient game, China has a lot of financial say in US affairs.
While the US financial system stares breakdown, straight ahead – the Chinese are just gearing up.
Scuse me Roger Douglas is on his feet in the house (no small feet!)
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The Chinese regard freeing Tibet from a regime that raped and tortured children and women as something different to your view that it is one they should be ashamed of.
Strangely, I said nothing of whether the Chinese should be “ashamed” of what they do or did in Tibet. The Chinese record on human rights is not one that offers much likelihood that Tibet will ever be “free” in the sense of being an independent nation, again. That is something to which I, and I suspect most Tibetans (though we’ll never know will we) object strongly. That is something that China has the might to do, but has no right to do, to the Tibetans.
Did China prevent some abuses by the Tibetans? Likely some truth to that.
Then.
Is it necessary that China maintain control of Tibet to prevent further abuses? An extremely dubious assertion.
Now.
The argument being presented is basically that Tibetans are too immature and violent to govern themselves, and China must take care of them lest they hurt themselves and others.
That wasn’t a valid argument in the bad old days of colonialist empires, it is no better now, and the violence in Tibet’s past is no guarantor of continuation in this century.
I suppose it makes sense for New Zealand to occupy China and protect you all from the evils of your environmentally damaging industrial practices and poor human rights policies.
You see how silly it sounds? Which is not saying that it was NOT done to China in the past. The British empire wasn’t exactly a benign influence in China. The point is that it was wrong then, and is wrong now. The standards don’t change. Doesn’t matter who is on the receiving end.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Still talking about Russel are we?
He played that very well by my reckoning.
The media has supported his principled stand on many occasions over the past few days in editorials and the like.
The issue that has caught their attention is not the rights and wrongs of the histories of China or Tibet, their religious inclinations, their leaders or any of that, it has been the boldness of the Green leader here at home and that is what the ‘general public’ have talked about also.
Good play Russel.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
NZ native
Your post reeks of the hatred and intolerance so beloved by the more ethnocentric in the world. How long before you descend to the levels you claim to despise?
I have never apologised for what the Chinese did. I understand why they did what they did, but clearly they need to better understand the concepts of culture that would see them meet standards of behavior that do not offend.
China has a long way to go with their human rights. They know that. They are improving, but they need to do better. They know that. From conversations I’ve had with CCP officials they will continue to try to do better. But being lectured by a hypocritical west is seen for exactly what it is – hypocrisy.
New Zealand was in a unique position with the levels of respect in the relationship they had developed with China. From that respect New Zealand would find willing listeners wanting to know how China could become that better international citizen. I doubt that Norman’s stunt will do little to damage those relations, but it certainly did nothing to achieve the aims you might think you want.
The choice is ours; understanding and dialogue that WILL lead to change, or hatred and ignorance that will only change things for the worse.
I know the path you’ll take. I know the result you’ll get. When you get over your hatred you’ll understand how much effort you wasted.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Exactly – Don Key is apologizing to the chinese in true forelock-tugging kiwi style.
A case of free wine to all injured parties John?
‘Whine who – what – I don’t have any…..’
yeah right.
Lucky you weren’t offshore Russel -Tussel – NZ’ders are considered fair game (peter bethune) for international kidnappers from the northern hemisphere – and your Govt.wont speak whilst you are garroted off screen.
Reckon I’ll join the Australian Navy
hoorah – be all you can be!
meanwhile, our boys do it tough in Afghanistan!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
robertguyton says “He played that very well by my reckoning”
Of course he did. It will play well for anybody who is ALREADY a strong supporter of the Greens. Russel could do pretty much anything and they’d find a reason to support it.
He could even damage the Greens in the eyes of lots of other people, make himself look more like a radical than a leader, embarrass the country, damage trade etc. All things that many other people consider pretty bad.
All things that Greens can find a reason to support.
Russel has probably strengthened core support, but lost more round the edges, and others close by.
He no longer portrays the image of the sort of person many people want in Government.
In this way the Greens become a liability rather than an ally to Labour.
Hence even Labour are publicly critical of his actions and the damage he’s done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
I don’t doubt this is correct. Our National led government has no moral scruples about being bought, and is quite happy to wallow through mud if a trough is in view.
Nobody could bring an objection to the table in a more dignified way as a result.
A leader might have been prepared (and wise) to invite Dr Norman to a one-on-one discussion. Whether it would have changed anyone’s view is irrelevant to the fact that it would have EARNED respect and listening to both sides of an issue is essential, as the truth very often lies somewhere in-between.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Gyon Espiner (I think) said “we’re all for freeing Tibet, as though they gave free Tibets away in Weet-bix packets”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
har har HJ – go tell that one in Llasa
is free NZ also only available thru weet-bix?
No we are all indulging in extensive genuflects to China.
not that I object – we have been best friends with Germany and Japan ever since we stopped fighting
They are our economic superiors.
What I wonder is why so many Anzac farm boys had to die
to re-enforce our victory/slavery?
What did Churchill mean by saying we all serve a great cabal?
Who forced Roosevelt into ww2 – the Japanese
or Donald Duck?
The great western arms makers have the answer – and all humanity was just mince-meat for their jolly money (more than they can ever spend)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The invasion of Tibet began in 1949. Chinese occupation has resulted in the death of over one million Tibetans, the destruction of over 6,000 monasteries, nunneries and temples, and the imprisonment and torture of thousands of Tibetans.
http://www.freetibet.org/about/10-facts-about-tibet
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“The invasion of Tibet began in 1949. Chinese occupation has resulted in the death of over one million Tibetans, the destruction of over 6,000 monasteries, nunneries and temples, and the imprisonment and torture of thousands of Tibetans.”
as I said they aren’t giving free Tibets away in Weet-bix packets.
There is probably more chance of freeing Aotearoa from the Pakeha where the Maori situation is just as bad (according to Hone Hawariwa):
“The Maori population was about 1 million when the Europeans came. We had a stable society with our own social controls, our own conservation methods, our own rules of behaviour towards one another.
When Pakehas (white people) came, they brought crime and diseases which almost wiped us out. The population dropped to 40,000 between 1800 and 1900. More died from disease than the big wars we had with the Pakehas. The population is now around 500,000-600,000. “
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
jh:
Where did you get those figures from? 1,000,000 Maori?
It is senseless to equate historical events with events of today. The thing which is most disgusting about the Chinese Rape of Tibet is our abstinence. Thank god for people like Russel Norman.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
And how disgusting that John Key should put international relationships ahead of defending our own legal rights in our own country.
Not hard to see predict he will feel about antinuclear protests when he snuggles ever closer to the yanks.
Kudos to you Russel! Time to take up Tae Kwon Do.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
wasnt this expected anyway?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)