Solid Energy spying on lawful protesters?
Sunday Star times is leading with a story by Nicky Hager and Deidre Mussen about Solid Energy hiring private investigators Thompson and Clark to spy on the Save Happy Valley Coaliton. They are doing this by paying people to infiltrate the group and feed intelligence back.
Now Solid Energy is a state owned enterprise so here we have a company owned by the government infiltrating groups that are lawfully protesting against activities of that government company. If it’s true then it is wrong and the management of Solid Energy should be sacked.
Bookmark to:
May 27th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Solid Energy spying on lawful protesters?
who says the protesters are lawful??
they seem like the typical green leftist rent a crowd to me who don’t think the laws of the land apply to them.
eg chaining yourself to railway tracks
good on Solid Energy for keeping an eye out on these ideological green zealots
May 27th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Hey Panda, first they come for the green zealots and then they come for the pandas. Be careful whose human rights you are willing to sacrifice.
May 27th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Sorry off topic here
But how much did you lot get in the latest Herald poll?
May 27th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Is that kinda like someone who trawls through a political party’s private emails, then publishes them?
May 27th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
…and back on-topic;
a random polling of activists gathered in Cuba Mall, Wellington ( including some belonging to one or more of the infiltrated groups), discovered that despite all evidence of infiltration, not a single anarchist was disposed to beat the shit out of anybody, infiltrators included.
Although legal challenges have been discussed!
http://www.indymedia.org.nz/
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/73111/index.php
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/73110/index.php
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/73117/index.php
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/73121/index.php
These links cover media releases from all the involved groups.
Information, to counter disinformation.
Who’s calling activists paranoid now?
May 27th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
emmess - Greens got 6.1%, down from the last NZHerald score of 8%, but within the realms or normal variation for such a small sample.
panda - it’s lawful for Solid Energy to keep informed on opponent’s activities. There is no ethical problem with SE sending a representative to the meeting. However, general etiquette would require that they table their conflict of interest from the floor, rather than surreptiously involve themselves in the finer matters of the protest groups.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:29 am
Stu, Good to see someone else knows what the survey margin of error really means. Any chance media commentors will work it out before the election coverage begins in earnest?
May 28th, 2007 at 5:30 am
It’s good that the “protestor against the protestors” was able to campout with the protestors in an we’re all in this together protestor kinda way, cause even if he was secretly protesting against the protest by protesting with them, the protest still had one more person protesting with them which they wouldn’t of had otherwise, so he was also in a way inadvertently “protesting against being a protestor against the protestors” just by protesting…….call it a form of karma if u want.
One solution to this kind of muckracking approach that passes as democracy in action could be a push for Sunday rags to be printed on environmentally friendly, tiolet paper kind of material….thereby making something useful from what was rubbish in a recyclable kinda way.
But in my opinion the real solution to having an effective democracy able to deal with problems is very much connected to what is represented broadly here:
http://www.democrats.org.nz/
something which will not be read about on the front pages of any sunday or weekly papers unless as a form of protest against
May 28th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Stu
“General etiquette” would require that protesters do not chain themselves to railway tracks or interrupt men going about their (legal) work.
It always makes me laugh when the left claim there are rules of engagement when it comes to protesting.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Totally lawful for the protesters to protest within the law of the land, totally lawful for SE to infiltrate the protest movement. Would not be suprised to hear that a few more protesters are in the pay of SE.
You would be totally niave to think otherwise.
Also expect that with the public opinion swinging in behind SE after that stupid, stupid rail track stunt that more upfront protest action against the protestors in hidden Valley will start soon.
Heard that a battery of bird scaring noise generators, as used in orchards, are on their way to keep protestors awake are on their way. Plus a helicoptor and monsoon bucket to dampen down a fire hot spot about where the camp is.
Remember that SE has lawful protest rights as well.
Now if the Greens dont like the government stance on this they can withhold confidence (because you have lost confidence in the government have you not if you think infiltrating protest groups is not a state sanctioned operation) and supply from it.
Thereby forcing a general election and the opportunity to put the Green case for stopping coal mining (and the loss of export revenue for the state coffers) before the general public for a vote.
Be interesting if the Greens have the courage of their convictions.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:54 am
yeah big bro..that african-american women should have just moved to the back of the bus..eh..?
and of course there are ‘rules of engagment’ in legal protest..’
surely the term’legal protest’ confirms that..
tho’..i was not surprised there was an undercover spy/spies..
i have always assumed such..
btw big bro..you never did answer that ‘education’ question..?..did you..?
’nuff said..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
May 28th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Russel,
“Hey Panda, first they come for the green zealots and then they come for the pandas. Be careful whose human rights you are willing to sacrifice.”
But it is OK to tramble on the human rights of SE to run a coal train down to Christchurch?
The general (and voting) population has a message for the protestors, and the Green party who supported them, that they will not stand for an incredibly stupid and illegal stunt of stopping a coal train.
It will not stand for it and they will get you first.
Either in the ballot box or physically.
Responsibility is yours to abide by the laws of the land (or are you advocating taht protestors above the rule of law?
Be careful of advocating mob rule, it cuts both ways. As the gays found out in Moscow.
May 28th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Don Elder should resign, IMHO.
Not because he spied on protesters - although given Solid Energy’s pretty dubious buisness of flogging carbon to be dumped into the atmosphere, the “ethics malfunction” is hardly surprising - but simply because he’s utterly rubbish at arranging any decent spying.
Let’s be clear: he paid some firm of muppets to hire a spy or two, but doesn’t manage to stop, prevent, or even inconvenience the protesters. They go ahead and chain themselves to coal trains anyway. But what he does manage to achieve is plastering his organisation all over the front of the SST (and not in a good way), blowing a bunch of public money for no purpose, and embarass the government.
Trevor Mallard will not be happy.
So Trevor should fire his ass - for being a completely useless CEO. And Don, here’s a hint: if you’re going to run the risk of looking like a villain in public, have the good sense to do the job properly and actually get some benefit out of acting like a scumbag.
- Clarke
May 28th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Solid Energy has human rights? Nope SE isn’t human.
Solid Energy is a state-owned company, i.e. I own it. I don’t want it spending my money on spying on me.
Ethically, joining a protest group in order to spy on it is much the same as lying on a job application. Does Solid Energy think the latter is an OK thing to do? Supposing I join a political party (say National or the Green party) in order to sell information on it to their opponents - is that legitimate?
Probably not. Solid Energy appears to believe the right to make money trumps other rights.
“It will not stand for it and they will get you first.
Either in the ballot box or physically.
Responsibility is yours to abide by the laws of the land”
So which way do you want it? Do you think people should obey the law, or physically attack people? You can’t have it both ways.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Protestors jeopardise Mt Augustus snails?
http://www.coalnz.com/ab-press-details.asp?id=213
I wonder if Solid Energy has considered a relocation to the northern hemisphere?
http://www.savehappyvalley.org.nz/node/287
Or would the French not like the taste of them because they are carnivious?
May 28th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
One piece of information that is missing is that Wellington Animal Rights Network also had a spook infiltrating them during meetings and demonstrations against a vivisecotrs’ conference and some factory farming demonstrations. It shows that even with a $400,000 budget to lobby, pressure and bully politicians to adopt a code of welfare that argued hens are not suffering in cages, even with the political clout to order Anderton to ignore a Regulations Review Committee recommendation, the factory farming lobby are still frightened of a few under-resourced activists. In a way it is flattering that they are so scared, becaues they know that their bully boy tactics are no match for the truth.
May 28th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
It’s business as usual for the State. They are not the only Govt organisation to spy on us. Another Government Department recently admitted they had a 2 million dollar budget for spying on citizens.
May 28th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
mmmm. my post got lost in the ether, try again. If my previous post apears my apologies.
Sam,
“Solid Energy has human rights? Nope SE isn’t human.”
By association in the fact that it is owned and operated by humans, yes it does. maybe not in a direct way but certainly indirectly. Such as the employees right to work their job without being subjected to protest action or potential loss of jobs should the protestors get the place shutdown. And as a shareholder through state ownership I would have my human rights trampled on where my share of the State owned enterprise was neglegently and unlawfully diminished through protest action.
“Solid Energy is a state-owned company, i.e. I own it. I don’t want it spending my money on spying on me.”
Why not if it effects their operations when you are protesting. All is fair in love, war and civil actions. I own it as well.
Still interested in Russel’s and the green party stance and policy on unlawful protesting.
“Supposing I join a political party (say National or the Green party) in order to sell information on it to their opponents - is that legitimate?”
Depending if you sign a confidentiality agreement on joning. If you havent no it is not illegal. You may be a cad but not a criminal.
the hollow men book is a good example of what can happen.
“So which way do you want it? Do you think people should obey the law, or physically attack people? You can’t have it both ways.”
People should aboy the law at all times including when protesting. However I can see the time coming when counter protesters will take the law into their own hands. it will then be a question of who gets there first. The police to uphold law and order for ALL citizens, or the counter protestors.
Still interested in Russel’s and the Green party stance and policy on unlawful protesting. Such as the animal rights activists breaking and entering on private property.
If that is Ok in your eyes where do you draw the line? Your home or business invaded by counter protestors?
When aninmal right activist protest outside a Rodd and Gunn shop during the duck shooting season that is a fair protest. Am happy to take their pamphlets and hear their point of view. But when they enter the premises and stop me from shopping there, they are infringing on mine and the shop owners human rights and freedom of association.
See Sam, it is a very fine line you tread.
May 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Gerrit
Thats where I personally have a problem, I agreed with you until you used the Rodd and Gunn shop scenario, I can see why the protesters would want to disrupt people from shopping in the store and to be honest I would be right in there with them (i might have to wash myself afterward)
I support any action at all that disrupts Duck hunting, I think we should change the law actually, ****statement advocating shooting duck hunters removed**** - we do not allow people to advocate violence on this blog
May 28th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I don’t hunt ducks its the bloody pukekos I hate
anyone who wants can come to my farm and exterminate the little buggers is welcome
we have about 2000 of the damn things
May 28th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Big Bro,
That is excactly the problem, we all want to protest but when someone counterprotest we want the protection of the police!!
You advocate breaking the law to stop the perfectly legal duck culling season. As Sam says you cant have it both ways. You are either for law and order or against. You cant pick depending on situtation.
Whether anti duck shooting or anti mining, your protests must be law abiding. Otherwise we have anarchy when counter protest groups (which I have seen when a group of duck shooters moved a set of protesters on from their private lakefront area with a volley of shots at ducks behind the protestors) take the law into their own hands.
Hence my request from Russel re his and the Greens position.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Panda
I hear that Pukekos are afraid of Dwarf’s, have you thought of that as a way of scaring them off?
May 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
When the law is unjust, undemocratic, unscientific and illogical I have no problem in protestors taking it into their own hands, especially when the perfectly legal businesses are abusing and torturing sentient beings. Gerrit, would you have had any problem with sympathetic Germans hiding Jews in their homes during the Nazi era. And I suppose you would have handed over any negro slave to their “legal” owner no matter how brutally they treated them if you were living in 19th century Georgia.
The law protecting animal abusers is no better than the law protecting Nazis and slavers. Most of the public are against factory farming, all independent internationally renowned animal welfare scientists consider it should be banned, most European countries are already banning it, the Regulations Review Committee said it was illegal, yet the government continues to allow it. It is actually the government who are breaking the law (namely the Animal Welfare Act), and the protestors who are upholding it.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Gerrit
Yes I know..cant I have just this one little double standard ?..after all most of the govt have plenty of them.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Kiore
Who decides if a law is “unjust, undemocratic or illogical”, you cannot justify people chaining themselves to railway lines in that way as the majority of the people in NZ do not share your views.
Even those who now proudly claim to have been anti tour in 81 were still breaking the law and going against the wishes of the majority of the people in NZ.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“By association in the fact that it is owned and operated by humans, yes it does. maybe not in a direct way but certainly indirectly. Such as the employees right to work their job without being subjected to protest action or potential loss of jobs should the protestors get the place shutdown.”
Since when did somebody have a right to work without being subjected to protest action? If such a ‘right’ existed, pretty much every protest would be illegal - unless they happened quietly in a field well away from the public. Neither is the right to keep a job a human right (if so I’d be due some redress from when the neo-liberals took over and privatised the Ministry of Works and I lost my job).
Gerrit, you seem to take the line that if it’s legal, it’s alright. Unfortunately, ethics aren’t that simple (although the infiltration was clearly illegal in this case, as employees of private investigators require certification, and these people didn’t hold certificates - they may not have been acting illegally themse;ves, but their employers certainly were).
When you demand adherence to the law, you must examine who makes the law. Ghandi advocated reaking the law because the law was made by an unrepresentative minority. Had Indians been able to vote for independence illegal action wouldn’t have been necessary.
To put it very briefly and simplistically - I consider New Zealand to be in an undemocratic situation at present. Corporate and state interests and an uncritical and unaccountable media walk all over democracy. A capitalist system keeps resources in the hands of a few people who use their money and influence to ge their way. In such system I see the need for sensible, intelligent illegal protest. I’m not advocating irresponsibility or random acts of violence.
“However I can see the time coming when counter protesters will take the law into their own hands. ”
Sounds like wishfiul thinking or just a veiled (empty) threat on your part. So are you condemning this sort of illegal action or not?
May 28th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Sam
We agree on this ” To put it very briefly and simplistically - I consider New Zealand to be in an undemocratic situation at present”
We have the situation where the minor parties in the house are calling the shots, there is nothing democratic about that.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Sam absolutely,
However continued illegal activity by protestors will lead to counter protest. Both will be illegal and I absolutely condemned both.
I guess what I see here is most people advocating it is alright to break the law as long as it is for a good cause. However when the boot is on the other foot it is a different story.
You can go ahead and break the law but please dont complain if someone else does it as well.
Kiore1, your points are valid and well put. I’m not sure if they fall into the resistance camp or the protest camp.
I still have this fundamental problem where some groups of protesters are above the law. Who draws the line?
Who is right? What action justifies being outside the law?
Is animal rights protest above the law? Is the lobby that promotes the freedom from gun control above the law?
Is the lobby that promotes freedom for recreation drug users above the law?
And who makes the rules?
Or better still should we have anarchy?
It is an interesting moral question!!
May 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
BB
“Who decides if a law is “unjust, undemocratic or illogicalâ€?,
But you seem to agree with me that so-called animal welfare laws are unjust. So ask yourself how you decided on that, and then apply the same logic to other laws. And the fact that the majority of people don’t agree does not mean anything. The majority can be quite wrong. And a majority in one age can be a minority in another. Does that mean slavery was moral in 1750 and those who protested it were wrong, but it is immoral in 2007 and those who support it are wrong?
May 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Kiore
I have admitted my shocking double standard, It does take some getting used to but then I figure if Russel can do his climate change tour in a motor car instead of public transport then I can have a double standard on this one.
BTW…your argument about the slavery does your/our argument no good at all, you will have to come up with something a bit more credible than that as the public are beginning to get sick and tired of these extremist arguments, it almost looks like you have no other example that you can use.
May 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Hi BB, I was wondering which laws / policies / parliamentary decisions you had in mind when you said: “We have the situation where the minor parties in the house are calling the shots, there is nothing democratic about that.”
I can’t think of any thing that could possibly be evidence of such a statement. Do tell.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:39 am
big bro said: I have admitted my shocking double standard, It does take some getting used to but then I figure if Russel can do his climate change tour in a motor car instead of public transport then I can have a double standard on this one.
No BB, you don’t have a double standard here - you have exactly the same standard as the protesters at Happy Valley do - that there are some activities that you consider are so unjust that breaking the law to attempt to prevent those activities or to highlight the injustice of those activities is justifiable. The only difference is that the particular issues that you consider fall within that category are not the same ones that the Happy Valley protesters consider fall within that category.
As for Russel using a motor car for the climate change tour, I didn’t think that is a double standard either. I don’t advocate that there are no circumstances in which using a motor car (or an aircraft, for that matter) is justifiable, and I doubt there are more than a tiny number of Greens who would. What most Greens are advocating is that people should use public transport where practicable, and that there should be more public transport to make it more practicable more often. The reality is that it is currently totally impracticable to use public transport on the West Coast for a tour like Russel’s, because there is so little public transport operating there.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:12 am
“You can go ahead and break the law but please dont complain if someone else does it as well.”
I don’t. I complain when somebody does something stupid, irresponsible, dangerous or destructive (such as driving drunk, supplying alcohol to kids or building an open-cast coal mine on prime kiwi habitat in order to export climate changing coal). Whether it’s legal or not isn’t something that bothers me.
“Or better still should we have anarchy? ”
Yes - sounds great!
May 29th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I have no problem with an open cast coal mine, the motives of those who appose this are questionable at best.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:38 am
big bro said: I have no problem with an open cast coal mine, the motives of those who appose this are questionable at best.
What worries me are the motives of those who support it!!! The only one I can think of is making lots of money with total disregard to the ecological consequences.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:59 am
“BTW…your argument about the slavery does your/our argument no good at all, you will have to come up with something a bit more credible than that as the public are beginning to get sick and tired of these extremist arguments, it almost looks like you have no other example that you can use.”
All right, here are a few more to show how majority opinion changes
Burning witches - okay in 1400, not okay in 2007
Flogging in the navy - okay in 1800, not okay in 2007
Public hangings - okay in 1750, not okay in 2007
Bull baiting and cock fighting - okay in 1850, not okay in 2007
Homosexuality - not okay in 1930, okay in 2007
Smoking in the office - okay in 1970, not okay in 2007
Caning kids at school - okay in 1985, not okay in 2007
Eating meat - okay in 2007, not okay in 2020??
Mining coal - not really okay in 2007 (but still allowed), not allowed in 2020??
May 29th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I note that part of BB’s post advocating violence to duck hunters has been removed. Please be consistent and remove Panda’s post adovating violence to pukekos.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
What ???
It is legal at this time of the year to shoot and kill Pukekos
these birds are such a pest the minister of conservation has approved an extension to the hunting season on the West Coast this year
May 29th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Mr Moderator
Lighten up for goodness sake, only an ***derogatory term*** would take my comments about duck hunting seriously, I do despise them but even I would not want to go as far as that.
————————————————————————————–
its not a matter of lightening up, this is a zero tolerance for threatening/violent language blog and all examples will be removed whether the author of the comments thinks his words were funny or not
Kiore
The opposituion to public hanging, Homosexuality, caning kids in school and coal mining are not really subjects that you can claim to be overwhelming supported by the majority of Kiwis.
I think that you would get a good number of people who would support the reintroduction of a lot of those old practices.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
# big bro Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
>I support any action at all that disrupts Duck hunting, I think we should change the law actually, ****statement advocating shooting duck hunters removed**** - we do not allow people to advocate violence on this blog
If the rules prohibit anyone advocating killing duck-hunters, do they also prohibit anyone advocating the killing of possums?
I have some sympathy for Big Bro’s opposition to duck-hunting, but does he also oppose the killing of sheep in freezing works? After all, being stuffed into an open truck, carried up a conveyor belt where you don’t know where you’re being taken but know you can’t escape, and then stunned with a mighty great taser-like thing, is surely a much worse experience than flying through the air and then suddenly being dead because you’ve been hit by a bullet.
And what about fishing? Being hoisted out of the water by a bloody great hook sticking through the side of your mouth has got to be worse than either.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Hi BB, I note you still haven’t answered my question about your statement.
I’m really interested to know, what could they possibly have been doing in Parliament that could have made you come up with such a strong and definitive statement? Please share your wisdom with us.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:49 am
So if you don’t advocate violence, what does the Green party propose to do about people who repeatedly flout environmental standards for their own profit? Ask them nicely to stop and give them a firm talking to if that fails?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Sam Buchanan asked: So if you don’t advocate violence, what does the Green party propose to do about people who repeatedly flout environmental standards for their own profit? Ask them nicely to stop and give them a firm talking to if that fails?
How about fine them large amounts of money and lock their senior executives up in prison for lengthy periods. But it needs a degree of coercive State power to do this.
I don’t see the Green non-violence Charter Principle as meaning that the State should have no coercive powers. I see it as meaning that the use of coercive powers should only be a last resort after non-violent conflict resolution processes have been attempted in the interests of ecological sustainability and/or social justice, and have failed. I don’t think any one of the Charter principles stands on its own - they often have to be balanced against each other in the context of any particular situation. The Green Charter Principles are ethics that we as Greens strive towards in our everyday actions and in our political policies. They are not fundamentalist doctrine.
The question I’ve always had, that you might be able to answer, Sam, is not what the Green Party would do but what anarchists would do in the situation you describe?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Go on Sam answer toad’s question!!
“The question I’ve always had, that you might be able to answer, Sam, is not what the Green Party would do but what anarchists would do in the situation you describe?”
Anarchy is a double edge sword able to be used by owners of open cast coal mines as well as protestors.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Moderator
So if you are really against violence and violent language, I am still waiting for you to remove Panda’s refernce to killing pukekos as well as BB’s comments
BB, you are probably right about hanging, unfortunately, though hopefully most people would still want to stop short of making it a public spectacle
May 30th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
This is an interesting bit of philosophical difficulty.
The law, insofar as it reflects and supports the survival of civilization and the rights of individuals, should be obeyed, but I reserve the right to judge the law. I have a moral DUTY to judge the law.
This is much the same quandary that faces military officers when faced with illegal orders. It is morally inadequate for an individual to blindly follow laws or orders with no regard for their consequences. It is also morally inadequate to regard the law as inconsequential and discard it because it seems inconvenient when you wish to make some public point or protest. As in most things, a balance must be established and judgements must be made.
It is immoral to infiltrate the group and suggest that it take illegal actions or in fact ANY actions… the moral obligation there IMHO, is to leave the group undisturbed by the surveillance.
It is however, perfectly reasonable, to gather information when people thought to be associated with the group have caused many thousands of dollars in damage through illegal protests.
I have said before, though I see from that post that I was not completely coherent at the time
, that the Green Charter Principles lack one important principle that I include in my own reasoning. The principle of continued survival, personal, political and societal. That missing principle leads to some imbalances IMO, and while I include it, it makes me not pure Green in all the ways that some other members here are Green. I do not find that this impairs my loyalty to the party in general… it simply places me at odds with some of its policy statements.
That’d be the case with any party… Greens are the least disagreeable compromise.
respectfully
BJ
May 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
BB, Just because a thousand people believe in something doesn’t make that something true. Rightness and wrongness of an action is not defined by majority opinion, thus it makes no difference as to how many people favour the re-intoduction of caning or the criminalisation of homosexuality.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Stuey
Sorry for the delay in my rely but I have been out and about a bit.
Right, lets see, well for a start there is the smacking bill, remember 82% of all Kiwi’s did not want it, the electrification of the rail network in Auckland is another sop to the Greens by Labour.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
davey
That is simply your arrogant view on what is right and what is wrong, who gave you the power to decide?
I passionately believe we should re-introduce corporal punishment in our schools, I also believe that we should re-introduce the death penalty in NZ, surly in any civilised society the majority must rule.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
BB
It’s not “my” view on what is right or wrong, many philosophers who do that sort of stuff for a living have issues on the “majority rules” style of ethics you seem to be promoting. Also, i don’t assume I have the power to decide whether those issues are right or wrong, I said that whether they are right or wrong isn’t decided by the majority.
Regarding your passionately held beliefs, unless you can provide some rational arguments to back them up, then they’re no different to a child’s passionate belief in unicorns.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
“The question I’ve always had, that you might be able to answer, Sam, is not what the Green Party would do but what anarchists would do in the situation you describe?”
Thanks for asking. The first point is that we don’t believe in capitalism, so the profit motive doesn’t arise. Without the need or desire to make a profit, it’s a strange person who will indulge in environmental destruction on anything other than a very small scale (I mean the sorts of activities which humans need for a happy and healthy life, which certainly impact on the environment - but not the mining of coal to ship to Indonesia to make steel for cars that we have far too many of already). Nor will capitalists be able to motivate workers by claimimg that without environmental destruction, they will lose their jobs.
There exists then possiblility that some very odd person may decide to destroy things for the sake of it, if they don’t respond to treatment or persuasion (or the removal of community support), then I’d advocate violence.
It seems a bit odd to claim non-violence as a principle, then announce that you are going to drag people away and throw them in prison. Why not be frank and say, as I would, “We only advocate violence as a last resort”.
“Anarchy is a double edge sword able to be used by owners of open cast coal mines as well as protestors.”
I don’t think you understand anarchism. It is incompatible with the ownership of coal mines.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
The problem with anarchy is that theres no longer someone to protect you from big bad men with guns who need the coal mines to make money to buy more guns. Examples that spring to mind are Sierra Leone, Liberia, and the Congo. Well….plus three quarters of the rest of African countries.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Hi BB, lets get this straight, you base your opinion that
“We have the situation where the minor parties in the house are calling the shots, there is nothing democratic about that.”
on only 2 different political decisions? Aren’t you being a bit melodramatic?
Especially when one of those cases was voted for by both major parties. How can you possibly say that the dog is wagging the tail over S59 when both Labour and National voted for it?
May 31st, 2007 at 6:18 am
“I don’t think you understand anarchism. It is incompatible with the ownership of coal mines.”
The coal mines are owned by the people of New Zealand and in an anachism sense they have collectively decided, through their elected parliament, that they want to keep digging up coal.
You, as an anarchist will use violence to try and stop the will of the people. The people in return may well use violence against you.
Not a good call.
Anarchism is a wishful thinking libertarian ideal were we would all live peacefully together under the treat of violence by other “tribes” or groups if we dont live as they wish us to live. (peace through violence)
My viking ancestors loved that attitude. Personally prefer the current democratic-capitalism system, with ALL its flaws, over what you picture where the will of the strongest presides over the weak.
But then again that viking blood still courses so who knows I might be persuaded to go a vikinging again.
As an anti-capitalist of course you would be against the Kiwi Saver scheme as a more capitalistic depended plan there is no better. Totally reliant on capitalism investment and profits to provide savings.
Will the anarchists be protesting againt this scheme?
May 31st, 2007 at 10:13 am
“The problem with anarchy is that theres no longer someone to protect you from big bad men with guns”
So the solution is to cower under the protection of one bunch of big bad men with guns in order to be free of the other lot? Well, there is actually somebody to protect us, there’s us and our community who, given the chance and the organisation, can do a damn good job of standing up to big bad men with guns.
“Examples that spring to mind are Sierra Leone, Liberia, and the Congo.”
Very good examples of what happens when you put your faith in the nation state (AKA men with guns) to protect you. How much good did this ‘protection’ do the people of these countries?
It brings to mind the poor bloody Iraqis who tolerated Saddam in return for ‘protection’ - only to be murdered, gassed, dragged into a war with Iran, then Kuwait, then the US. Now the poor bastards are enjoying the ‘protection’ of US forces and dying in their thousands as another bunch of would be ‘protectors’ set off car bombs in an attempt to be top gang (I mean ’seek to take control of the state in order to bring wise and beneficial rule’).
It’s noticeable that when the word ‘anarchy’ pops up in the capitalist media, it’s usually being used to describe a battle between two or more would-be governments.
“The coal mines are owned by the people of New Zealand and in an anachism sense they have collectively decided, through their elected parliament, that they want to keep digging up coal. ”
Rubbish - we’ve never been asked, nor have the facts of the matter been presented to us (look at the way the media repeatedly turns the debate into ‘coal vs. snails’ conveniently ignoring all the other issues involved - climate change, kiwi habitat destruction etc. which are more likely to sway NZers). You appear to be saying that we have anarchism already which is obviously ridiculous.
“You, as an anarchist will use violence to try and stop the will of the people. The people in return may well use violence against you.”
Don’t recall ever advocating violence to stop the Cypress mine.
Cute line about “the will of the people” are you a Maoist? Reminds me a little of the Burmese government’s repeated line when they send thugs to beat up pro-democracy activists, the violence is always credited to “the people” supposedly furious with the democrats lack of patriotism.
“As an anti-capitalist of course you would be against the Kiwi Saver scheme as a more capitalistic depended plan there is no better. Totally reliant on capitalism investment and profits to provide savings.
“Will the anarchists be protesting againt this scheme?”
Who knows - I don’t make policy for the anarchists, nor do we have the time to protest everything we dislike. Personally, I wouldn’t touch Kiwi Saver with a bargepole.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Its better than the alternative mate. Its not perfect, but the alternative just doesn’t work. Theres always someone who doesn’t think like you and I. They want influence and material possessions without having to work for it and the easiest way is by taking it off people who are willing to.
At least we’ve got more robust mechanisms to dispute negative actions being done by others. RMA and Environment Court spring to mind.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”-Winston Churchill
May 31st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
The alternative may not work, that remains to be seen, but since the present system doesn’t work, and may be leading us to planetry suicide, there appears little option but to try it.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Sam
there’s us and our community who, given the chance and the organisation, can do a damn good job of standing up to big bad men with guns.
Not many real “anarchists” exist, for the simple reason that it is, from an evolutionary standpoint, a losing proposition. I don’t care how dedicated your “local community” is. When someone with an actual government and an organized army and navy and s not a lot of respect for human rights shows up you will cease to inhabit the country except as fertilizer.
What is your “organization” except a form of government, and how is it really going to survive unless it is large enough and demanding enough to have the same sort of resources, ships, armour, armaments and training, that your opponent has? How is it you do not see that this is the SAME thing … and that it is necessary.
That IS what happens, and that is what HAS happened through history and it is why your ardent and firmly held beliefs are so scarce on the ground. Yes, people do die in the conflicts between those who have ambitions of government and ambitions of control but they are going to get hammered by SOMEONE so long as they themselves have no government (with its military) of their own.
There’s a lot of forms that government takes but in the main it is the smaller groups grown larger.
It is a similar illusion to that the total pacifists suffer from, and it is similarly answered by the real world. Neither group survives long in the wild unless they are completely isolated from the rest of the world’s civilizations or completely protected by one of them. Which is I think, an ideal we are increasingly unlikely to be able to approach with the population continuing to grow.
People living together in larger groups require the additional levels of organization that you despise. Larger groups are more powerful than smaller groups and in the end, overwhelm them or consume them when a struggle for resources emerges.
respectfully
BJ
May 31st, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I think the “planetary suicide” that we seem intent on says more about human nature than it does about democracy
May 31st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Sam,
Norwegians thought the same as you, but when Hitler decided to take their iron ore they couldn’t stop the German army just walked in and took it. Ditto for Finland and Stalin.
“there’s us and our community who, given the chance and the organisation, can do a damn good job of standing up to big bad men with guns.”
June 1st, 2007 at 10:51 am
“Norwegians thought the same as you,”
Norway was anarchist in 1940? Nope - they put their faith in the state’s protection and look how far that got them.
“I think the “planetary suicideâ€? that we seem intent on says more about human nature than it does about democracy”
I never ascribed the race to destruction to democracy, but to capitalism - as it puts short-term profit before other considerations, encourages competitiveness and engages people in its crazy project by offering material rewards, or more bluntly, threats of starvation or poverty if you don’t get on board the gravy train.
“Not many real “anarchistsâ€? exist, for the simple reason that it is, from an evolutionary standpoint, a losing proposition. I don’t care how dedicated your “local communityâ€? is. When someone with an actual government and an organized army and navy and s not a lot of respect for human rights shows up you will cease to inhabit the country except as fertilizer. ”
Apparently, this leaves us with the option of cowering in armed camps, fearful that whoever shows up will wipe us out. My own experience of humanity has been that very few people around the world have any interest in taking my life, or stealing my (previously stolen) land. Unfortunately, we have a social system that gives those few power and influence.
Perhaps a world of militarised ghettoes is tolerable for some people, it’s not for me. I don’t want to live like this, and I don’t want everyone else to be stuck in this mess for generation after generation, until we destroy ourselves or the sun finally goes supernova. If people consider me to be naive in hoping for a serious change in the way the world works, so be it.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Panda, pukeko are not pests. They were here first, and they have been peacefully existing as part of the ecosystem for thousands of years. The real pests are the humans who demolished their habitat, cut down the kahikatea and swamp kauri, introduced exotic plants and animals and then grudge them even living on the habitat that was taken from them in the first place.
Whether it is legal or not, violence is violence, and the moderator is showing a double standard. A pukeko’s life is just as valuable to him/her as duck hunters’ lives are to them, they feel pain just as acutely, their mates will grieve just as much, and from a virtue ethics point of view, senseless violence to get rid of the original occupants of your land is no better than senseless violence to protect ducks.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Oh my GAWD
at real life pukeko hugger
the damn things are pests, they root up paddocks like little pigs destroying the root system of clover plants which causes severe damage to my pasture
I know you live in a delusional world where nature rules over us humans but in the real world where the rest of us live in we have the ability and duty to protect our investments and livelihood
June 1st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
How do you kow what sort of world I live in? You don’t know me, so be careful making those sort of arrogant biographical assumptions without proof. Sneering and jeering is not an argument. Your response shows all the intelligence of “yah, booh, sucks”
June 1st, 2007 at 6:42 pm
What is a pest? Something which we have decided works contrary to our interests. By that definition, pukeko are indeed pests. But makes our interests so much more important than the pukekos?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Davey
We are not Pukekos, therefore to us and for us, OUR interests are more important than the Pukekos. In a broad sense it makes sense to have as little impact and maintain as much ecological diversity as we can. Evolution is inherently destructive of excessive specialization and monocultural development.
That doesn’t mean there’s a special place for Pukeko in Panda’s Paddocks.
Nature DOES rule over us Panda, but not at the level of the Pukeko.
It rules us where the base of the food chain meets the acidified ocean and an expanding population meets an inconvenient climate for growing next years crops.
respectfully
BJ
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:49 am
BJ
I wasn’t asking whose interests are more important to US, I was asking why should we believe our interests are more important than the pukekos in the grand scheme of things?
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 am
Pukeko’s, snail’s or indeed kiwi’s interests are not taken into acccount in any policy outside the MFE, so the philosophical argument you’re proposing will be null, davey. Can’t see panda engaging in it, anyway.
Marginal land that has been used for pasture, such as raupo swamps and the like, will mostly dry out in the decades to come, although west coast areas may become more swampy, so panda, if you want to continue farming livestock, invest in breeding stock that swims, or gets itself out of bogs without assistance. Sheep not a good look in that context, too stupid to learn to stay out of bogs and swamps. A childhood of avoiding decaying sheep carcasses on my rides round the farm taught me that.
Personally, I think there are far too many places where people were inadvisably settled after the first WW, which should be unsettled pronto to save us all the grief. Generations have struggled in some marginal areas, and if the stock agents are making more out of selling fertiliser thatn the farmer is from selling stock, there should be an incentive for the Crown to buy back marginal land and de-stock. They certainly took their time to work out how to settle the High Country land leases, so I don’t expect anyone to work on this one until the climate shift has made enough paupers out of formerly prosperous farmers…
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Katie, The Liberal and Reform parties that were responsible for formalising the Marginal Lands Board approach to farm development. Since they are the predeccessors of National and Labour those two parties will have to admit they jointly created the problem before they can do anything to correct the mistakes. Unfortunately politicians only admit to infalibility when it is “the other lot” who made the mistake because then it is the ideology that was wrong. If both major parties made the same mistake then politictians will do everything possible to avoid admitting that any mistake was made because that would mean admitting that politicians make mistakes. This is not a lot different from the denial stage of grief or addiction counselling, which at least tells us what politicians need to do in order to address the mistakes of their predecessors.
June 3rd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Oh Dear Oh Dear
I am not sure where to begin
I am more than happy to engage in a philosophical argument but I am too busy running my farm creating the wealth this country survives on
let me get this right
pukeko = human ?? because it is alive ?
fly = pukeko because it is alive
can I kill flys if they are a pest ?
gee taking your argument to its logical conclusion is a bit problematic isn’t it
I know you greens have decided farming is this country’s great evil (eg the Green Nana’s keynote speech today )but I ask you where would NZ be with out it
“three key questions around a carbon emissions trading scheme, the polluting dairy industry and what National would do to help the people Mr Key had labelled the underclass.
“Where will you set the cap (on emissions) John and how will you allocate the permits to trade, will they all go to the current polluters?”
Ms Fitzsimons said Fonterra had set a goal of 4 per cent annual growth in the dairy industry, which meant 4 per cent more cows, more methane and more pollution”
$8 Billion that’s rights boys and girls $8 billion a year in foreign exchange
that keeps NZ going and allows you to live in the manner to which you are accustomed
I ask you now what do you want ??
how about all us farmers sell our farms pocket the coin and bugger off
12000 dairy farms
worth about 3 million each
employing a least 30000 kiwis
earning about $8 billion a year
$360 billion that’s right $360 billion
you know most of the time we don’t know why we bother
we can earn more most years putting our money in the bank
June 3rd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Panda
8 Billion!…..8 Billion!
Why the hell do dairy farmers drive Rextons then?
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Why do we say it’s wrong to harm humans? It generally boils down to because it causes harm. So why is it generally seen as more acceptable to harm animals than it is to harm humans? It can’t be because we are more intelligent than animals, because then it would be acceptable to harm infants and the mentally disabled. So why? If you say “because humans are more important than animals” without providing any justification for that claim then there’s nothing to stop racists and sexists from using the same argument, i.e. “because whites are more important than blacks” or “because men are more important than women”. It’s the same argument, just different groups.
In my opinion the best thing to do would be to choose the course of action which causes less harm. Killing flies is generally justified because if you dont, then it is likely that they will spoil your food, thus harming more beings than just one fly. Killing pukekos may be justified on these grounds, but killing them just because we decide their lives are worth less than ours just because they are a different species is not justified.