Thuggery in Auckland

March 11th, 2012 at 1:26 pm by David Farrar

blogs:

“Our most valuable asset is the right to protest.” – Matt McCarten

Yesterday, I found out what this actually means in the eyes of some unionist protesters. I have always believed in the right to protest, despite not always agree with what is being protested. Heck, most of the time I strongly disagree with the protest message, but so long as the protesters don’t directly harm anyone, I tend to be fine with it. At the March 10 Save Our Ports protest, organised by the Council of Trade Unions, I found that this feeling is not always mutual. 

I am reminded that there is no virtue in wanting to protect popular speech. The virtue is in defending the rights of for people whose message you totally disagree with. Hence I have supported the right of holocaust denier David Irving to come to NZ, and speak.

So David (former AoC Auckland President) and I decided to take to the streets with placards, joining the march from the opposite side of the road that they were on. My placard read “Union Strikes, Efficiency up 25%” and David’s read “Who still has their jobs? Helen Kelly and Garry Parsloe”. I had made a decision from the start that this would be a silent protest, as I knew we would be shouted at and thought that we would have been just as bad as them if we shouted profanities back. 

As predicted, during the march we were screamed at, being called things such as “Fascist pigs”, “f**ken scumbags”, and “NAZIs”. Although I was expecting people to shout at us, I was not expecting that extreme verbal abuse. Those are names I would never use to describe anyone, simply because they are extremist and are offensive to both the person you’re shouting at, and the people who were victims to the NAZIs. I would think that the people who like to think they fight most for so called freedom would understand that.*Sigh* I guess not.

While distasteful, free speech even extends to the marchers screaming Nazi names at Brogan and David.

Into about fifteen minutes of marching, we were rushed by a bunch of protesters. One of the protesters knocked my arm and stole my placard, one punched David in the back of his head and stole his placard. They both ripped the placards and chucked the pieces onto the road, receiving cheers from many of the marchers. One of the protesters had been filming it, and came up to us, narrating his ‘film’ by continuously calling us “f**king fascists” and “fascist pigs”, telling us that we were going to be famous on Facebook. Within about 30 seconds, one of the officers that had been on duty came running and that seemed to be the cue for the protesters to run back into the mob.

The irony is that it was the protesters who were being fascists, with their violent suppression of messages they disagreed with.

The police officer, instead of pursuing the people who had offended, came to ask us to leave. He had seen everything, but told us that there were too many protesters for them to protect our right to protest. At the time, I was quite shaken. I was in no mood or state of mind to argue with the officer, and so we left peacefully. Although David and I have protested and counter-protested before, this was the first time things had become physical, which is something we thought New Zealand was above. It seems we were wrong there too.

The Police Commissioner should instruct the Auckland Police that the next time this happens, the appropriate response is to call for more police officers to protect the rights of peaceful protest.

After the march on that part of the street was finished, David and I returned to pick up the remains of the placards. Although we knew we were not the cause of the litter, we still thought that we shouldn’t leave it lying around the road and footpath. During this time, thankfully, drivers were actually relatively friendly and respectful of what we were doing. A few protesters coming back from the Vector Arena were not though. We again were verbally abused with the same extremist labels. One protester in particular encouraged cars to run us over, and said if they didn’t, he would do it himself.

What a pity Brogan and David didn’t have a friend along with a video recorder. It would be very interesting to identify those who resort to violence to suppress speech they disagree with.

I recall an anti-EFA march in Wellington. A handful of (mainly) Young Labour activists did a counter-protest. When we got to Parliament we actually offered them a chance to speak to have their view heard. A stark contrast.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Tags: , , ,

117 Responses to “Thuggery in Auckland”

  1. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Not in the least bit surprising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Maaik (33 comments) says:

    How stupid can you get? 2 innocents decide to protest, knowing full well they are stepping into a hostile environment where they are going to be verbally abused, and (going by the accusations of thuggery that have been rife in the right-wing blogs lately) probably facing physical abuse. Their preparation? Nothing. Anybody with a gram of intelligence would organise a friend with a videocam, preferably a reporter or two, and (if they have them) a friendly off-duty copper to step up when required.

    But no, these people went Polyanna and missed the best chance ever to get some “real” footage of what these thugs are. I am disappointed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tom hunter (4,422 comments) says:

    This ties in quite nicely with the comments around the thread – The Language of Denial. In that thread examples were given of free speech being suppressed by group-thug behaviour. Behaviour that was excused by several commentators using the argument that The idea that there should be no consequences for expressing controversial opinions is just wrong.

    Here’s another from the US just a couple of days ago, where an economics professor addressed the recent issue of the activist Sandra Fluke and her demand that others pay for her contraception, referring to her as an “extortionist with an overweening sense of entitlement”. One result was his lecture being disrupted by protesting students, to which this response applies exactly to the left-wing union thugs:

    Most worrisome, however, is the fact that UR allowed its students to disrupt Landsburg’s class without any consequences, despite the fact that campus security was on the scene. What happened in Landsburg’s class is a textbook example of “mob censorship,” where a group of people silence or drown out a speaker with whose views they disagree.

    The union thugs were not acting in an exceptional manner. As the Language of Denial commentators made quite clear, “mob censorship” is the basis of left-wing debate framing and control.

    What a pity Brogan and David didn’t have a friend along with a video recorder

    Especially in the age of cam-corder smart-phones. When are right-wing activists going to learn this lesson, which applies equally well to MSM interviews?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dog_eat_dog (743 comments) says:

    I don’t know, the expectation of someone to have to protect their own freedom of speech with video cameras is getting awfully close to ‘asking for by wearing skimpy clothing’ rape apology :P

    The thing they need is the details of the police officer involved. Disgraceful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Colville (2,081 comments) says:

    If they had a friend with a video cam tape the criminal behaviour of the warfies the left would have then accused them of setting a honey trap and screamed blue murder.
    Its never wrong when the left does it!

    More fun would have been to have a couple of mates (I mean unconnected onlookers) with large biceps and hard heads (and fence batons) step in and defend them :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. thor42 (920 comments) says:

    I agree with tom hunter. We on the right have been too slow to use camcorders and smart phones to document the hypocrisy of the left (of which this is an excellent example).

    I hear you too, dog_eat_dog. I agree with you too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Brian Smaller (3,992 comments) says:

    I recall an anti-EFA march in Wellington. A handful of (mainly) Young Labour activists did a counter-protest. When we got to Parliament we actually offered them a chance to speak to have their view heard. A stark contrast.

    Actually, they got in front of the anti-EFA march so they would hog the TV coverage with their banners. I felt like getting all union on them, especially that fat joker who ended up getting sacked for stealing off his boss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nostalgia-NZ (4,911 comments) says:

    These two should get their own protest going, did they expect to be embraced for being foolish and inflammatory?
    Had they organised their protest with the police, or taken any sound advice on what possible outcomes might be, it’s fairly clear they chose to be provocative

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Inky_the_Red (736 comments) says:

    This is not thuggery. I used to get swore at, spat at and insulted for wearing a Warriors top.

    These day that attitude is much less and usually restricted to those in expensive suits

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,375 comments) says:

    Yes, the petty thief Sonny Thomas was always involved with Young Labour anti-democratic activities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Other_Andy (2,298 comments) says:

    “Had they organised their protest with the police, or taken any sound advice on what possible outcomes might be, it’s fairly clear they chose to be provocative”

    It’s a bit like those girls walking around in ‘skimpy’ provocative clothing isn’t it?
    They ask to be raped.
    Or those lippy women, being provocative.
    Giving them the bash will teach them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Peter Freedman (127 comments) says:

    Australia’s new Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, was feeding the media chooks outside NSW Parliament a couple of days ago when some guy started shouting abuse at him from behind a fence.

    Although the noise was offputting Carr’s only comment was that this was a robust democracy and the man was entitled to his say.

    Personally, I would have wandered over to him, followed, of course by all the peckers, thrust my hand out and said: “Hi, I’m Bob Carr. All the nation’s media are here, now what did you want to say?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Peter Freedman (127 comments) says:

    Ah, now. Does free speech extend to flag burning?

    [DPF: Generally yes, but depending on where it is done and what is happening]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Kimble (4,381 comments) says:

    it’s fairly clear they chose to be provocative

    Yeah, and those Union animals cant be expected to act like human beings. I mean, they only have IQs in the 80s so they cant be held to the same standards that people are held to, right? Right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kimble (4,381 comments) says:

    Does free speech extend to flag burning?

    Yep.

    Does it extend to public verbal abuse of children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Other_Andy (2,298 comments) says:

    “Ah, now. Does free speech extend to flag burning?”

    Yep.
    The left loves burning flags so that’s obviously ‘protected speech’.
    As long as they are the flags of ‘white christian colonial’ states though..
    So burning flags is a revolutionary act and is fine.
    Not so when you are trying to burn korans.
    Muslims are one of the lefts favourite minority groups so they are protected.
    Burning bibles is OK though. Provoking and insulting Christians, Whites or ‘Westeners’ is always OK.
    Piss Christ, Madonna in a condom and that sort of stuff might even earn you an award.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Mark (497 comments) says:

    Any union member that engages in thuggery should be arrested and the union itself should be fined.

    So much for the so called peaceful left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    So, there’s a protest march against workers being sacked so their job’s pay and conditions can be cut , you join it with placards expressing approval at these people losing their livelihoods, and they express anger about it? Gosh, this is a surprising, even shocking outcome – the textbooks on human psychology will need to be rewritten!

    All sarcasm aside, this twat should be glad those cops were present, they were probably the only thing keeping him from a well-deserved punch in the face.

    [DPF: You fail to mention the fact the verbal abuse turned physical. If it was verbal abuse only I would not have blogged on it.

    I presume you approve of physical force being used against speech you disapprove of, and that if so it is the fault of those assaulted?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    Oh, come on DPF. I didn’t hear those on the right shouting “thuggery” when National’s Gerry Brownlee assaulted Neil Abel at a National Party conference a few years ago, or when ACT’s (now convicted fraudster) Wi Huata assaulted Sue Bradford at an ACT Party conference a few years back. Double standard here.

    I really think these young ACT guys need to harden up a bit. If you place yourself in a provocative confrontational situation with your political enemies, as these couple of guys decided to do, you can expect a bit of a reaction. And, as someone who was on the march and witnessed what happened from about 20 metres, I think they are totally over-egging it. Sure, a couple of marchers detached from the march and removed their placards from them and tore them up. And sure, they were taunted. I can’t say for certain that no-one called them “fascists” or “nazis”, although I didn’t hear that – the main chants directed towards them were “shame, shame, shame” and “shame on you”.

    By comparison with some situations I have found myself in when part of a small group of protestors confronting a political enemy, in which I have been assaulted with sufficient violence to cause injuries including broken ribs on one occasion and a cut lip and bloodied nose on another; and called, among other things, a “nigger-lover”, a “race traitor”, a “commie arsehole” and an “arse-bandit”; this was tame.

    [DPF: Why did you not call out to those who used physical force to remove the placards? I absolutely would have intervened in such a case, to stop them doing so.

    And you fail to distinguish between protest in a public place, and a private place. You can be evicted from a private place legally]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. tom hunter (4,422 comments) says:

    … it’s fairly clear they chose to be provocative

    In that case we’d better hope that the unionists don’t start complaining about being crushed by shattered dreams, destroyed plans, broken promises and betrayals, or we could be looking at far more serious consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @Kimble 3:29 pm

    I’m a proud unionist, and, for the record, the last time I did an IQ test I scored 135.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. plebe (271 comments) says:

    Cry me a river ,for gods sake,whimpy ACT tossers laughing from the other side of the road get theitr ears clipped and they whimp. Not very stunch ACT troughers,get the dag Banks down there to change your nappies and hold your WOW four hands.A VERY big protest from the only two act supporters in Auckland.poor wee whimp ACT, all two of them.

    [DPF: So to be absolutely clear you condone the use of force against protesters, if you disagree with their message? Now do you care to tell us your name you brave coward]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    Maybe he was referring to the anti-EFA marchers, Toad…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. tom hunter (4,422 comments) says:

    By comparison with some situations I have found myself in when part of a small group of protestors confronting a political enemy, in which I have been assaulted with sufficient violence to cause injuries including broken ribs on one occasion and a cut lip and bloodied nose on another; and called, among other things, a “nigger-lover”, a “race traitor”, a “commie arsehole” and an “arse-bandit”; this was tame.

    I presume you’re talking about the ’81 Tour so I thought it was interesting in conjunction with this ..

    If you place yourself in a provocative confrontational situation with your political enemies, as these couple of guys decided to do, you can expect a bit of a reaction.

    Which is fair enough – except that 30 years ago protestors like you claimed that the people dishing out physical violence and intimidation were reactionary thugs, always a vital aid in winning the argument. It helped you to smear your “political enemies” (and is that phrase not so telling in itself) as an essential, emotive aid to winning the overall debate.

    Now that the shoe is on the other foot it’s time to claim that this is no big deal – that dishing out physical violence and intimidation is to be expected and not at all a reflection of the larger arguments.

    In short it’s the usual double standard of the left-wing. I’ve given up calling the left-wing hypocrites or making the have you no shame appeal as it’s a complete waste of time.

    The standard is any weapon to hand. Got it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Other_Andy (2,298 comments) says:

    “Double standard here.”

    For a person supposedly so brilliant, you seem to have no understanding of the term ‘Double standard’.
    The actions of both Brownlee and Huata were widely condemned and Brownlee was dragged into court.
    You whole heartedly support violence by union thugs and unlawful acts by the ‘greens’ and labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt at 3:49 pm

    All sarcasm aside, this twat should be glad those cops were present, they were probably the only thing keeping him from a well-deserved punch in the face.

    That’s a disgraceful, shameful comment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Other_Andy (2,298 comments) says:

    @plebe

    This shows the mentality of the far left and the far right.
    Mob mentality and fascists at heart, just a variation on the same theme.
    The bullies that pick on the ones for not being part of the mob.
    If you can’t win the debate you resort to violence and intimidation.
    Were you part of that ‘brave mob’ plebe’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nostalgia-NZ (4,911 comments) says:

    toad
    4.01

    Up to you whether you reply, but where do you realistically see this strike heading?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Viking2 (11,137 comments) says:

    plebe (254) Says:
    March 11th, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Cry me a river ,for gods sake,whimpy ACT tossers laughing from the other side of the road get theitr ears clipped and they whimp. Not very stunch ACT troughers,get the dag Banks down there to change your nappies and hold your WOW four hands.A VERY big protest from the only two act supporters in Auckland.poor wee whimp ACT, all two of them.

    [DPF: So to be absolutely clear you condone the use of force against protesters, if you disagree with their message? Now do you care to tell us your name you brave coward]

    hahahaha, so its not just me that thinks you are a loser eh/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. cows4me (248 comments) says:

    Am I wrong in my belief that big brother is always watching? I would have thought Auckland would have cameras on every vantage point. I know our local town has a love affair with the things. So I would assume that this disturbance has been caught on tape, perhaps those doing the watching are expressing a political leaning by staying silent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    other_Andy, it’s not just the far left and far right, I’ve been cyber assaulted by mobs here in the past (most of that crap is now not present here), on Dim-Post (and I was banned for it, a bit like the police action here dismissing the victims) and on The Standard (including today).

    I’ve also witnessed an alarming ongoing case of mob cyber assault on Facebook and elsewhere over the past couple of weeks, mostly involving women presenting as anti abuse campaigners involved in a sustained case of abuse and false allegations including despicable attacks on a woman whose son had died.

    Our society is running close to the lines of decency and frequently teeters and fails.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. tom hunter (4,422 comments) says:

    That’s a disgraceful comment.

    It’s a refreshing dose of honesty from a left-winger.

    I appreciate knowing that in future, if I do place myself in a provocative confrontational situation with my political enemies and wind up punching them in the face, Toad and Psycho will make no negative inferences from these actions about my cause, arguments, or character and will not try and turn it to their political advantage.

    The only question I have is whether too much laughter is a bad thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    That’s a disgraceful, shameful comment.

    It’s a realistic comment. I know that’s foreign territory for you, so I’ll put it in terms you might better understand. If someone’s business goes under and I go around there to tell this complete stranger how chuffed I am that he’s just lost his livelihood, getting called names is the least I could expect. A smack in the head for it would be well deserved and if I complained about getting one, I’d be even more of a twat than I was for going and antagonising him in the first place. Feel free to put the stick back up your arse now and tell me what’s disgusting and shameful about knowing that.

    [DPF: thanks for confirming your pro violence stance. By your logic if I am aggrieved at having the Givt taje away my rights to free speech, then on the anti-EFA march, we would have been within our right to assault the pro-EFA half dozen who turned up.

    I suspect you will not agree. In reality you are a psuedo-fascist who condones violence when it is for a cause you believe in]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Other_Andy (2,298 comments) says:

    Hold on Tom.
    You are not a ‘left-winger’.
    Your actions are therefore held to a different standard.
    You can’t expect our ‘revolutionary’ anti-establishment, anti-capitalist, anti-western, anti-colonialists to abide by the rules?
    That wouldn’t be fair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    I assume we won’t be hearing any-more lefty PC crap from PM about rape having nothing to do with how Women choose to dress and act then…as he tends to do on behalf of his keepers at the Hand Mirror and DimPost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nostalgia-NZ (4,911 comments) says:

    cowsforme
    4.32

    Of course there would be cameras operating, but just as we see lone sailors putting to sea against the advice of search and rescue organisations – too much time can’t be spent on people who don’t have the common sense to see the likely result of their own actions. The police had enough of a job on their hands than rescuing a couple of moon-walkers that knew they were on the wrong planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt – if smacking in the head and other violent ways of expressing anger or frustration are regarded as normal and acceptable I fear for the partners and children of the port workers.

    See the next topic, Child Abuse Stats. New Zealand’s culture of violence is spread through our society, as demonstrated by some of the protesters and some of the commenters here. It is disgraceful and shameful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. plebe (271 comments) says:

    [DPF: So to be absolutely clear you condone the use of force against protesters, if you disagree with their message? Now do you care to tell us your name you brave coward]
    Call me a chicken, but i dont give a crap, my name is Fred Dagg,but not related to banks hes the smelly sort ,this is the new New Zealand dog eat dog, but please dont kick my dogs, they voted conservetive like me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Other_Andy (2,298 comments) says:

    @PM

    You analogy is rubbish. First, the POA belongs to the Auckland ratepayers, it is not ‘their business’. Secondly, the union thugs are the ones who made themselves redundant. They thought they could hold the Auckland ratepayers to randsom, just like the thugs on the Inter Island used to hold the general public to randsom. They insisted on being paid for 40 hours when only 28 are worked and thought they could get away with it. They have only themselves to blame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. tom hunter (4,422 comments) says:

    That wouldn’t be fair.

    My god, you’re correct. I’d forgotten that …

    … no person of understanding and humanity will too quickly condemn the violence that often occurs when long-subdued masses rise against their oppressors, or take their first steps toward liberty and social reconstruction.

    Counter-revolutionary violence on the other hand can’t be condemned quickly enough. Quite ironic that the author of that quote has little time for the post-modernists and their emphasis on power relationships as the primary basis of societal constructs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. DJP6-25 (1,268 comments) says:

    When it comes to activists, the left usually act like pondscum in these situations. Security camera footage should certainly be consulted.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Plebe,

    Are you “paws”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Leaping Jimmy (15,949 comments) says:

    When it comes to activists, the left usually act like pondscum in these situations.

    They always act like pondscum David. It’s all that self-righteous belief that they’re fighting for a cause which is helping all the victims, you see. That means they’re allowed to do anything because if they didn’t, why that’s just not “staunch,” to use their own vernacular.

    Same principle in action with the poster vandalism from Wussell’s secretary who was re-hired after the election.

    Fact is, those two counter-protesters need to read Tsn Tzu (Know thy enemy) since if they were surprised by what happened, then why? They definitely should have organised cameras, so should any conservative doing a counter-protest, anywhere. It’s just common sense.

    The police action should also have been expected. Police need to keep the peace. They care most about that and less about someone’s right to free speech being infringed. That also, is simply common sense. I’m not saying it’s correct, I’m simply saying, that is the way that it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    if smacking in the head and other violent ways of expressing anger or frustration are regarded as normal and acceptable I fear for the partners and children of the port workers.

    Awesome concern-trolling, mate. I bet you really are genuinely surprised when people on all these other blogs tell you to fuck off, aren’t you?

    I assume we won’t be hearing any-more lefty PC crap from PM about rape having nothing to do with how Women choose to dress and act then…

    Such incoherence of thought is common among rape apologists. Fwiw, as far as I’m concerned rapists deserve far worse than a punch in the face.

    [DPF: But by your logic, you justify force against others if you feel aggrieved. You said it is okay to punch someone who you feel is celebrating you losing your job. So if some bitch of a boss sacks you, and tells you she is glad you are sacked, by your logic it is okay to bash her up, and hell why not go one step further?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    plebe – don’t you think the reason there were only two protesters is because everyone knew what violent thugs the unionists are? Obviously you have no problem with silencing opposing voices through fear of violence. What a piece of scum you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt – not usually surprised, people tend to not like being confronted with their ignorance, although I musty admit Danyl surprised me, although mates before decency is not uncommon. If no one speaks up against violence then the violence will continue unabated.

    I’m not even surprised when some keep trying to defend their promotion of violence. It tends to keep highlighting their thuggish tendencies, and their belief that any crap is justified to get one’s own way. On the blogs, street, in the home, a tendency in one suggests a tendency in another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Nostradamus (2,943 comments) says:

    Bhudson:

    I have been observing “Plebe” for a while and have no doubt that he is “Paws”. Despite his inability to string together a coherent sentence, he has a distinctive style that give him away.

    Banned until 11 September 2032 for “10 abusive e-mails to DPF” (as noted on the Demerits page) and for flouting an ongoing ban under new aliases. Previous aliases were: John/JSF/Joe Average/Roger Rabbit/Jock. The fact that the guy keeps popping up here under different names suggests he doesn’t have much of a life outside the blogosphere.

    DPF will eventually get around to serving yet another “outski” notice on him. The only question is what alias he will use next time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @Other_Andy 4:18 pm

    For a person supposedly so brilliant, you seem to have no understanding of the term ‘Double standard’.
    The actions of both Brownlee and Huata were widely condemned and Brownlee was dragged into court.

    Widely condemned? Huh? The Nats attempted, thankfully unsuccessfully, to get the taxpayer to fund Brownlee’s legal defence from Parliamentary Service funding.

    So much for “widely condemning” Brownlee’s actions! The Nats actually attempted to corruptly use public money to defend Brownlee when his action in assaulting Neil Abel was totally unrelated to Brownlee’s position as a Member of Parliament. Fortunately, their request for that funding was declined.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    bhudson – I think plebe is definitely paws, apart from the match in shriekingly irrational idiocy and hatred, his posts have the same characteristic illiteracy as paws did. Both randomly decide whether to put a space before or after a comma, or both, or neither.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Toad – I didn’t like the Brownlee incident and how it was dealt with. Neither do I like the promotion of violence here.

    If you condemn Brownlee I’d have thought you’d have condemned all political thuggery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ 4:33 pm

    toad 4.01 Up to you whether you reply, but where do you realistically see this strike heading?

    To the courts, and it is not just the strike, it is the actions of PoAL in dismissing employees while in the middle of employment agreement negotiations.

    I’m not a practicing or even a qualified lawyer, but I have done a lot of paralegal work in both employment law and in ACC law.

    IMO, there is a strong case that PoAL’s actions, and the sequence in which they have occurred, amount to both unlawful dismissals and an illegal lockout of the purportedly dismissed employees.

    Have a look here for a synopsis of MUNZ’s legal arguments on that issue (and others relating to the dispute).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Leaping Jimmy (15,949 comments) says:

    If no one speaks up against violence then the violence will continue unabated.

    Pete I think the violence will continue unabated for as long as the lefties hold their self-righteous fantasy that they’re fighting for victims. I mean, look at people like Sue Bradford. Do you think she’d ever listen to anything which told her otherwise? Of course she wouldn’t. And the people who attacked these courageous conservatives have the same kind of thinking that she does.

    Fanatics, in other words.

    Aren’t they awful.

    I’m not a practicing or even a qualified lawyer, but I have done a lot of paralegal work in both employment law and in ACC law.

    IMO, there is a strong case that PoAL’s actions, and the sequence in which they have occurred, amount to both unlawful dismissals and an illegal lockout of the purportedly dismissed employees.

    Sadly toad this isn’t ACC law and lots of actual employment lawyers who do this for a living, say the complete opposite. Isn’t that a shame. Awwwwwwwww.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    Oops, I posted a bum link at 6:02 pm. Should be: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10636760 to the Nats’ attempt to corruptly fund Gerry Brownlee’s defence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    toad>If you place yourself in a provocative confrontational situation with your political enemies, as these couple of guys decided to do, you can expect a bit of a reaction.

    Greens are my political enemies. Their very existence confronts me. If I come across any on the street handing out fliers, waving placards, or complaining about Chinese people refusing to give them their flag back then I’ll feel free to give them a kicking. I’ll tell them that Toad said they should have expected it, and to harden up.

    Thug!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Keeping Stock (10,100 comments) says:

    Thuggery and intimidation are inextricably linked with the unions. After all, who could ever forget ‘Megaphone Len’ Richards’ violent outburst at a Labour Party conference a few years ago?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. WineOh (552 comments) says:

    Toad, quotes from your article:
    “Before a change to the rules in late 2001, MPs were left to foot their own legal bills. They can now be reimbursed in some cases, but the public has no power to find out when it has happened because, unlike ministers, other MPs are not subject to the Official Information Act. ”

    Sorry this law change was brought in by which government?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Leaping Jimmy (15,949 comments) says:

    Fact is, for toad and PM and the other lefties, this issue is entirely union driven. The only people who think you have a point are the unionists and the bleeding heart variety of lefties, who think all employers are pure and unadulterated evil. No-one else does. (Of course the fact most of the bleeding heart variety have been paid and fed and had their children educated etc by said evil employers their whole working lives, without any evil at all appearing on the horizon, seems not to enter their simple, naive, emotion-filled heads.)

    If the unions simply accepted casualisation, just like Tauranga workers have, with no apparent ill effects, nothing would have happened, redundancy-wise.

    It’s not the employers fault the unions have forced them to this juncture, its the union’s fault. Pure and simple. The mental propaganda that then the workers wouldn’t be able to raise their families and would risk being called out at a moments notice, is simply that, propaganda: i.e. not reality.

    Fact is, you could, out of 1.4 million people in Akld, only get max 3000 who agreed with you. That speaks volumes. If you guys really cared about people as you claim to, you’d tell the workers to pack it in and make a deal. No-one owes anyone, a living. Do they. No-one should be forced to give money to any old person simply because that person wanted to do anything they wanted to.

    Employment is a take-it-or-leave-it deal. That’s the offer. Do you want it, yes or no? It’s not incumbent on any employer to cater to every little whim of the precious employee, in an open market capitalist society, which operates in NZ today.

    If you guys don’t like that, then why don’t you just fuck off to North Korea, and see how the socialist utopia works out for you there, if that’s what you really want? Otherwise, do what everyone else in the country does, and take it, or leave it, with histrionics.

    Can you do that? Let’s hope so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @davidp 6:31 pm

    Hey, as a Green, I don’t condone violence in any circumstance, other than in (in a personal basis) self-defence and on a national or international basis in response to crimes against humanity when all attempts to negotiate a non-violent solution have failed.

    But this is really small bikkies. If I were one of a small number of protesters on, say, an anti-mining protest, and a few pro-mining people confronted me and ripped up my placards, I wouldn’t go bleating to the media (as I witnessed these Actoid guys trying to do) or writing blogs about how badly my counter-protest was received.

    I would try to keep the debate on a political level – the merits of my arguments against theirs.

    These couple of Actoids staged this (and fair enough, the Greens do the same on occasion) to maximise publicity for their cause. They knew the likely reaction, and played the union rally to get it, and a couple of pro-union marchers, in my opinion not sensible, played the Actoid’s game.

    Storm in a pisspot (or as John Key and John Banks would have it, a teacup) as far as I am concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @Leaping Jimmy 6:48 pm

    Fact is, for toad and PM and the other lefties, this issue is entirely union driven. The only people who think you have a point are the unionists and the bleeding heart variety of lefties, who think all employers are pure and unadulterated evil.

    I know lots of good employers, who are far from “pure and unadulterated evil”. But I think the nuclear option of making an entire workforce redundant in the middle of employment negotiations because the employer is making insufficient progress in negotiations is not just “evil” but most likely unlawful.

    And, anyway, what is wrong with things being “union driven”. From what I have seen over the last few years, unionised workers have had far greater pay increases than non-union workers. Surely, if unionisation gets workers’ incomes up (catching up with Australia and all that) then unionisation of workforces is a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Toad:

    By comparison with some situations I have found myself in when part of a small group of protestors confronting a political enemy, in which I have been assaulted with sufficient violence to cause injuries including broken ribs on one occasion and a cut lip and bloodied nose on another; and called, among other things, a “nigger-lover”, a “race traitor”, a “commie arsehole” and an “arse-bandit”; this was tame.

    Ok, if you think this level of abuse, vandalism of possessions and (alleged) violence was “tame” where do you draw the line? At what level of verbal and physical violence do you call it thuggery?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    Hey, as a Green, I don’t condone violence in any circumstance

    Bollocks.

    Your whole filthy creed is based on coercion. Just go fuck yourself with with your “I don’t condone violence” crap. Your faux piety is nauseating. Violence underpins your entire philosophy.

    Capitalism is the abnegation of violence.

    The problem is that, left to ourselves, we free people don’t do what you fascists want us to do.

    Just fuck off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Nostalgia-NZ (4,911 comments) says:

    toad
    6.13

    I took a look at that, thanks. Certainly not a weak argument by any means. On the broader issue I saw some comment last night, that I’ve heard before, that the competition between ports is self-defeating for the industry and the country which makes sense to me.
    I’m just wondering now, as I’ve done throughout, why a compromise on particular issues wasn’t made, even to ‘box’ them in the meantime while other measures are employed to settle them. Having read the pleadings, and because it’s before the Courts now, isn’t that apparently ‘boxing’ the main issues in the meantime, at least until the hearing or any appeals, allowing for work to resume under the status quo in the meantime? I suppose for the union that might be seen as losing some momentum as support strengthens but I can’t really see why POAL would object to getting the port working in the meantime because that is in the interest of the rate-payers to whom they’re meant to be responsible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    toad,

    Only a party who was not getting what they wanted could describe this point as being “in the middle” of negotiations. MUNZ has had ample time to accept the offers or agree REASONABLE concessions. (Even Holmes, on Q&A this morning, pointed out the generosity of PoAL’s offers.)

    POaL taking action long into incredibly protracted proceedings, which were clearly going nowhere, and where MUNZ had instigated a dozen strikes…. Well the courts may well find that is altogether another thing,

    On the unions getting workers better increases, perhaps your should hop off to whaleoil and check out the stats he published there…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    NNZ,

    competition between ports is self-defeating for the industry and the country

    Not at all. Competition among the ports, which are, of course, separate companies, is extremely good for their customers. Suggesting that separate companies work together to remove that completion is, perhaps, bordering on promoting collusion??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    toad>But this is really small bikkies.

    It is only a small part of a pattern of thuggish bullying behaviour. The union members have assaulted workers at the ports, verbally abused workers at the ports, have indulged in blatant racism, and operate a sexist membership policy. They’ve urinated in a barbecue, FFS. Workers have the right to a bully free workplace, and everyone has the right not to be assaulted as they go about their business.

    I’m surprised to find you supporting these racists since I always thought you were a progressive sort of guy. Last month Russel Norman was singling out Chinese people for vilification. This month you’re standing up for some union thugs who want to exclude Pacific Islanders from the ports. Which racial or ethnic group will be the Green target next month?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @davidp 7:22 pm

    It is only a small part of a pattern of thuggish bullying behaviour.

    Would you not consider suddenly depriving almost 300 employees of their livelihood while renegotiating an employment agreement they have complied with to be “thuggish bullying behaviour”?

    I would.

    There is no argument the employees have done anything unlawful here. There is a strong argument PoAL has. Let’s see how this pans out in the courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @davidp 7:22 pm

    And on a separate issue you raised in that comment, neither Russel Norman’s objections, nor mine, are to the Crafar farms being sold specifically to Chinese interests. The Green objection is to them being sold to foreign interests, be they Chinese, Australian, US, Canadian, Chilean or whatever.

    Nothing racist about that – it is purely an economic argument. Sure, the likes of Winston Peters and NZ First might evoke racism in the same debate. But don’t confuse their position with that of the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Would you not consider suddenly depriving almost 300 employees of their livelihood while renegotiating an employment agreement they have complied with to be “thuggish bullying behaviour”?

    I thought you were referring to union officials there for a minute. Are their jobs at risk?

    There is no argument the employees have done anything unlawful here.

    Really? I’ve seen a few arguments about that. Including thuggish workplace behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    toad>There is no argument the employees have done anything unlawful here.

    Unlawful? Maybe not. But this sort of thing is pretty vile:

    “Maritime Union president Garry Parsloe … accused Vaoesea of being ”the bosses’ little pet”. Vaoesea said he resigned from the union after what he claimed was a ”racist” article appeared in the Maritime Union magazine in September last year. The article referred to a hypothetical scenario of a workplace that needed some ”serious readjustment” with the need for subservient workers, such as Pacific Islanders.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6488335/Wharfies-claim-abuse-during-stike

    Aren’t you in the least bit ashamed that you’re supporting these racists?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    toad,

    And on a separate issue you raised in that comment, neither Russel Norman’s objections, nor mine, are to the Crafar farms being sold specifically to Chinese interests. The Green objection is to them being sold to foreign interests, be they Chinese, Australian, US, Canadian, Chilean or whatever.

    Nothing racist about that – it is purely an economic argument.

    Really? I don’t recall you or the Greens vociferously protesting the James Cameron buying up farmland in Wairarapa…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Nostalgia-NZ (4,911 comments) says:

    bhudson
    7.19

    Some ports may best suit handling particular product better than others, specialising was used in the context to which I refer. But that aside, I’m sure in all industries there are customers that use best price exclusively, not always getting best return of course, and another reality some of the best price offers are offered by companies that don’t survive for any length of time, trying to match them puts good businesses in jeopardy, of course there can also be safety or other issues – even in that instance the Ports should be expected to be working to the same standards because all said and done some customers are bed hoppers that don’t work to sustain long term engagement with their business partners to mutual success.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    NNZ,

    even in that instance the Ports should be expected to be working to the same standards

    So you beliee that MUNZ should have promoted that their members agree to terms aligned to those at the Port of Tauranga then? (After all, PoT, represents best practice for NZ and is certainly not an example of a company that doesn’t survive for any length of time.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    toad>The Green objection is to them being sold to foreign interests, be they Chinese, Australian, US, Canadian, Chilean or whatever.

    Australian, US, Canadian and possibly even Chilean people invest in NZ farm land on a regular basis. A US film producer was purchasing a sizable spread at the same time Norman was whipping up an anti-Chinese sentiment in parliament last month. Have the Greens opposed any of these other purchasers, including the Avatar bloke? Not that I’ve heard. If you’re able to point me at some Green Party press releases concerning other land sale decisions, or at questions that Norman has asked at Question Time regarding the Avatar bloke farm sale, then I’m happy to be proved wrong. Until then, it looks like more than coincidence that the one sale that Norman has attacked has been the first sale to Chinese people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy: we don’t live in the bizarre fantasy land you seem to inhabit, we live in New Zealand, which has laws covering employment contract negotiations.

    … I can’t really see why POAL would object to getting the port working in the meantime because that is in the interest of the rate-payers to whom they’re meant to be responsible.

    PoAL wants the workforce casualised. As far as they’re concerned, the money casualisation and contracting out would allow them to redirect from the workers to the shareholders outweighs the short-term losses from the industrial action. They have no incentive to compromise – reaching an agreement with MUNZ would constitute failure from their pov.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Peter Freedman (127 comments) says:

    DPF, to my mind flag burning IS free speech and I cannot think of any time or place where it wouldn’t be. Personally I wouldn’t burn our flag in public, even though I think the flag is outmoded and simply makes us look like part of the British Umpire.

    I wouldn’t burn it because I know it would upset many people and I understand why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @Pete George 7:48 pm

    Really? I’ve seen a few arguments about that. Including thuggish workplace behaviour.

    Okay, I am talking about legal arguments here, where something is actually on public record. Like before the Employment Court or Employment Relations Authority.

    As far as I know, there is one instance – that of a racist and sexist article being submitted by an employee to the union publication, which that employee was sacked for, and failed on his personal grievance challenging his dismissal.

    But to make generalised allegations on the basis of one instance of inappropriate behaviour by one employee is propaganda from employers with an agenda to squash wages and conditions for their employees, irrespective of their collective work performance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    But to make generalised allegations on the basis of one instance of inappropriate behaviour…

    …is the typical Kiwiblog commenter’s modus operandi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Toad, I’m not talking about “one instance of inappropriate behaviour by one employee”. You should read a better cross section of propaganda. And watch the news.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Leaping Jimmy (15,949 comments) says:

    toad and PM, thanks for your replies.

    I guess where I’m coming from is:
    1) Management have the right to manage: i.e. to make an offer. Employees have the right to turn it down.
    2) Employees don’t have the right to make any old demand they like, they’re employees, not managers. Provided the employer has acted in good faith, employees can either leave the employer or accept it, there is no legitimate third alternative such as sabotaging the employer’s relationships with its customers, which is what the union is doing, right now.

    I think the nuclear option of making an entire workforce redundant in the middle of employment negotiations because the employer is making insufficient progress in negotiations is not just “evil” but most likely unlawful.

    And, anyway, what is wrong with things being “union driven”.

    toad, why is it evil? Let’s leave the unlawful bit aside for now. Neither of us work in the field. No doubt it will come to court. No doubt the court will determine it. What’s the point in speculating whether or not they have or haven’t? Neither of us can say definitively. Assuming they haven’t, does an employer have the right to determine conditions of employment? Our system which is capitalist free market monetarist, operates on laws too. If a company makes a mental offer, no-one will work for it. They stand in the market, same as anyone else. There is nothing special about POAL as in, they don’t have any particular need to be altruistic, over and above any other employer. If their offer doesn’t attract any takers, they will suffer the consequences. So be it. They have a right to do that. They have a right for example, to offer employees 1 cent per day over and above the minimum wage, if they wish to. It’s not wise to do that, but they have a right to do that.

    Being union driven means the company exists for the benefit of its employees and it doesn’t toad. Not in this country. A company exists for its customers. Employment is nothing more than a mutual deal at arms length between two willing parties. No-one forces an employee to work at POAL. If they don’t like it, leave. Simple as that.

    They have no incentive to compromise – reaching an agreement with MUNZ would constitute failure from their pov.

    Absolutely PM. And why should they compromise? Why do they need to? Why? Don’t they have a right to make any offer they like? Just as the employees have a right to take it or leave it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    toad

    Can you please tell us which IQ test you took to score 135 ?

    Hell if you can think it’s valid to compare random union thugs on the side of the road with politicians to justify it being OK to punch people then that must have been a very moron friendly test you took.

    Oh, why playing the “somebody wearking your colours did it too” card…. how do feel about Mallard throwing his fists around ? was that OK as well ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy

    Oh, no… a job is for life you know… fighting the man is the union way…. hell even when the employment laws are tilted in favour of the unions that’s not enough – they must have full control…

    Oh… they must have full control but don’t dare suggest they open their own port…. that’s not their role – their role is protecting the jobs of workers… Doooh!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    toad

    … irrespective of their collective work performance.

    Collective and work performance are becoming harder and harder to put in the same sentence. Collective and strike – now there is a peaches and cream combo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt

    They have no incentive to compromise – reaching an agreement with MUNZ would constitute failure from their pov.

    So it’s clear that MUNZ have knowingly gone into this battle armed with circa 300 pawns for their ideological battle. What a disgrace… These are people not pawns.

    Meanwhile the port will start taking them back as soon as they agree to the only terms on offer – the union on the other hand puts it’s attention and effort into creating a class war between the workers themselves. Now the union’s best interests are best served by having the workers fight each other…. unions should be treated like gangs and their signs and symbols should be banned – look at the shit they are creating to stop people adapting to the real world they find themselves in…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    I must say though, classic signs;

    “Union Strikes, Efficiency up 25%” – Is this true ??????

    “Who still has their jobs? Helen Kelly and Garry Parsloe” – This point is very valid. I wonder how the now unemployed workers feel about this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    A company exists for its customers.

    This would come as astonishing news to the company’s shareholders, given that it actually exists for them.

    Absolutely PM. And why should they compromise? Why do they need to? Why? Don’t they have a right to make any offer they like? Just as the employees have a right to take it or leave it?

    They do have the right to make any offer they like, just like the union has the right to make any offer it likes. Neither side is obliged to accept the other’s offer – it’s called negotiation, you may have heard of it.

    Burt: do you have anything that actually makes sense?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    I presume you approve of physical force being used against speech you disapprove of, and that if so it is the fault of those assaulted?

    Why would you assume that? Given human nature, turning up to gloat at people losing their jobs might well get you a smack in the chops – freedom of speech has nothing to do with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Given human nature, turning up to gloat at people losing their jobs might well get you a smack in the chops

    I hope their wives and kids don’t give any of them the wrong impression if that is regarded as a acceptable reaction to being pissed off with someone.

    Stress, eg Christmas stress or redundancy stress, is difficult enough to deal with for all associated with it without resorting to the bash, no matter who it’s lashing out at.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt 9:14 pm

    Burt: do you have anything that actually makes sense?

    Occasionally, burt does, PS. But from his previous comments, today I suspect on a wet Sunday he got on the piss too early, and now the indoctrinated neo-liberal ideology blasts through the ability to think and respond rationally.

    So I’m not going to bother to reply to his irrational rants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt

    Burt: do you have anything that actually makes sense?

    Sure… leave the workers alone – you and your mates have fucked with them enough.

    Push your agenda as much as you like – but stop fucking other peoples lives to do it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Leaping Jimmy (15,949 comments) says:

    This would come as astonishing news to the company’s shareholders, given that it actually exists for them.

    Good point PM, I knew I was missing something out. Notice at no point does the employee come into it, however. So I assume you accept my point about them not having any say in the offer, it’s totally up to the employer. Provided it’s lawful, that’s all that counts? Nothing else? So the union is wrong, isn’t it?

    it’s called negotiation, you may have heard of it

    The offer was on the table for months before the redundancy notice was issued PM. All those months, negotiations continued. Finally, enough was enough. That’s fair, isn’t it? So why is the union pretending its been hard done by and sabotaging customers? Isn’t that being extremely petulant? If not, how would you describe it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    toad

    Sober as a Judge today my friend. Tell me though, is bashing OK when red teams do it because once somebody in the blue team did it ? Is this the best you can do – point and shout “they did it too”..

    Come on toad, you know as well as the next person that when you get down to comparing your own teams bad deeds against the other teams bad deeds that you have lost sight of the goal. To be the better team !

    (being only as bad as is always a failure – but is the last refuge for defenders of the indefensible)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    Leaping Jimmy

    Donations to the Labour party are at risk here…. please remember that all rational thinking goes out the window when the ability to advertise the failed ideology enough to get it that ever required ‘one more chance’ is threatened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kimble (4,381 comments) says:

    I’m a proud unionist, and, for the record, the last time I did an IQ test I scored 135.

    I scored 148. Go back and read the post again, this time knowing it was written by someone smarter than you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    So I assume you accept my point about them not having any say in the offer, it’s totally up to the employer. Provided it’s lawful, that’s all that counts? Nothing else?

    You still don’t seem to get this negotiation thing. Of course the union doesn’t have a say in what the employer offers, but the fact an offer has been made doesn’t oblige you to accept it. I can’t believe I’m having to explain this.

    The offer was on the table for months before the redundancy notice was issued PM. All those months, negotiations continued. Finally, enough was enough. That’s fair, isn’t it? So why is the union pretending its been hard done by and sabotaging customers? Isn’t that being extremely petulant? If not, how would you describe it?

    Once again: we live in New Zealand, not your fantasy country in which workers get to sign the contract offered them or quit. There is legislation covering this stuff and the parties are obliged to abide by it. As to how I’d describe the outcome: PoAL has finally accepted that the unionised workers aren’t going to voluntarily accept casualisation and contracting out (hardly surprising, since it’s seriously not in their interests to do so) and is attempting to force it on them. The legality of what they’re doing is open to question but the courts will sort that out – our opinions on that aspect are therefore of entertainment value only.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    Burt: can you manage something that doesn’t appear to be deranged rambling?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Leaping Jimmy (15,949 comments) says:

    the fact an offer has been made doesn’t oblige you to accept it.

    Well no-one’s said they had to, have they. But when the employer decided to say, right, that’s it, you’re out of here, the unions decided to throw their toys out of the cot, by calling in other unions to start blacklisting, didn’t they. Instead of just walking away, which is all they were entitled to do, under both law and ethics. Who does the union think they are, to turn around and try to destroy the employer’s business, simply because that business isn’t interested in said union’s bottom line, which is: no casualisation?

    What about that, don’t you understand, PM.

    In terms of your second point, POAL is NOT forcing it on them, it’s not holding a gun to their head and making them work, are they. No, they’re not. All they’re doing, is saying, goodbye. You don’t like it, fine. Goodbye.

    It’s the union that isn’t accepting that decision and it’s the union trying to sabotage the employer, not the other way round.

    Again, what about that, don’t you understand?

    Re: your legislation point, well, let the courts decide, in due course. By all reports, POAL HAVE followed the law, so let’s assume they have and if they haven’t, well that changes the equation, doesn’t it. But on the basis they have and who knows, you don’t do you and neither do I; what about the above, don’t you understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    I know Len..its too easy to judge..a lot of you seem to go easy on Garrett.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. BlairM (2,287 comments) says:

    Wasn’t the incident where Brownlee evicted protesters from PRIVATE PROPERTY about fifteen years ago now? And the Wi Huata incident as well? Stretching a bit to bring that up, isn’t it?

    Commies are violent scum, always have been, always will be. I’m sorry these poor guys had their political virginity taken so harshly, but it’s a lesson the Right needs to learn – stop wasting your time with civility, because the other side has none.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    what about the above, don’t you understand?

    Which country you’re talking about, mainly. They have pretty unpleasant employment law there by the sound of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    @BlairM 11:35 pm (and DPF @ 3:50 pm)

    Only the Brownlee incident was on private property (from which you are permitted to use reasonable force to remove trespassers – but Brownlee went too far). The Wi Huata incident was outside the ACT conference, in a public place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    toad

    You would have looked a lot less pathetic if you weren’t playing the “your team did it too” card. Hey some of your other points might have been noticed… what were they again ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. big bruv (13,296 comments) says:

    Toad

    “But to make generalised allegations on the basis of one instance of inappropriate behaviour”

    Yet again you display the Greens shocking hypocrisy. Had this been a member of the ‘blue team’ you would be all over this as an example of ‘systematic racism’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Rich Prick (1,553 comments) says:

    What an enlightening thread. To the left it seems, violence is OK so long as it is directed towards those with a view at odds with their’s. God you guys will contort yourselves every whichway to justify the actions of your commrades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. dime (9,441 comments) says:

    LMAO @ toad

    youre so full of shit sometimes.

    when they wrong doers are on your side its ok to be sexist and racist lol

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. RRM (9,467 comments) says:

    So the wharfies’ union is a bunch of thugs?

    Who’d have thought it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Paulus (2,502 comments) says:

    I can only hope that pictures were taken of the thugs, and others, in the march.
    That will help identify the ringleaders, should that be deemed necessary, and to keep an eye on the professional troublemakers who were there, not being watersiders, but rent a mob.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. KevinH (1,131 comments) says:

    Brogan and David are a couple of mugs orchestrating a conflict for publicity. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand the reaction they got to their placards, if anything the union guys got sucked into their little game.
    It reminds me of the Waikato game at Rugby Park in Hamilton during the Springbok tour when the protestors invaded the pitch, spreading nails and causing the game to be cancelled. The reaction from the 30,000 spectators was decidely hostile and many of the anti tour protestors copped beatings and had bottles thrown at them.
    In another day and era Brogan and David could of got a knife in the ribs for their trouble, then they would have been truly martyred.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. adze (1,866 comments) says:

    Great thread. Cognitive dissonance in abundance. And it’s amazing how no self-reported IQ is ever under 130 on internet forums. The interwebs makes geniuses of us all. Huzzah! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. BlairM (2,287 comments) says:

    The Wi Huata incident was outside the ACT conference, in a public place.

    I suspect you will find nobody on the Right prepared to defend anything Wi Huata has done. He was never one of ours, just happened to be married to someone who was. A bit like Alister Taylor, but a lot less intelligent and a lot more violent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    [DPF: thanks for confirming your pro violence stance. By your logic if I am aggrieved at having the Givt taje away my rights to free speech, then on the anti-EFA march, we would have been within our right to assault the pro-EFA half dozen who turned up.

    I suspect you will not agree. In reality you are a psuedo-fascist who condones violence when it is for a cause you believe in]

    Only just saw this bizarre gibberish. Let me fix it for you: by my logic, if your business is going under and someone comes along to gloat at you about it, I won’t be particularly surprised or upset if you pop him one – he’ll have earned it. Beating people up simply for not sharing your opinion on something – not so much.

    Also: if you’re going to get all outraged about calling people fascists, maybe you shouldn’t do it yourself.

    [DPF: Again you condone violence against people who upset you or others. Now as you have said some people deserve to get punched in the face on the basis of what they say, could you let us know whether some people deserve to be raped if they say provocative things? I mean if a woman taunts a man for say having a small penis, your logic would suggest "she'll have earned it".]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Rich Prick (1,553 comments) says:

    I don’t like your chances at the Criminal Bar Psyco. But by your standard, the next time a Greenpeace protester interfers with a business (or ship) you won’t be too surprised or upset if the owner pops the protester one – having earned it, then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    I hope Psycho isn’t around any kids who might be perceived (by some) to give a bit of cheek or women who might be perceived to give a bit of lip.

    Promoting violent behaviour as ok is often related to violent behaviour – and strong denial there’s anything wrong with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Psycho Milt (2,265 comments) says:

    [DPF: Again you condone violence against people who upset you or others. Now as you have said some people deserve to get punched in the face on the basis of what they say, could you let us know whether some people deserve to be raped if they say provocative things? I mean if a woman taunts a man for say having a small penis, your logic would suggest "she'll have earned it".]

    Well, I guess if you really want to you can try to get through life convincing yourself that no-one will hurt you no matter how much you upset them, but it’s a view that I wouldn’t combine with a deliberate policy of trying to upset people if I were you – unpleasantness would certainly result. As to how rape supposedly comes into it, I seriously wonder about you.

    But by your standard, the next time a Greenpeace protester interfers with a business (or ship) you won’t be too surprised or upset if the owner pops the protester one – having earned it, then?

    You remain as blissfully free of the ability to understand simple concepts as ever, Rich Prick.

    I hope Psycho isn’t around any kids who might be perceived (by some) to give a bit of cheek or women who might be perceived to give a bit of lip.

    You’re a pompous ass, Pete. But I’m sure I’m not the first to point it out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    You’re right about the name calling Psycho, it’s a common form of denial absent any argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Rich Prick (1,553 comments) says:

    “You remain as blissfully free of the ability to understand simple concepts as ever, Rich Prick.”

    Sorry Psyco, but I’m not prepared to take drugs to bend my mind far enough to see the world in such a fucked up way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    Toad why do you think it is fine for these union members to be earning 90 thousand dollars a year hauling boxes? I worked for 2 months on Freezer duty for shipments on the Port of Dunedin and I know the crowd that rolls down on the wharfs. They were good guys to work with if pretty gruff and rough and the 15 hours shifts weren’t too bad. But the union boys in Dunedin don’t get paid full time hours and full-time unprecedented perks for quarter time work. Those guys earn good money, but it is from working long and fast hours consistently. They aren’t making the ridiculous demands these guys are making for their unskilled labour. I do not support workers who have inflated their earnings by holding a good company to ransom and intimidating people who don’t support their views.

    Tell me how it is that I, hauling frozen sealord fish onto a conveyor belt, tossing boxes onto a punnet and steadying the punnet while it rises to the shoreline, should be paid 90 thousand dollars per year and all the rest, when GP’s start on 80 grand a year after years of late nights and heavy debt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    However I state on the Jackson calling on Unions thread that I understand the port worker’s sentiment. Can someone here reconcile for me why it is fine for a very profitable company with big cash holdings not to pay their workers good wages, even very good wages? It’s the classic capitalist tension, and I understand both sides. It’s a hard one for me to reconcile. I worked on the docks. I understand where these Auckland boys are coming from, notwithstanding that I think their pay situation is far in extent of what the work deserves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.