The New Zealand Meter Man was thrown from the premises yesterday after repeated attempts to get at the power box and disconnect supply. Winston Peters, a spokesman for the company was quick to condemn the property owner for non-payment of electoral expenses. "We were just doing our job of cutting supply, and it turns out the property owner wasn't as ill and incapacitated as we thought. We were hoping with high electoral prices, he'd be forced to sell and move out and we could use the place as a state owned house and rent it to the Mongrel Mob. But now our meter man's been turfed off the property, we'll have to see if we can cut supply from the substation." said Mr Peters, confident that his company is not bound by any particular code of conduct when considering further action.
It was rumoured that the owner of the property had recently moved in after forcibly evicting the previous tenant for non-payment of rent, in spite of a sound tenancy agreement.
Related Link: Meter Man thrown from the premises after attempting to disconnect supply
It was rumoured that the owner of the property had recently moved in after forcibly evicting the previous tenant for non-payment of rent, in spite of a sound tenancy agreement.
Related Link: Meter Man thrown from the premises after attempting to disconnect supply
I am very disturbed at the implication on various forums that the Fiji coup was an acceptable way to get rid of a democratically elected government. I don't think there is any way that any free-thinking person could ever justify such a thing. You are spitting in the faces of all of the Fijian people who have risked their lives and livelihoods opposing this military dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is any way that any free-thinking person could ever justify such a thing.
ReplyDeleteYou must be new around here . . .
Good point Patrick. However, your "implications" are not necessarily black and white facts. Danyl is obviously also disturbed at any such implication. Earlier on Kiwiblog I commented:
ReplyDeleteGetting rid of the previous Fijian Government was a good thing. Unfortunately, what replaced it may prove to be no better, but that doesn't change the fact the previous government was as dirty as Kava.
Obviously, terrible implications contained in that statement. That explains Danyl's judgement:
You gotta love the consistency show by Zen, Adolf et al. The Labour government breach the election spending rules and it's the end of our democracy. The Fijian army LITERALLY overthrows the government by force . . . eh, not so much.
A quick comment from me in reply:
Danyl - for you to be able to point out any possible inconsistency in my position would be to require the government of NZ to be overthrown in a military coup, with the new leader promising fair elections after the culprits have been hauled before the courts and tried for deliberate electoral fraud.
And then see what I said about said coup.
I can tell you now, whether I supported or condemned the coup, it would not change the issue around the Labour Party's deliberate abuse of the electoral funding process.
And to date, I have neither condemned nor supported the coup in Fiji, just pointed out that the previous government was indeed corrupt, and that NZ's actions have been unhelpful - thus earning them the result to date.
Only gets me into more hot water with Danyl:
Here's something for you to ponder over Zen - how much of the moral highground would you cede to someone who announced that they 'neither condemned nor supported' Robert Mugabe, just pointed out that the preceding Smith government was corrupt and then went on criticise anyone who DID speak out against the dictatorship in Zimbabwe?
But it was more that I didn't explain myself particularly well:
Danyl, I merely made that statement to explain up until this week I had not made any significant comments (on the blogs) on the situation in Fiji. I have no problem condemning B. for his undemocratic actions, had I decided to post about them. I have family and friends in Fiji, and am part Fijian myself. For my own reasons, I preferred to no enter into debate about B.
One of those reasons is that the press reporting from NZ has been very one sided. We have lost an opportunity to reflect upon the initial situation that generated such an extreme response when the NZ media, the government, and most of the population have already decided that there is "never a case" for a coup.
If some military leader overthrew Mugabe, that may not be "justified" but it would be understandable. It would be natural and proper to worry that the cure is not worse than the disease, and forgive me in advance if I don't hasten to declare my thoughts on any such occurrence in Zimbabwe either. It will leave you to continue to make baseless assumptions and take cheap shots, but I guess that is the risk I will have to take.
So Patrick, whilst some posters could preface every post with "A coup is not the way to go" just to proffer an opinion that the actions of the NZ Government have not (IMHO) been particularly helpful towards helping stabilise Fiji, it doesn't necessarily follow that the implication therefore is I may or may not support B.'s actions.
But, with regard to the proposition "Is a coup ever an acceptable way to get rid of a democratically elected government", do you think there could ever be a case of "last resort"?
I think the question is a little loaded. What happens when it transpires the government is not democratically elected (through vote rigging, bribery, removal of opponents prior to election, fabricated scandals etc?) What if the Government is democratically elected but then resorts to undemocratic actions to maintain control?
Do you think there is NEVER a case where, as unacceptable as a revolution is, the people have an obligation to overthrow the government?
What do you think Danyl? Is this a black and white issue for you - an inviolate principle that such an action can never be justified?
And, if you didn't know, here is the link to the discussion on Kiwiblog:
ReplyDeleteFiji in the news
All governments are the result of a coup, or some other forcible imposition of sovereignty, if you go back far enough.
ReplyDelete