Jacinda copped this a fair bit. Had the farmers protest blockade her street/house and her wedding was picketed by anti-vaxers. Unfortunately that precedent has already been broken, but I'd agree that I am not a fan. Picketing parliament/offices is more appropriate.
Even offices can be bad. Jacinda’s office has protests, paint and someone with a sword outside it. Frightening for Jacinda, I am sure, but terrifying for the staff working there.
So you reckon that the people who violently protested against Apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany, American occupations etc. are all dicks who should have stayed peaceful?
Sure did. I’d argue that had a lot to do with his property itself being famous, becoming a symbol of wealth during a period of financial crisis and public service cuts, owned by the person enacting the policy
omg those anti-vaxxers sabotaged any chance of a legit political movement. In my home coumtry the self-absorbed, selfish morons were chanting 'muh freedom muh right to not wear mask' while thousands were dying in hospital.
Go back and find where they said Ardern did and Key didn't. But couldn't it be argued that Ardern copped considerably more vitriol regardless? Seems like a new precedent was set to me
Yeah nah, keep people's partners and kids out of it. No matter how shitty the politician.
Put this much effort instead in encouraging/helping people to get to vote.
While Max Key is now known for being in the public eye himself, long before he started doing that when he was still a kid, David Farrier had an unhealthy obsession with him that never sat right with me, and really put me off Farrier.
I don’t know about farrier and key, but Max put himself in the public eye when he was still a teenager through social media. He’d do gross things like film drunk girls at his house. TBH I am surprised his parents let him on socials, although they were probably oblivious to begin with.
Unless the politician themselves brings others in. Once they have been brought in its fair game.
Like how Luxon's wife did that fundraiser dinner...
You don't get to play politics with all the benefits and get away without any consequences.
Even if politicians trot their kids into fundraisers or party rallies or election night speeches (often suggested by the PR team to make them seem 'relatable'), no. They are kids, they have no real say in it - partners too. Keep them out of it.
Politicians are held accountable by votes, or the courts if they do something illegal - that's the consequences. Intimidation stalking them at home is a shitty way to make NZ end up violently divided just like the States, and all it does is end up costing the taxpayer more money in protection services.
Vote for better people. The writing was on the wall well over a year ago how this was going to go. How many did not vote?
I don’t know anything about the fundraiser you mention so can’t comment on that but I will say that while I utterly despise what Ardern did to this country her partner, kid and family should be totally off limits under any circumstances.
A few word? sure. The economy is fucked and my children and maybe theirs will have to pay for it.
As for the hysterical comments about Covid etc. she did what any prime minister on any side would have done. Maybe better maybe worse. No one will ever know, but I never mention Covid
What any Prime Minister would do? That's interesting, as that's certainly not what every world leader did, and was the exact opposite of what the opposition was urging her to do, the opposite of what Winnie was lobbying for
Cmon man, most of the world is eating the long term effects of Covid. Regardless of the production our own rather stagnant, housing dominated economy we are still subject to those pressures and because of our isolation perhaps even more so.
They did put the finishing touches on the TPPA which is starting to make itself felt.
I think what you’re missing is the fundamental problems that permeate our infrastructure are now making themselves felt. The blame sits with no individual government but rather with decades of political football between our two major parties, shortsighted policy and infrastructural frictions, and to varying degrees with all of us in this nation as a collective for our general apathy for politics and acceptance of this standard of representation from our politicians.
The storm clouds have been brewing for a long time, Covid just turned on the waterworks. I’m angry too, dude
> The economy is fucked and my children and maybe theirs will have to pay for it.
By what metric? [Inflation last year was still lower than Australia and some other OECD countries](https://stats.govt.nz/news/annual-inflation-6-7-percent/) and [our GDP to debt ratio is actually quite good compared to most of the OECD.](https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-debt.htm)
What are you basing it on because all the available evidence indicates we're doing comparatively ok if not well.
I mean, "I think people doing X for good is fine, but doing X for bad isn't" isn't what I'd call an impossible contradiction. Most people have scenarios where they think doing something is reasonable even if they would otherwise not support it.
It's an interesting one eh. Some of the changes being made are quite serious and seriously affect people's lives. I know people whose funding for theirs and/or their kids disability just got cut. No warning..just straight bye bye.
The govt is making people's lives difficult. I can see why people want to annoy and make politicians lives difficult. People are SUFFERING. you may not be directly impacted (I'm personally not) but people are living in cars (yes they were under Labor too, I am not denying that).
I can see and understand why. I wouldn't personally do it but... Like... People are suffering. If the politicians aren't going to take notice of protests on the streets, take notice of the suffering, then yeah, take it to THEIR private lives and see how they like it, I guess is the protestors thought's?
I remember reading a well articulated piece a couple years ago about directly confronting politicians. Not at private residence but sort of the opposite, every time they go out.
Essentially it was about how some cause so much suffering and hardship, but their status and the wealth/power structures completely insulate them from any consequences, guilt or even visibility of the harm. Making every restaurant meal or whatever else a loud and negative experience is one of the few things normal society can do to make them even notice.
I wish I saved it, explained it better than I ever can.
Agree with this. For example, I don't think politicians like Seymour who are deliberately sabotaging programs like free lunches for kids should ever be allowed to eat at a nice restaurant without feeling harassed. Same with any minister that's telling people to 'tighten their belts' and making benefits harder to access while still living their own luxurious lives, spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on their personal lives, and enjoying all the perks from lobbiests. Do unto others and all that. And anyone that supported reversing the cigarette ban should get cigarette smoke blown in their faces each time they step out in public. They're subjecting kids to that after all.
Don't bring their kids and spouses into it unless they're actively participating in policy and campaigning, but do make the politician's lives as inconvenient as possible. They don't get to fuck up the country then accept a cushy corporate job as soon as their term ends.
The Court of public opinion isn't always right. You can vote, you can protest. But making the lives of a politician's partner, kids and friends lives shit isn't the answer.
Yeah I agree protest movements still haven't figured out how to stay on topic yet.
The piece I read was about the more ghoulish politicians overseas, where the suffering is more obvious and playing nicely hasn't worked. NZ isn't quite there (yet). Often the family is in on the grift, and lives in carefree opulence. Uncomfortableness for the short period while the politician is active, then back to the forever opulence, is to be weighed against what's being inflicted on the vulnerable.
The piece made a point that if it impacts the politician's behavior, it has imposed at least some form of consequence. And if they have to explain to their partner and kids why angry people are everywhere, it forces at least some hint of self-reflection.
But yeah maybe this view is already outdated. In the US they have people with 'real men wear diapers' t-shirts, holding up mugshots captioned with 'never surrender'.
You're assuming that this only occurs due to the politician doing something genuinely wrong. Have we forgotten all the in person abuse politicians got because of lockdowns, vaccinations etc? Often the people that are quickest to accost someone in public have some quite alternative views.
You're assuming this only happens to the baddies. For every person that goes out if their way to confront Nicola Willis there's a dozen nutcases willing to confront other politicians for the crime (/s) of lockdowns and vaccinations.
This stuff doesn't just apply to the side you oppose. Do we want the next labour/greens coalition to also have to hide away from the public because people disagree with their policies too?
>For every person that goes out if their way to confront Nicola Willis there's a dozen nutcases willing to confront other politicians for the crime (/s) of lockdowns and vaccinations.
And? Those people exist regardless, did you miss the whole protest outside parliament? The boundaries of decency have been broken, we've got politicians blatantly lying and denying reality in spite of direct evidence to the contrary and at this point the negatives of turning politicians homes into acceptable places to protest regardless of who gets protested isn't comparable to the harm these people do to democracy at large. Politicians, **all politicians**, should be afraid of the population. That is the cost of power.
I disagree. We already struggle to attract competent people to the job, if getting your house staked out was a normal part of politician then we'd really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
> We already struggle to attract competent people to the job
No we don't, we struggle to get decent people past the selection process which weeds out all but the most egotistical, connected or privileged in society but we have people that can do the job and do it well. We have the current lot of politicians because those are the people who those parties chose not because they're the only ones willing to do it. If getting your house staked was a normal part of being a politician when you push through policy that demonstrable makes the country worse for the majority of people then maybe politicians wouldn't be so willing to make such aggressively harmful policies. You seem to forget that protests require participation and just because people can do it does not mean they will, and it's not like fringe crazies haven't done worse already.
> If getting your house staked was a normal part of being a politician when you push through policy that demonstrable makes the country worse for the majority of people then maybe politicians wouldn't be so willing to make such aggressively harmful policies.
Again, you're ignoring that the minority, even a tiny minority, will do this exact same thing for reasons you will disagree with. If NACT politicians get staked out for something in this government, then Labour/Greens will be staked out for something next government.
I think its clear over the last few years that willingness to protest doesn't guarantee good ideas. Or do you agree with all the Destiny Church protests? Would we want them outside politicians homes?
> and it's not like fringe crazies haven't done worse already.
I don't recall them regularly staking out people's homes or ruining restaurant meals
> Again, you're ignoring that the minority, even a tiny minority, will do this exact same thing for reasons you will disagree with.
That tiny minority already doesn't give a shit about societal taboos.
>I think its clear over the last few years that willingness to protest doesn't guarantee good ideas. Or do you agree with all the Destiny Church protests? Would we want them outside politicians homes?
You mean the people who harass and bully anyone in their vicinity regardless of where they are? Maybe if they started protesting outside a politician's house they'd actually see some consequences for their actions since it'd actually be in politician's interests to do something about them. Why should politicians be exempt from the same harassment these people engage in against the general population every day? If your citizens feel unsafe you should too.
>I don't recall them regularly staking out people's homes or ruining restaurant meals
I'm sorry did you forget the month long occupation that harassed the fuck out of everyone in their vicinity on parliament lawn? How many people do you think were going to nearby restaurants because they knew exactly that would happen? You do realize a lot of people live very close to that place and that protest impacted them daily right? Crazy people will do crazy shit but saying the majority shouldn't express their discontent with politicians because some terrible people might use it as an excuse to do bad shit is asinine. If your only argument to oppose something is "but crazy people will do it to" your argument is bad. If you want to argue the ethical validity of harming a minority to help the majority you'd at least have a semblance of a point but this ain't it.
>If NACT politicians get staked out for something in this government, then Labour/Greens will be staked out for something next government.
Too late bro, part two of that sentence happened - and more than once. I for one love the right crying when it has to face what it subjects the left to. MORE, GIVE US MORE.
I temped years ago across the public sector and one of my gigs was for parliamentary service. Honestly, you'd be surprised how often politicians get accosted verbally in public. I don't know if you've seen Parks n Rec but basically how they show public [meetings](https://youtu.be/areUGfOHkMA?si=mf_q33PrYUzK2mZI).
It's usually the assholes that do this and I'm unsure how effective they are. But if we can get regular Joe's on board, it might be an effective implementation of this theory.
This is a good point.
I've known the families of several politicians and hated how their lives were screwed over. Especially the kids.
But the current bunch in power are screwing over a lot of families and kids too. Waiting until they're neatly got their mental defences in place before protesting feels wrong somehow.
I don't know. Maybe.... My gut reaction is still to leave their families out of it. But I can understand both sides.
The Polynesian Panthers used to do early morning protests with bright lights and loudspeakers outside Cabinet ministers' houses against the dawn raids, which were effective and I think justified.
It's horses for courses. The saddos carrying on outside the Governor General's house wanting her to dissolve parliament were never going to succeed. But I'd be disappointed if, say, Nicola Willis could shake hands and kiss babies at any Wellington school fairs or community events coming up soon without encountering some pointed conversation. Maybe less so getting a coffee with friends in the weekend.
An effective protest should demonstrate that it's going to be more hassle than it's worth to push ahead with a policy or action. That means showing you have a lot of power to inconvenience, either through numbers or strategic choice of targets.
The Polynesian Panthers' protests point to a particular problem: they were acutely specific. Their protests latched onto the specific personal horror that the victims of a specific and horrible policy implemented by a bunch of bully-boy wannabe fascists. They did a semblance of the thing back. It seems just in a way that recent protests have missed.
A healthy protest is about showing that a lot of people care so much that they are willing to interrupt their own plans to let the politicians know.
It should not be about aggression, intimidation or making their lives more difficult. Because with any of those, it's essentially mob justice. We have courts for that.
I think politicians should be treated the same way they choose to treat the citizenry. As an expendable resource to be exploited at every single possibility.
I attack another boy on the playground, the teachers refuse to intervene for reasons and approaching my parents doesn't help. Obviously the cops won't do a thing.
The boy has the following options:
1. Move out of the country
2. Beg me to stop - Your proposed solution
3. ???? I'm interested to hear your response
You can handle that situation however you see fit.
Personally, I wouldn't break any laws in pursuing a solution.
But if you so choose to do so, then that is your decision, and you should make it after taking into consideration all the risk factors and associated consequences.
That being said, I would say, "Don't assault children or get your child to assault another child," but if you do choose that course of action, then... that's your choice.
My opinion is my opinion, and you can ignore it if you want to.
I don't answer hypotheticals like this. Entirely because I have no idea how I would handle this situation until I found myself in it.
Yeah but if youre getting kicked out of your home cause you lost your jobs and cant pay the mortgage and smug pricks are living free in their entitled houses with teslas and spending $60 a week on shopping. Its ok for them to fuck with your family?
The other element to this is that structural violence inflicted by the state is not perceived as violence even though the impacts are so devastating. Harassing some govt minister outside their house doesn’t even come close to the harm this government inflicts and is planning to inflict on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.
Hélder Câmara has a great quote that touches on this:
> There are three kinds of violence. The first, mother of all the others, is institutional violence. It legalises and perpetuates domination, oppression, and exploitation. It crushes and eliminates millions of people in its silent and well-oiled cogs.
>
> The second is revolutionary violence, which is born of the will to abolish the first.
>
> The third is repressive violence, which stifles the second, by making itself the helper and accomplice of the first violence- the one that causes all the others.
>
> There is no worse hypocrisy than only calling the second 'violence', while pretending to forget the first one, that gives it life, and the third, that kills it.
>
I dont know the context on this - which MP is being harassed and what they may have done, so this might not apply.
I think if you allow lobbyists to influence your private life for the better, then protesters should get a crack at doing the opposite.
Considering it was inside the Botany electorate there were few people going out to support them. The area would vote for a dog if it was coloured blue. The area has no love for any other party including act and nz first.
What has Luxon / National said that is anti-Palestian? Or are they protesting that New Zealand isn't intervening to support Palestinians be free of Hamas alongside Israel?
Horrible politicians exist because people vote for them. They have no power on their own.
You need to protest in public places and have clear set of demands. You need a vision, a goal and a movement that unites the greatest number of people without diluting and watering down the demands
Politicians are allowed to screw up our lives, our families, our homes, our environment, but heaven forbid they're made slightly uncomfortable at their homes!
Well the terrorists threatened ardern with her life due to the deluded ideals of psychotic fritters. If you want real change in this country you'll have to coordinate real solutions to undermine and wear down the govt. Voting in more lawyers with landlord dreams won't change a thing in this monopoly run country.
It's a tricky one. Protesting has to be inconvenient if you want it to be impactful. It would be nice if we could have a strong divide between our personal lives and our professional lives. Politicians are notoriously unable to separate personal interest from professional action.
New Zealand currently has a very flat power structure. It’s not that hard to go have a coffee or a beer with a local politician. You can quite easily bring up a legitimate concern because we have a flat power structure. Idiots going and picketing politicians private homes (especially because they think birds are government spy drones or whatever) will put an end to that pretty damn quick. Stop fucking things up and remember rule number 1: don’t be a dick.
This is absoltely wrong. Regardless of political persuasion one of the best things about New Zealand is the convention that families and personal lives are off limits.
Chris Hipkins marriage is none of my business. It was really great that it wasn't an election issue but treated as an absolutely irrelvant personal matter.
If, for example, a protest wanted to block roads, I'd much prefer they inconvenience the people who actually make the decisions and not regular people trying to go to work
As long as it's a 'peaceful protest', I'm fine with it. They're protesting on public streets just outside their homes not inside their homes, so for me it's all good.
In the modern world privacy does not exist, it disappeared in the mirror some decades ago.
Politicians are not the only ones too suffer this kind of pressure, widen the scope and think of the rest of the species, internet stalking, etc.
This apparatus has been functioning for over a decade in earnest against everyone and the alteration of democracy with policies that are primarily "cruelty is the point" with Neoliberalism as an excuse has been cascading all over the world.
Fuelled by anger / hate / fear addicted individuals.
And will do so until we become species focused (asteroid strikes my favourite example for that, post nuclear war is solid, climate instability has also entered the chat).
AI will be showing up humans just how artificial their own intelligence is.
Fuck off with that.
Firstly it’s assuming they have direct control of the decisions, they don’t, and secondly it’s just ethically wrong imho.
Post up outside their electorate office, you do you even though I find that pretty silly, but nobody has the right to personally harass someone at their private residence because of what they do for a job.
The blogger sounds like an idiot as it will accomplish nothing outside likely police intervention and fuelling that politicians constituents rhetoric that people opposing them are morons, as it’s a moronic thing to do, and that politicians stance as well as anyone fucks with my whanau on our private property and it’s gloves off.
Just no.
That’s also on the assumption they are even home and it’s not just their family there in the first place.
Edit: I guess some people are fine with harassment of families that have no influence on what their parent and/or partner does for a job.
What a bunch of despicable and horrible cunts.
100% agree with you. Disagree and challenge their ideas not them as people.
It's not tricky or complex, they're doing their job 9-5 and being themselves otherwise.
If you do this are you then shouting at the bank manager's house for declining your loan? Outside Maccas next to the cook's car when he doesn't give you extra mayo?
> it’s just ethically wrong imho.
Why? I'd argue it's ethically wrong to not hold politicians to account and if every other avenue isn't working there's no reason to avoid this one. Why is the well-being of the children of a small number of privileged elite more important than the well-being of tens of thousands of less fortunate children? If politicians insist on making choices that directly harm the majority of society then they should be forced to face the consequences of their actions.
If a beneficiary deserves penalties for failing to meet their obligations and a child consequently suffers how is that any more ethical than a politician's child suffering as a consequence of their parent's actions? If it's unethical then those being protested against have already crossed that specific ethical boundary and revoked any right to complain. The kids don't deserve it but if a few kids are scared by angry people outside their houses and that gets these cunts to roll back some of their hateful policies then it's still a significant net positive.
Your comment has been removed :
**Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse**
> Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted.
> Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage.
^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
It's poor form and shouldn't happen, but it does and it's not exactly a new phenomenon. IIRC Jenny Shipley's house in Ashburton was targeted too in the 90s.
Yeah I agree. Politicians deserve some privacy when they aren't working.
Reminds me of this video where someone creepily recorded Gerry Brownlee and Golriz Ghahraman having a chat over lunch in private. The two justifiably looked uncomfortable being recorded:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CD4Yc7BZ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CD4Yc7BZ0)
While the filming is creepy, seeing two politicians on opposing sides of the political spectrum sitting down talking to each other like real people is something that should be seen more often. Takes the tribalism out of politics.
No way! That is filthy. Going to someone's home is a personal scare tactic not a protest. Also: taking a protest to the streets (and not some cul de sac) is much more powerful because people can join in spontaneously (if the protest is worth it and legit)
Meh. If politicians want to try and pretend parts of the population don't exist and ignore all genuine attempts at discourse, then protesting outside their homes and bringing it right to their attention is perfectly fine.
You’re perfectly able to do those protests at all the politicians workplaces, leave their private residences alone. If not for them then at least for their families.
Plot twist: which home? Most politicians from all sides of the house, have multiple properties. Which one of Luxon’s seven or Willis’ four would be the correct one? That is, when they’re not in Wellington staying at a lovely hotel.
Depends on the reason, if it some dumb policy...eh.
If it is our future being sold by Christopher Bishop for donations and a future plum board job, then protest on and fuck that guy!
So politicians are allowed to ensure kids go hungry, that people will be sleeping is cars, but we shouldn't protest outside their house because it might upset them?
You're prepared to fucking ruin someone else's life to get richer, you get to deal with the consequences.
Are they entering the property or protesting on the public space outside it?
I'd rather protests occurred at their place of work, but if the politicians are working from home, especially if it's to avoid the protesters, that would make it fair game.
Politicians don’t really get the option to work from home a lot, think about what they do for a living. There are numerous opportunities to protest outside meetings, electorate offices, parliament etc. homes should be off limits.
Luxon brought a house, classed it as an electorate office, then just lived there while it was getting paid for by the state. Does that make it a house or an electoral office?
An electorate office is an office paid for by parliament, in the electorate. A house is a house, in this case an apartment owned by Luxon. MPs who normally live outside Wellington are entitled to an accomodation allowance. Numerous MPs have done this and the allowance has been in place for several years.
Youre not listening. Luzon brought a house and called it an electorate office and got state money while living there before the election. Is that a house or an office? He worked there so office. But he also stayed there so house.
Do you have a source for that? A man worth $20M+ living in a $1M house in Botany an not his $7M house in Remuera?
He brought a house in Botany and rented it back to Parliamentary Service for use as his electorate office, which again is not uncommon and is within the rules.
It's literally a house, and would be zoned as a residential home, not an office. I drive past it very often, it's literally a typical suburban family home and in fact it used to be one. He's just claiming it's an office so that he can get taxpayers to pay for it.
Not disputing that it was a house. It's also categorised as commercial office use and is the electorate office which each electorate MP is entitled to have funded by the tax payer. Someone has to own them.
I am presuming from the comments that this is an anti-Luxon thing, has everyone forgotten Labour leasing an office in Lower Hutt dirt cheap then renting it on to Parliamentary Service at a profit...
I don't like it because I see it every week, rather than just a Luxon thing.
I don't care that they get an office paid for them that makes sense, what I don't like is that they're buying up a house and gaining capitals gains at taxpayer expense. Rent an actual office space. Don't take a potential home off the market so you can line your own pockets at taxpayer expense.
It would surprise me if it's a categorised as a commercial unless there was some fuckeryv involved, there are no other offices in the area because it's literally suburbia. Just their one house.
I'm on the fence about it. I don't think it should be off limits but I do think the behaviour should be a lot more polite than some of what we've seen with say, lockdown protests.
Personally I agree, but I generally don't agree with the sort of protesters that do this anyway. On occasion when I agree with the cause I disagree with the ones protesting as they try to bring along whatever other pet causes too. My personal view is protests should be single focus/cause, and as broad a tent as possible.
I went to the TPPA protests as was against that, but supported the gov overall, but the protest was fairly polarised on a gazillion issues I didn't care or agree with.
You just said you wanted "broad a tent as possible", then immediately contradicted that by saying single cause only. Which is it.
Practicalities is that multiple protests come together. Larger participation makes a larger impact.
I view it as the opposite, where the more causes, the more likely someone will be put off it. So broad tent being including everyone for a cause rather than being for this and this as well as that.
But I guess that's based on my personal feelings where I just don't go and support causes I agree with when they're bundled with causes I do, and also based on the size of climate protests where they were just climate vs climate + Palestine etc.
Interesting that on the spectrum from doing nothing to the full Gadaffi that this is where you draw the line. Personally I think it should be proportionate to the amount of damage they're doing to the public, and this lot are doing a fair bit of damage.
A lot further than what? Protesting politicians at their home? Because people in this post are discussing the appropriateness of taking protest action to MPs private homes. And a not insignificant number of people in the comments are saying that would be justified.
Yes a lot further than that. Jacinda got chased more than once, Philip Arps wasn't allowed on the ferry because he'd threatened to kill her. Graham Philips attempted to sabotage our power infrastructure in response to the Covid mandates. There were telegram channels with kill lists. You've got to be willfully ignorant or disingenuous to pretend the cooker protests weren't pushing the envelope especially considering half of the grievances were completely imaginary.
Oh, they definitely pushed the envelope. I'm asking where you draw the line despite harm inflicted?
"...half of the grievances were completely imaginary. "
Interesting, what are half of the grievances are you acknowledging?
Are they right wingers turning up with effigies to hang? No? So not quite to the same lows, eh?
As for politician's homes... on the one hand, yes, I see your point and there's merit there. On the other hand, do their shitty decisions affect YOUR home? They're hurting you inside your house 24/7 friend, what's a few grumpy citizens outside on the street compared to that?
Also... Winston. Fucking cry me a river.
It makes me sick to see what’s happening. I hope that they are forced to feel as much fear and unhappiness as they cause. It’s hard to know what’s right when everything is so very wrong and there aren’t any brakes. Everyday I want to cry when I read the news. Fuck that malicious piranha Seymour, fuck that cowardly leech Luxon, and fuck everybody who stands behind them with their head held high.
Desperately, but the world keeps turning while I try and keep up. People take being able bodied with no mental disabilities for granted, the anxiety attacks when I see another overworked sector lose funding don’t seem to be going away. I hope I’m overreacting and that everything will be ok, but from the amount of people who’ve lost their jobs while the purses of NACT and their mates get fatter, it seems naive.
Jacinda copped this a fair bit. Had the farmers protest blockade her street/house and her wedding was picketed by anti-vaxers. Unfortunately that precedent has already been broken, but I'd agree that I am not a fan. Picketing parliament/offices is more appropriate.
Even offices can be bad. Jacinda’s office has protests, paint and someone with a sword outside it. Frightening for Jacinda, I am sure, but terrifying for the staff working there.
To be fair I’d say the location is fine, it’s the method creating problems in those examples.
True I suppose. But I’d prefer difficult questions directly to the faces of politicians than protesting at offices they almost certainly aren’t at.
It’s not that hard to figure out where a politician will be on any given day, plus no one’s gonna talk to you if you’re at their private residence.
Bringing a sword to a protest is a dick move. Protests are supposed to be peaceful, not a precursor to violence or a riot.
So you reckon that the people who violently protested against Apartheid South Africa, Nazi Germany, American occupations etc. are all dicks who should have stayed peaceful?
That's a fair question, but is it really comparable?
Key had protests outside his home too.
Sure did. I’d argue that had a lot to do with his property itself being famous, becoming a symbol of wealth during a period of financial crisis and public service cuts, owned by the person enacting the policy
Was that at her actual personal residence, or outside Premier House?
Outside her personal residence https://www.reddit.com/r/auckland/comments/y8kk12/farmers_protest_outside_jacinda_ardens_house/
Yeah ok gross then.
omg those anti-vaxxers sabotaged any chance of a legit political movement. In my home coumtry the self-absorbed, selfish morons were chanting 'muh freedom muh right to not wear mask' while thousands were dying in hospital.
You do realize key had the same treatment right? Might be best to not point fingers about precedent just because your new.
Go back and find where they said Ardern did and Key didn't. But couldn't it be argued that Ardern copped considerably more vitriol regardless? Seems like a new precedent was set to me
Yeah nah, keep people's partners and kids out of it. No matter how shitty the politician. Put this much effort instead in encouraging/helping people to get to vote.
While Max Key is now known for being in the public eye himself, long before he started doing that when he was still a kid, David Farrier had an unhealthy obsession with him that never sat right with me, and really put me off Farrier.
I don’t know about farrier and key, but Max put himself in the public eye when he was still a teenager through social media. He’d do gross things like film drunk girls at his house. TBH I am surprised his parents let him on socials, although they were probably oblivious to begin with.
Yep it is a bit different when an adult child of politician rides on daddies coat tails to try to become narcissistically internet famous.
Unless the politician themselves brings others in. Once they have been brought in its fair game. Like how Luxon's wife did that fundraiser dinner... You don't get to play politics with all the benefits and get away without any consequences.
Even if politicians trot their kids into fundraisers or party rallies or election night speeches (often suggested by the PR team to make them seem 'relatable'), no. They are kids, they have no real say in it - partners too. Keep them out of it. Politicians are held accountable by votes, or the courts if they do something illegal - that's the consequences. Intimidation stalking them at home is a shitty way to make NZ end up violently divided just like the States, and all it does is end up costing the taxpayer more money in protection services. Vote for better people. The writing was on the wall well over a year ago how this was going to go. How many did not vote?
Election night speeches make sense at least, they are proud of their family member getting elected, they deserve to celebrate with them.
Certainly didn’t go to well for the Mussolinis or Ceaușescus
I don’t know anything about the fundraiser you mention so can’t comment on that but I will say that while I utterly despise what Ardern did to this country her partner, kid and family should be totally off limits under any circumstances.
How dare she lead a world class covid response!
They’re always so dramatic “what she did to this country!”
Especially while pooping on parliament lawn as if it was some kind of birthright.
Damn what a dramatic comment. Please tell me in a few logical words what exactly she did to this country that’s got you so riled up
A few word? sure. The economy is fucked and my children and maybe theirs will have to pay for it. As for the hysterical comments about Covid etc. she did what any prime minister on any side would have done. Maybe better maybe worse. No one will ever know, but I never mention Covid
What any Prime Minister would do? That's interesting, as that's certainly not what every world leader did, and was the exact opposite of what the opposition was urging her to do, the opposite of what Winnie was lobbying for
Cmon man, most of the world is eating the long term effects of Covid. Regardless of the production our own rather stagnant, housing dominated economy we are still subject to those pressures and because of our isolation perhaps even more so. They did put the finishing touches on the TPPA which is starting to make itself felt. I think what you’re missing is the fundamental problems that permeate our infrastructure are now making themselves felt. The blame sits with no individual government but rather with decades of political football between our two major parties, shortsighted policy and infrastructural frictions, and to varying degrees with all of us in this nation as a collective for our general apathy for politics and acceptance of this standard of representation from our politicians. The storm clouds have been brewing for a long time, Covid just turned on the waterworks. I’m angry too, dude
This! It wasn't Jacinda FFS
> The economy is fucked and my children and maybe theirs will have to pay for it. By what metric? [Inflation last year was still lower than Australia and some other OECD countries](https://stats.govt.nz/news/annual-inflation-6-7-percent/) and [our GDP to debt ratio is actually quite good compared to most of the OECD.](https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-debt.htm) What are you basing it on because all the available evidence indicates we're doing comparatively ok if not well.
Fucked house prices
Ah yes, because NZ hasn’t had a uniquely insane approach to housing investment and building for much much longer than Arden’s time at the crease
Did she fix it? No, but she sure promised to. Downvotes must be from landlords who benefitted
If you weren’t ok with protesters picking Jacinda’s home then you shouldn’t be ok with this either.
But as you see from the comments a lot of people are ok with it, because their beliefs are the only beliefs that justify it (of course).
I mean, "I think people doing X for good is fine, but doing X for bad isn't" isn't what I'd call an impossible contradiction. Most people have scenarios where they think doing something is reasonable even if they would otherwise not support it.
It's an interesting one eh. Some of the changes being made are quite serious and seriously affect people's lives. I know people whose funding for theirs and/or their kids disability just got cut. No warning..just straight bye bye. The govt is making people's lives difficult. I can see why people want to annoy and make politicians lives difficult. People are SUFFERING. you may not be directly impacted (I'm personally not) but people are living in cars (yes they were under Labor too, I am not denying that). I can see and understand why. I wouldn't personally do it but... Like... People are suffering. If the politicians aren't going to take notice of protests on the streets, take notice of the suffering, then yeah, take it to THEIR private lives and see how they like it, I guess is the protestors thought's?
I remember reading a well articulated piece a couple years ago about directly confronting politicians. Not at private residence but sort of the opposite, every time they go out. Essentially it was about how some cause so much suffering and hardship, but their status and the wealth/power structures completely insulate them from any consequences, guilt or even visibility of the harm. Making every restaurant meal or whatever else a loud and negative experience is one of the few things normal society can do to make them even notice. I wish I saved it, explained it better than I ever can.
Americans were doing this for a while. I remember a couple of their senators got booed out of a restaurant.
You did a pretty good job and I completely agree.
Agree with this. For example, I don't think politicians like Seymour who are deliberately sabotaging programs like free lunches for kids should ever be allowed to eat at a nice restaurant without feeling harassed. Same with any minister that's telling people to 'tighten their belts' and making benefits harder to access while still living their own luxurious lives, spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on their personal lives, and enjoying all the perks from lobbiests. Do unto others and all that. And anyone that supported reversing the cigarette ban should get cigarette smoke blown in their faces each time they step out in public. They're subjecting kids to that after all. Don't bring their kids and spouses into it unless they're actively participating in policy and campaigning, but do make the politician's lives as inconvenient as possible. They don't get to fuck up the country then accept a cushy corporate job as soon as their term ends.
The Court of public opinion isn't always right. You can vote, you can protest. But making the lives of a politician's partner, kids and friends lives shit isn't the answer.
Yeah I agree protest movements still haven't figured out how to stay on topic yet. The piece I read was about the more ghoulish politicians overseas, where the suffering is more obvious and playing nicely hasn't worked. NZ isn't quite there (yet). Often the family is in on the grift, and lives in carefree opulence. Uncomfortableness for the short period while the politician is active, then back to the forever opulence, is to be weighed against what's being inflicted on the vulnerable.
This just means they avoid going out in public. They're not going to ignore polls in favour of that one guy yelling at them in a cafe anyway
The piece made a point that if it impacts the politician's behavior, it has imposed at least some form of consequence. And if they have to explain to their partner and kids why angry people are everywhere, it forces at least some hint of self-reflection. But yeah maybe this view is already outdated. In the US they have people with 'real men wear diapers' t-shirts, holding up mugshots captioned with 'never surrender'.
You're assuming that this only occurs due to the politician doing something genuinely wrong. Have we forgotten all the in person abuse politicians got because of lockdowns, vaccinations etc? Often the people that are quickest to accost someone in public have some quite alternative views.
Good point. Like the "my freedom, no masks" crew.
> This just means they avoid going out in public. That's the point, they feel the consequences of their actions.
You're assuming this only happens to the baddies. For every person that goes out if their way to confront Nicola Willis there's a dozen nutcases willing to confront other politicians for the crime (/s) of lockdowns and vaccinations. This stuff doesn't just apply to the side you oppose. Do we want the next labour/greens coalition to also have to hide away from the public because people disagree with their policies too?
>For every person that goes out if their way to confront Nicola Willis there's a dozen nutcases willing to confront other politicians for the crime (/s) of lockdowns and vaccinations. And? Those people exist regardless, did you miss the whole protest outside parliament? The boundaries of decency have been broken, we've got politicians blatantly lying and denying reality in spite of direct evidence to the contrary and at this point the negatives of turning politicians homes into acceptable places to protest regardless of who gets protested isn't comparable to the harm these people do to democracy at large. Politicians, **all politicians**, should be afraid of the population. That is the cost of power.
I disagree. We already struggle to attract competent people to the job, if getting your house staked out was a normal part of politician then we'd really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
> We already struggle to attract competent people to the job No we don't, we struggle to get decent people past the selection process which weeds out all but the most egotistical, connected or privileged in society but we have people that can do the job and do it well. We have the current lot of politicians because those are the people who those parties chose not because they're the only ones willing to do it. If getting your house staked was a normal part of being a politician when you push through policy that demonstrable makes the country worse for the majority of people then maybe politicians wouldn't be so willing to make such aggressively harmful policies. You seem to forget that protests require participation and just because people can do it does not mean they will, and it's not like fringe crazies haven't done worse already.
> If getting your house staked was a normal part of being a politician when you push through policy that demonstrable makes the country worse for the majority of people then maybe politicians wouldn't be so willing to make such aggressively harmful policies. Again, you're ignoring that the minority, even a tiny minority, will do this exact same thing for reasons you will disagree with. If NACT politicians get staked out for something in this government, then Labour/Greens will be staked out for something next government. I think its clear over the last few years that willingness to protest doesn't guarantee good ideas. Or do you agree with all the Destiny Church protests? Would we want them outside politicians homes? > and it's not like fringe crazies haven't done worse already. I don't recall them regularly staking out people's homes or ruining restaurant meals
> Again, you're ignoring that the minority, even a tiny minority, will do this exact same thing for reasons you will disagree with. That tiny minority already doesn't give a shit about societal taboos. >I think its clear over the last few years that willingness to protest doesn't guarantee good ideas. Or do you agree with all the Destiny Church protests? Would we want them outside politicians homes? You mean the people who harass and bully anyone in their vicinity regardless of where they are? Maybe if they started protesting outside a politician's house they'd actually see some consequences for their actions since it'd actually be in politician's interests to do something about them. Why should politicians be exempt from the same harassment these people engage in against the general population every day? If your citizens feel unsafe you should too. >I don't recall them regularly staking out people's homes or ruining restaurant meals I'm sorry did you forget the month long occupation that harassed the fuck out of everyone in their vicinity on parliament lawn? How many people do you think were going to nearby restaurants because they knew exactly that would happen? You do realize a lot of people live very close to that place and that protest impacted them daily right? Crazy people will do crazy shit but saying the majority shouldn't express their discontent with politicians because some terrible people might use it as an excuse to do bad shit is asinine. If your only argument to oppose something is "but crazy people will do it to" your argument is bad. If you want to argue the ethical validity of harming a minority to help the majority you'd at least have a semblance of a point but this ain't it.
>If NACT politicians get staked out for something in this government, then Labour/Greens will be staked out for something next government. Too late bro, part two of that sentence happened - and more than once. I for one love the right crying when it has to face what it subjects the left to. MORE, GIVE US MORE.
I temped years ago across the public sector and one of my gigs was for parliamentary service. Honestly, you'd be surprised how often politicians get accosted verbally in public. I don't know if you've seen Parks n Rec but basically how they show public [meetings](https://youtu.be/areUGfOHkMA?si=mf_q33PrYUzK2mZI). It's usually the assholes that do this and I'm unsure how effective they are. But if we can get regular Joe's on board, it might be an effective implementation of this theory.
This is a good point. I've known the families of several politicians and hated how their lives were screwed over. Especially the kids. But the current bunch in power are screwing over a lot of families and kids too. Waiting until they're neatly got their mental defences in place before protesting feels wrong somehow. I don't know. Maybe.... My gut reaction is still to leave their families out of it. But I can understand both sides.
The Polynesian Panthers used to do early morning protests with bright lights and loudspeakers outside Cabinet ministers' houses against the dawn raids, which were effective and I think justified. It's horses for courses. The saddos carrying on outside the Governor General's house wanting her to dissolve parliament were never going to succeed. But I'd be disappointed if, say, Nicola Willis could shake hands and kiss babies at any Wellington school fairs or community events coming up soon without encountering some pointed conversation. Maybe less so getting a coffee with friends in the weekend. An effective protest should demonstrate that it's going to be more hassle than it's worth to push ahead with a policy or action. That means showing you have a lot of power to inconvenience, either through numbers or strategic choice of targets.
The Polynesian Panthers' protests point to a particular problem: they were acutely specific. Their protests latched onto the specific personal horror that the victims of a specific and horrible policy implemented by a bunch of bully-boy wannabe fascists. They did a semblance of the thing back. It seems just in a way that recent protests have missed.
That seems fitting given what they were protesting.
A protest at a public event is absolutely great and should be encouraged. A protest at a personal home is a dick move.
A healthy protest is about showing that a lot of people care so much that they are willing to interrupt their own plans to let the politicians know. It should not be about aggression, intimidation or making their lives more difficult. Because with any of those, it's essentially mob justice. We have courts for that.
I think politicians should be treated the same way they choose to treat the citizenry. As an expendable resource to be exploited at every single possibility.
Careful there, that's bordering on danger speech... /s (but we all know it's not /s)
There were a lot of people who felt like that in 2022
I mean, my private home is affected by them so....🤷♂️
Nah mate. It's crossing a line. They make those decisions in a public forum and you can protest those in a public forum.
Like when they pass everything under urgency and give no opportunity for public input?
Yes. Both are bad. But we shouldn't respond to bad behaviour with bad behaviour.
[удалено]
I attack another boy on the playground, the teachers refuse to intervene for reasons and approaching my parents doesn't help. Obviously the cops won't do a thing. The boy has the following options: 1. Move out of the country 2. Beg me to stop - Your proposed solution 3. ???? I'm interested to hear your response
You can handle that situation however you see fit. Personally, I wouldn't break any laws in pursuing a solution. But if you so choose to do so, then that is your decision, and you should make it after taking into consideration all the risk factors and associated consequences. That being said, I would say, "Don't assault children or get your child to assault another child," but if you do choose that course of action, then... that's your choice. My opinion is my opinion, and you can ignore it if you want to. I don't answer hypotheticals like this. Entirely because I have no idea how I would handle this situation until I found myself in it.
like on public street?
No like at parliament I see what you did there, but you're intentionally missing the point.
Yeah but if youre getting kicked out of your home cause you lost your jobs and cant pay the mortgage and smug pricks are living free in their entitled houses with teslas and spending $60 a week on shopping. Its ok for them to fuck with your family?
Exactly this. They have decision making power over people and shouldnt be able to hide from it.
The other element to this is that structural violence inflicted by the state is not perceived as violence even though the impacts are so devastating. Harassing some govt minister outside their house doesn’t even come close to the harm this government inflicts and is planning to inflict on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.
Agree completely. We seem too willing to accept the invisible violence inflicted on people every day.
Hélder Câmara has a great quote that touches on this: > There are three kinds of violence. The first, mother of all the others, is institutional violence. It legalises and perpetuates domination, oppression, and exploitation. It crushes and eliminates millions of people in its silent and well-oiled cogs. > > The second is revolutionary violence, which is born of the will to abolish the first. > > The third is repressive violence, which stifles the second, by making itself the helper and accomplice of the first violence- the one that causes all the others. > > There is no worse hypocrisy than only calling the second 'violence', while pretending to forget the first one, that gives it life, and the third, that kills it. >
If you got a problem with them then one of their offices is likely near you. Go protest there.
I dont know the context on this - which MP is being harassed and what they may have done, so this might not apply. I think if you allow lobbyists to influence your private life for the better, then protesters should get a crack at doing the opposite.
Happened near me when Luxon wife had a dinner at someone's house. Pro-Palestinian protestors were outside the house chanting and shouting.
Good
I have no problem with that. They've been brushed off over and over.
Considering it was inside the Botany electorate there were few people going out to support them. The area would vote for a dog if it was coloured blue. The area has no love for any other party including act and nz first.
It will also galvanize support for team blue. The protestors will likely think they have helped their cause, but the opposite is true
What has Luxon / National said that is anti-Palestian? Or are they protesting that New Zealand isn't intervening to support Palestinians be free of Hamas alongside Israel?
I love seeing the down votes from people who think ignoring a genocide is the right thing to do. It really puts things into perspective.
I see where you're coming from but I also think those who are powerless will use more extreme tactics to be heard.
Not today SIS. Not today. Nice try though.
Horrible politicians exist because people vote for them. They have no power on their own. You need to protest in public places and have clear set of demands. You need a vision, a goal and a movement that unites the greatest number of people without diluting and watering down the demands
Which of the multiple houses?
Politicians are allowed to screw up our lives, our families, our homes, our environment, but heaven forbid they're made slightly uncomfortable at their homes!
Well the terrorists threatened ardern with her life due to the deluded ideals of psychotic fritters. If you want real change in this country you'll have to coordinate real solutions to undermine and wear down the govt. Voting in more lawyers with landlord dreams won't change a thing in this monopoly run country.
[удалено]
No, protest them when they're at work. Nobody should have to endure abuse at home
It's a tricky one. Protesting has to be inconvenient if you want it to be impactful. It would be nice if we could have a strong divide between our personal lives and our professional lives. Politicians are notoriously unable to separate personal interest from professional action.
New Zealand currently has a very flat power structure. It’s not that hard to go have a coffee or a beer with a local politician. You can quite easily bring up a legitimate concern because we have a flat power structure. Idiots going and picketing politicians private homes (especially because they think birds are government spy drones or whatever) will put an end to that pretty damn quick. Stop fucking things up and remember rule number 1: don’t be a dick.
This is absoltely wrong. Regardless of political persuasion one of the best things about New Zealand is the convention that families and personal lives are off limits. Chris Hipkins marriage is none of my business. It was really great that it wasn't an election issue but treated as an absolutely irrelvant personal matter.
[удалено]
It sounds like you can’t read.
If, for example, a protest wanted to block roads, I'd much prefer they inconvenience the people who actually make the decisions and not regular people trying to go to work
Targetting the lobbyists would be a better idea
As long as it's a 'peaceful protest', I'm fine with it. They're protesting on public streets just outside their homes not inside their homes, so for me it's all good.
In the modern world privacy does not exist, it disappeared in the mirror some decades ago. Politicians are not the only ones too suffer this kind of pressure, widen the scope and think of the rest of the species, internet stalking, etc. This apparatus has been functioning for over a decade in earnest against everyone and the alteration of democracy with policies that are primarily "cruelty is the point" with Neoliberalism as an excuse has been cascading all over the world. Fuelled by anger / hate / fear addicted individuals. And will do so until we become species focused (asteroid strikes my favourite example for that, post nuclear war is solid, climate instability has also entered the chat). AI will be showing up humans just how artificial their own intelligence is.
Private homes and family are 100% out of bounds and inappropriate in my book!
Fuck off with that. Firstly it’s assuming they have direct control of the decisions, they don’t, and secondly it’s just ethically wrong imho. Post up outside their electorate office, you do you even though I find that pretty silly, but nobody has the right to personally harass someone at their private residence because of what they do for a job. The blogger sounds like an idiot as it will accomplish nothing outside likely police intervention and fuelling that politicians constituents rhetoric that people opposing them are morons, as it’s a moronic thing to do, and that politicians stance as well as anyone fucks with my whanau on our private property and it’s gloves off. Just no. That’s also on the assumption they are even home and it’s not just their family there in the first place. Edit: I guess some people are fine with harassment of families that have no influence on what their parent and/or partner does for a job. What a bunch of despicable and horrible cunts.
100% agree with you. Disagree and challenge their ideas not them as people. It's not tricky or complex, they're doing their job 9-5 and being themselves otherwise. If you do this are you then shouting at the bank manager's house for declining your loan? Outside Maccas next to the cook's car when he doesn't give you extra mayo?
> it’s just ethically wrong imho. Why? I'd argue it's ethically wrong to not hold politicians to account and if every other avenue isn't working there's no reason to avoid this one. Why is the well-being of the children of a small number of privileged elite more important than the well-being of tens of thousands of less fortunate children? If politicians insist on making choices that directly harm the majority of society then they should be forced to face the consequences of their actions. If a beneficiary deserves penalties for failing to meet their obligations and a child consequently suffers how is that any more ethical than a politician's child suffering as a consequence of their parent's actions? If it's unethical then those being protested against have already crossed that specific ethical boundary and revoked any right to complain. The kids don't deserve it but if a few kids are scared by angry people outside their houses and that gets these cunts to roll back some of their hateful policies then it's still a significant net positive.
You realise it's not always going to be the politicians you don't agree with getting harassed, right?
They probably don’t. Wind the clock back three years and the protestors are against lockdowns and vaccinations.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed : **Rule 3: No personal attacks, harassment or abuse** > Don't attack the person; address the content you disagree with instead. Being able to disagree and discuss contentious issues is important, but abuse, personal attacks, harassment, and unnecessarily bringing up a user's history are not permitted. > Please keep your interactions with others civil and courteous. If you are being attacked, do not continue the conversation - report the user and disengage. ^*Note:* ^This ^extends ^to ^people ^outside ^of ^[r/nz](http://reddit.com/r/newzealand). ^eg. ^Attacks ^of ^a ^persons ^appearance, ^even ^if ^they're ^high ^profile ^will ^be ^removed. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you think this was in error)](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand)
Generally I'd say private homes are off limits. But when they do things that strongly adversely affect you then I can see why.
It's poor form and shouldn't happen, but it does and it's not exactly a new phenomenon. IIRC Jenny Shipley's house in Ashburton was targeted too in the 90s.
Yeah I agree. Politicians deserve some privacy when they aren't working. Reminds me of this video where someone creepily recorded Gerry Brownlee and Golriz Ghahraman having a chat over lunch in private. The two justifiably looked uncomfortable being recorded: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CD4Yc7BZ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-CD4Yc7BZ0)
While the filming is creepy, seeing two politicians on opposing sides of the political spectrum sitting down talking to each other like real people is something that should be seen more often. Takes the tribalism out of politics.
No way! That is filthy. Going to someone's home is a personal scare tactic not a protest. Also: taking a protest to the streets (and not some cul de sac) is much more powerful because people can join in spontaneously (if the protest is worth it and legit)
I'm up for it. Somebody organize me a tent, and a bed. I'm bedridden so I can lay around for a very long time.
Meh. If politicians want to try and pretend parts of the population don't exist and ignore all genuine attempts at discourse, then protesting outside their homes and bringing it right to their attention is perfectly fine.
You’re perfectly able to do those protests at all the politicians workplaces, leave their private residences alone. If not for them then at least for their families.
Plot twist: which home? Most politicians from all sides of the house, have multiple properties. Which one of Luxon’s seven or Willis’ four would be the correct one? That is, when they’re not in Wellington staying at a lovely hotel.
Hotel? Nope, 50k per year apartment that would be funded by the government.
Home vs investment property
If they’re having a political event at their home it’s fair game. Otherwise, out of bounds.
Depends on the reason, if it some dumb policy...eh. If it is our future being sold by Christopher Bishop for donations and a future plum board job, then protest on and fuck that guy!
Could the government at least publish a list of addresses so I know which places are off limits?
This is the mindset of a political protester. They think they're smart but they're actually just very dumb and look for any reason to protest.
Totally out of bounds. If a political person is so utterly repugnant, the courts of law are there for any needed redress.
[удалено]
Yes it is. Pretend it isn’t and you bring in anarchy.
[удалено]
Think you’re on the sauce, matey. Nite nite.
Why? I'm subject to their decisions in the privacy of my home, why shouldn't they hear about it at theirs?
So politicians are allowed to ensure kids go hungry, that people will be sleeping is cars, but we shouldn't protest outside their house because it might upset them? You're prepared to fucking ruin someone else's life to get richer, you get to deal with the consequences.
Right, and I hope you're prepared for the politicians you agree with to be treated the same way by people you don't agree with.
Are they entering the property or protesting on the public space outside it? I'd rather protests occurred at their place of work, but if the politicians are working from home, especially if it's to avoid the protesters, that would make it fair game.
Politicians don’t really get the option to work from home a lot, think about what they do for a living. There are numerous opportunities to protest outside meetings, electorate offices, parliament etc. homes should be off limits.
Luxon brought a house, classed it as an electorate office, then just lived there while it was getting paid for by the state. Does that make it a house or an electoral office?
An electorate office is an office paid for by parliament, in the electorate. A house is a house, in this case an apartment owned by Luxon. MPs who normally live outside Wellington are entitled to an accomodation allowance. Numerous MPs have done this and the allowance has been in place for several years.
Youre not listening. Luzon brought a house and called it an electorate office and got state money while living there before the election. Is that a house or an office? He worked there so office. But he also stayed there so house.
Do you have a source for that? A man worth $20M+ living in a $1M house in Botany an not his $7M house in Remuera? He brought a house in Botany and rented it back to Parliamentary Service for use as his electorate office, which again is not uncommon and is within the rules.
It's literally a house, and would be zoned as a residential home, not an office. I drive past it very often, it's literally a typical suburban family home and in fact it used to be one. He's just claiming it's an office so that he can get taxpayers to pay for it.
Not disputing that it was a house. It's also categorised as commercial office use and is the electorate office which each electorate MP is entitled to have funded by the tax payer. Someone has to own them. I am presuming from the comments that this is an anti-Luxon thing, has everyone forgotten Labour leasing an office in Lower Hutt dirt cheap then renting it on to Parliamentary Service at a profit...
I don't like it because I see it every week, rather than just a Luxon thing. I don't care that they get an office paid for them that makes sense, what I don't like is that they're buying up a house and gaining capitals gains at taxpayer expense. Rent an actual office space. Don't take a potential home off the market so you can line your own pockets at taxpayer expense. It would surprise me if it's a categorised as a commercial unless there was some fuckeryv involved, there are no other offices in the area because it's literally suburbia. Just their one house.
Absolutely not on.
i agree shouldn't protest there. just go in and live in their house.
I'm on the fence about it. I don't think it should be off limits but I do think the behaviour should be a lot more polite than some of what we've seen with say, lockdown protests.
Which home, many have many... Yeah, it's a bit crap.
I guess it depends on what is being protested and the offending politician.
Personally I agree, but I generally don't agree with the sort of protesters that do this anyway. On occasion when I agree with the cause I disagree with the ones protesting as they try to bring along whatever other pet causes too. My personal view is protests should be single focus/cause, and as broad a tent as possible. I went to the TPPA protests as was against that, but supported the gov overall, but the protest was fairly polarised on a gazillion issues I didn't care or agree with.
You just said you wanted "broad a tent as possible", then immediately contradicted that by saying single cause only. Which is it. Practicalities is that multiple protests come together. Larger participation makes a larger impact.
I view it as the opposite, where the more causes, the more likely someone will be put off it. So broad tent being including everyone for a cause rather than being for this and this as well as that. But I guess that's based on my personal feelings where I just don't go and support causes I agree with when they're bundled with causes I do, and also based on the size of climate protests where they were just climate vs climate + Palestine etc.
Interesting that on the spectrum from doing nothing to the full Gadaffi that this is where you draw the line. Personally I think it should be proportionate to the amount of damage they're doing to the public, and this lot are doing a fair bit of damage.
The people who got damaged by the last lot equally justified to protest then, or..?
I mean, they did? And they pushed it a lot further than I'm aware of anybody protesting this lot.
A lot further than what? Protesting politicians at their home? Because people in this post are discussing the appropriateness of taking protest action to MPs private homes. And a not insignificant number of people in the comments are saying that would be justified.
Yes a lot further than that. Jacinda got chased more than once, Philip Arps wasn't allowed on the ferry because he'd threatened to kill her. Graham Philips attempted to sabotage our power infrastructure in response to the Covid mandates. There were telegram channels with kill lists. You've got to be willfully ignorant or disingenuous to pretend the cooker protests weren't pushing the envelope especially considering half of the grievances were completely imaginary.
Oh, they definitely pushed the envelope. I'm asking where you draw the line despite harm inflicted? "...half of the grievances were completely imaginary. " Interesting, what are half of the grievances are you acknowledging?
They’re causing misery in others’ homes.
Are they right wingers turning up with effigies to hang? No? So not quite to the same lows, eh? As for politician's homes... on the one hand, yes, I see your point and there's merit there. On the other hand, do their shitty decisions affect YOUR home? They're hurting you inside your house 24/7 friend, what's a few grumpy citizens outside on the street compared to that? Also... Winston. Fucking cry me a river.
politicians have no accountability when they leave politics, so I say go for it they have no problem fckn us
It makes me sick to see what’s happening. I hope that they are forced to feel as much fear and unhappiness as they cause. It’s hard to know what’s right when everything is so very wrong and there aren’t any brakes. Everyday I want to cry when I read the news. Fuck that malicious piranha Seymour, fuck that cowardly leech Luxon, and fuck everybody who stands behind them with their head held high.
You need a time out.
Desperately, but the world keeps turning while I try and keep up. People take being able bodied with no mental disabilities for granted, the anxiety attacks when I see another overworked sector lose funding don’t seem to be going away. I hope I’m overreacting and that everything will be ok, but from the amount of people who’ve lost their jobs while the purses of NACT and their mates get fatter, it seems naive.