Russel Norman had the right to protest when Chinese vice-president Xi Jinping entered parliament last week.
But he also had a responsibility to do so in a manner befitting his status as an MP.
He was able to get much closer to the VP than the general public because he’s an MP, but he abused that right by not exercising it responsibly.
As a result John Key is seeking a security review and Speaker, Lockwood Smith, is looking at new rules to govern protests by MPs..
Oh the irony, a protest against a lack of democracy in Tibet may lead to more restrictions here.
Homepaddock 
The ginga twat that the greens selected to be their token male sop as joint leader was able to garner a little recognition with the mother of the GP alongside to retain a little political traction.
Now without Donald and Fitzsimons who both had a green credential base, Tanczos with his image as one of the youth people and Bradford with a strong protest/union personna gone, all the GP has is the small consumer oriented appeal of Kedgley and a troupe of faceless beings whose poll results are held up by the core vote around 2 1/2 to 4 % supplemented by the disillusioned from the continuing melt down of NZ Labour.
Normans assumed self importance was, to put it bluntly embarrassing, and compared to the late Rod Donald’s effort re Tibet such a contrast. This bit of grandstanding that should have only made the court news will only have a detrimental result on the freedom of our elected politicians to make a point when it really matters.
Of course I abhor any denial of self government and self determination of any people but the reality is that China exists and the best hope for the people of Tibet is that they can retain their culture within the Chinese state as other ethnic groups do in the face of great difficulty and it is of such small concern to that leadership the protest was and is doomed. For a lesson in retaining a peoples nationhood in the face of oppression, Poland is a shining example where the fortitude or stubbornness of its believers as some would have it prevailed.
As with all mindless actions by minorities in the face of reallity, the only outcome of this abusive action will be a further curtailment of existing rights. Now “Myrtle”, that was an effective news story and protest, thank god Shane Ardern didn’t roll her over. I wasn’t present for that one but did make the trip to the capital on another matter and it was great to have the opportunity, however constrained to have the democratic right of public protest. Thanks for absolutely nothing Mr Norman.
LikeLike
Russel Norman has caused ‘further curtailment of existing rights’?
Nonsense.
If those rights are ‘curtailed’, it’s on Key’s head.
LikeLike
I agree with robert guyton. Key is as weak as he looks, and makes the country look weak. Oh, for a strong, stident PM, the people vote in any old joe these days, as long as they’re mild and friendly. Yawn.
LikeLike
There goes the neighborhood HP the ginga acts like a twat and it’s all down to Mr Key.
LikeLike
‘Silent protest’ from here on in Dodger?
‘Protest so long as you don’t offend’?
Good grief man!
Authoritarian much?
LikeLike
As per
“Oh the irony, a protest against a lack of democracy in Tibet may lead to more restrictions here.”
LikeLike
Robert, had Norman protested responsibly he’d have made his point, got good publicity and there’d have been no new restrictions on MPs.
The problem wasn’t that he caused offence, it was how he did it.
Because he overstepped the mark, MPs are going to face restrictions on what they can do and where they can do it.
Rights must be exercised responsibly or we face restrictions.
LikeLike
Hp – totally endorse your comment above
LikeLike
I don’t accept at all that Russel Norman ‘over-stepped the mark’ – what ‘mark’ are you refering to?
There is no requirement (yet) for MP’s to be muzzled. There is no requirement (yet) that protest by MPs should ‘not cause offence’. It seems to me that you are supporting a serious suppression of the rights of New Zealanders to protest, simply because it offends your sensibilities.
Blaming Norman for the proposed destruction of liberties is petty. There is no need to take an authoritarian action like that proposed by Key. If it is implemented, it will be on the heads of Key and his dictatorial party.
A shameful act, in my opinion.
LikeLike
Robert he had the right to say what he said and cause offence in doing it.
He had the responsibility to keep further back from the VP while doing it – that’s the mark over which he stepped.
There’s been no need for rules until now because no-one’s been so stupid. Now he’s shown not all MPs can be trusted to keep their distance while protesting the Speaker is likely to make some rules to ensure they do.
LikeLike
Rules eh! Don’t the Authoritarian, Nanny Statist Right love to make rules!
This is the very behaviour that National Party supporters like yourself decried when Labour were in Government yet clamour for now that they are not. Inappropriate behaviour?
Outlaw that behaviour!
I’m amazed that you can be so blind that you cannot recognise that this has become commonplace under this Government.
LikeLike
No the right doesn’t like to make rules. But in this case one of the left didn’t have the wit to act responsibly without rules.
LikeLike