Whether or not New Zealand's laws against flag burning are a good idea, some people are really upset by the desecration of the flag.
There's no right not to be offended in a liberal society. But if there was, I'd be gunning for Peter Dunne's hair.
They're not mine!
But yes, it's a bit rude implying the views belonged to the bloggers rather than freaks in the comments.
The case you are referring to is Hopkinson v R, and it remains controversial.
Only to people who know nothing about the BORA or politically refuse to accept it. I found it quite clear: the BORA affirms freedom of expression, the law must be interpreted in a manner consistent with that freedom, and therefore the relevant clause of the Flags, Emblems and Names Protection 1981 was read down in order to comply. And that is exactly how the BORA is supposed to work.
It's no more controversial than Ngati Apa v Attorney General. but I suppose people who know nothign about the law will beg to differ on that one as well.
Oh God, will I get arrested and locked up for saying that?
Only if the SIS has branched out into enforcing rugby fandom.
As Charles says, for goodness sake, he happened to be somewhere near where somebody else burned a flag. What was he supposed to do? Sprint through the crowd and tackle the perpetrator?
And if he had, no doubt people would be claiming that such an act of violence "proved" he was a terrorist.
Zaoui has spent the past five years being victimised for the acts of others. It would be nice if people stopped doing it.
However, the concerning thing for me was that he just stood by 'unprotestant' as the NZ flag was burnt.
Well of course he was "unprotestant". He's a Muslim.
And I agree with Kowhai - it is difficult to see what your point is here. In this country, we're free to burn the flag, and no-one is required to pretend to patriotism as a religion, any more than they are required to pretend to Christianity. Those are things I value deeply, and I think they are far more important than any flammable scrap of cloth.
But it's scary bigots-a-go-go over at Kiwiblog.
You haven't seen the half of it. This one is calling for ethnic clensing...
Now I have to choice of buying the DVD or downloading the torrent I watch what I want when I want to and ad free.
Ditto. The only thing I do broadcast any more is the nightly news, and occasionally Parliament when I have to be away from the computer. And as a bonus, I don't have to watch crap knock-offs of bad reality TV.
The only way broadcast TV can compete with this is by having good content that I want to watch. And the sooner they figure that out, the better.
The language of the police case, weirdly hysterical as it was, presumably persuaded the judge that he didn't want to have his name on any calamiry, no matter how unlikely.
Which is a type of authoritarian bullying which has become commonplace in the "war on terror", and is used particularly effectively by the Bush Administration. The latest book by an insider (discussed by Glenn Greenwald here talks about administration officials openly threatening people that if they stand on human or constitutional rights, "the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands." (original emphasis). That's not something many people are willing to stand up in the face of. But they have to, otherwise government gets everything it wants, with no checks and balances.
(And yes, I know the "one bomb away from victory" quote is scarier. The Bushies really are creepy thugs).
The right to protest has lost in Sydney. People can protest, but not anywhere where the targets of that protest might see or hear them.
I expect the protest will go ahead, with added banners of "screw the court". And the judge will deserve every bit of that.
Australia has taken a remarkably anti-democratic turn under Howard, and it frightens me.