Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:07AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

regarding the Chinese documentary:

I don't think Maori TV should have shown it. To me it looks far too much like appeasement. The Chinese govt is a ruthless oppressive & racist regime under its current "friendly" face to the west.

I wouldn't support showing a North Korean "Look how happy our people are" documentary, nor one from Cambodia explaining how the Pol POt regime and Killing fields never actually happened.

It's an Orwellian attempt to portray the Chinese govt in a particular light, and I can't support it.

Posted at 10:09AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

Greg O'Connor on tv1 yesterday "Finally there is going to be a consequence for joining a gang. So far its all been one way traffic..." What a ghastly entertainment circus the first courtcase might become. The poor taxpayer foots the bill again for something so poorly thought out.

Posted at 10:10AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

What I found interesting about the Chinese Embassy protest was that it was made a *lot* less public than their objections to the showing of the film (and the speaking of Kadeer) at the International Film Festival in Australia earlier in the year. Was this a case of the Chinese govt not wanting a repeat of the huge publicity that the film got in Australia following their protests? I suspect so. I'm glad Maori TV stuck to its guns and showed it anyway.

Posted at 10:13AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

The irony didn't stop at the colour, either. According to Denis O'Reilly on Checkpoint, the fictitious gang name "Manga Kahu" - the (grammatically incorrect) tranlation Black Power actually use is "Mangu Kaha" - was lifted from the schedule of gangs drawn up by the Wanganui Council.

And now, on day one, some thicko from The Tribesmen has set himself up for a court case that will test the bylaw against the Bill of Rights. Way to make bad guys look like good guys.

If the problem with gangs is their antisocial behaviour, how is being pre-emptively extremely antisocial towards them - based only on what they are wearing, and not their behaviour - going to solve the problem ? All that will happen is that authoritarian absolutists like Laws will feel better about themselves, and the gangs will feel , um, ganged-up on.

Posted at 10:14AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

I seem to be alone amongst usual-suspect media commentators in not at all minding Maori Television's decision to screen the Chinese embassy's "documentary" after The 10 Conditions of Love.

I thought it was a fantastic response from Maori TV - "right, you think it's biased and loaded, fair enough. We'll let you put your side of the argument straight after it".
And then I completely forgot to watch or record either of them =|

And re the gangs, I was amazed at the clever, layered appeal-to-liberty response they put on. And the fact that they all just moved to "colours" ala the LA gangs was a pretty depressingly obvious outcome unfortunately. I'm not sure that the lack of patch is really affecting the intimidatory nature of the Bloods over there huh.

Posted at 10:19AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

Greg O'Connor on tv1 yesterday

Blah blah taser bah blah cops under siege blah blah... Sorry, but I just zone out whenever O'Connor appears because he's depressingly predictable, and increasingly careless with the truth. But who wants to bet that O'Connor will the all over the media trashing the judiciary if the inevitable court cases don't go to his liking? Respect for the rule of law is for other people...

I seem to be alone amongst usual-suspect media commentators in not at all minding Maori Television's decision to screen the Chinese embassy's "documentary" after The 10 Conditions of Love. I actually wanted to see it. It could stand or fall on its merits.

So, Russell, you'd be perfectly happy if MTS extended the same courtesy to our Government every time they run critical content on Native Affairs etc.?

Posted at 10:29AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

regarding the Chinese documentary:

I don't think Maori TV should have shown it. To me it looks far too much like appeasement. The Chinese govt is a ruthless oppressive & racist regime under its current "friendly" face to the west.

I disagree. I'm a grown-up, I can parse propaganda when I need to. And I was genuinely interested to see what they'd do.

And like I said, there was a story to tell. There is no doubt that nationalist Uyghurs have been brutally put down in line with the Chinese government's misguided obsession with its own idea of national unity. The leadership is so scared of the prospect of dissident regions breaking off it has, as is the case in Tibet, simply tried to crush dissent.

But the indiscriminate ethnic violence visited on Han Chinese this year was horrifying and unjustifiable in itself. Read the Wikipedia article.

It's an Orwellian attempt to portray the Chinese govt in a particular light, and I can't support it.

You don't have to support it. But I was actually quite glad to have the opportunity to see it, and then change the channel.

Posted at 10:29AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

I thought it was a fantastic response from Maori TV - "right, you think it's biased and loaded, fair enough. We'll let you put your side of the argument straight after it".

But I'm going to ask you the same question, Gareth: You think MTS should extend the same 'balance' to our Government?

I'd have been more impressed if MTS had said,

"You've got an invitation to put 'your side of the story' on Native Affairs. BTW, don't even ask to vet the questions or the final edit, because nobody gets that."

"Meanwhile, MTS is subject to the Code of Broadcasting Standards. If you feel anything on Maori breeches those standards, here's a handy little leaflet on the complaints process. Have a nice day."

Posted at 10:30AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

I agree entirely with your summation, Russell. I found 10 Conditions of Love to be fairly underwhelming (no doubt as a result of it being so hyped up). Moreover, I did get the strong feeling that crucial information about both the Han - Uyghur conflict and Kadeer personally was missing. I really would like to know how an impoverished divorced woman becomes the seventh richest woman in China by starting a simple laundry business.

In any case though, as you state, the Chinese 'response' was laughable for its mediocrity and repulsive for its graphic violence.

Posted at 10:31AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

I don't think the 10 conditions of love documentary was really that effective, sure China has done some bad stuff, but the coverage was so biased towards Kadeer it was impossible to know what was real and what wasn't (eg the scene at the beginning where one of her supporters is arguing with the wall street journal over uighur numbers, "Kadeer always says 20 million, you printed 10").

The Chinese response was ill thought out, mainly for me in that it 1. caused me to watch the doco, 2. played their counter against outrageous fortune.

Posted at 10:32AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

I really would like to know how an impoverished divorced woman becomes the seventh richest woman in China by starting a simple laundry business.

Yeah. I kept wondering if I'd drifted off and missed something.

Posted at 10:33AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

Fair call Craig, I just liked the response for the "righto punk, I'm calling your bluff!" fist wrapped in the "yes you're right, the Chinese Govt is soooooo hard done by" velvet glove.

I wouldn't advocate it for all situations, but it seemed like a nice one-off way of showing some folks that you can bluster and complain all you like, but you better have something to back it up when someone calls you on it.

Posted at 10:42AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

If the problem with gangs is their antisocial behaviour, how is being pre-emptively extremely antisocial towards them - based only on what they are wearing, and not their behaviour - going to solve the problem ?

Oh, I don't know. We used to have a gang problem in Italy but since we told the mafiosi that they couldn't wear those hats the whole thing has just gone away. Just give the law time to work.

Posted at 10:46AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

I wasn't hugely impressed with the doco either but there's interesting comments about both length and content from the script editor on the Australian site Crikey:

I can tell you the original script was looser and longer, and entered the culture a lot more. Two problems - one is money, cos it just didnt have the budget to grow, and the Chinese attitude. Can’t shoot more in the country, because Jeff would have been arrested and we know what that would have been like.

Full bit here:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/cinetology/2009/08/24/script-editor-responds-to-the-10-conditions-of-love-film-review/

The comments were in response to a review by Luke Buckmaster (real name?) who argued that the doco wasn't up to the standards of the Melbourne fest.

Posted at 10:47AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

Telecommunications surveys over the phone. Going viral. Yesterday I grumbled about Colmar Brunton. Digipoll rang just now! Went away when I told them our policy is to require the callers cellphone number before proceeeding.

Posted at 10:49AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

Rather than ineffective attempts to ban gang insignia, they should just be banned outright. But if banning isn't on the cards then sure - ban their regalia.

Oh while we can all have a go at the predictable Greg O'Conner, how about a big word out to the resident intellectual apologists for organised crime in Whanganui, Denis O'Reilly and that fool Mike Hills? Their combined ability to combine intellectual sophistry with none to subtle threats of violence are models of their kind.

It is hard to square the bleeting that young gangsters will react violently to attempts to remove their regalia with the claim the law will be ineffective.

Posted at 10:55AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

I wasn't hugely impressed with the doco either but there's interesting comments about both length and content from the script editor on the Australian site Crikey

Interesting. I don't know if anyone else has been watching When the Levees Broke on Prime, but I've got to wonder if a politically charged, four hour plus documentary on Katrina would have been commissioned at all, let alone completed and ready to air on the first anniversary of Katrina's landfall, without Spike Lee's name opening some doors (and wallets).

Posted at 10:55AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

Re: gang patches.

Here's an analysis from someone who should know what he's talking about (scroll down to 'banning gang patches'). I'd guess he probably sits on the opposite side of the fence from most of us politically.

He's agin it. I can't really fault his analysis.

Posted at 11:03AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

Here's an analysis from someone who should know what he's talking about (scroll down to 'banning gang patches'). I'd guess he probably sits on the opposite side of the fence from most of us politically.

But from my unscientific sample of front line cops of my acquaintance, he's more onto it than Greg O'Connor. As one put it: "Why don't Michael Laws and Chester Borrows deal with it? They've obviously got nothing better to do, but I have." You go, girlfriend. :)

Posted at 11:09AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

The gang insignia ban is a waste of time and money. It's hard to see what difference it will make.

In fact I wonder if the move will be counterproductive. Demonising and outlawing gangs may simply them more exciting to prospective members. And how do you ban colours?

Of course, trying to address why people join gangs in the first place (poverty, family breakdown, poor education etc etc) is way too unsexy.

Posted at 11:18AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

I'd guess he probably sits on the opposite side of the fence from most of us politically

Gangs in New Zealand are an unstudied mystery. Almost certainly these gangs would contain some good strategic minds.They are outside the law in that they have made their own laws more important.

and some of these gangs must be making some good dosh and others must just squeak along. How are they operating?

Posted at 11:24AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

Oh, I don't know. We used to have a gang problem in Italy but since we told the mafiosi that they couldn't wear those hats the whole thing has just gone away. Just give the law time to work.

But they didn't include scarves, and now the women have taken over !

Posted at 11:29AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

And now, on day one, some thicko from The Tribesmen has set himself up for a court case that will test the bylaw against the Bill of Rights. Way to make bad guys look like good guys.

Did I miss something here? Russell, did you just say that the Bill of Rights should only apply to good guys?

Posted at 11:34AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

But they didn't include scarves, and now the women have taken over !

That article was excellent, I thought.

Posted at 11:35AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

I disagree. I'm a grown-up, I can parse propaganda when I need to. And I was genuinely interested to see what they'd do.

Completely agree. I thought it was an excellent move, to allow the Chinese government the right of rebuttal, because so far, they have shown that they don't seem to quite be able to grasp the fact that they can't control the speech of the rest of the world like they can do with their own citizens, and it was patently obviously that their reposnse would be some laughable piece of propaganda. Showing it directly after 10 Conditions of Love, however poor it was, simply underlined that fact. Good on Maori TV.

Posted at 11:38AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

Did I miss something here? Russell, did you just say that the Bill of Rights should only apply to good guys?

I think RB was saying precisely the opposite -- the protection of the law applies to everyone, even those he doesn't much like. Which sounds just about right to me.

Posted at 11:42AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

Somehow the gang patch bill wasn't written with neo-Nazis or the 14K in mind.

Posted at 11:45AM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

I think RB was saying precisely the opposite -- the protection of the law applies to everyone, even those he doesn't much like. Which sounds just about right to me.

Yes, that was what I meant.

That, and noting the fact that this bylaw has offered an opportunity to someone I probably wouldn't much like to bring an authentic grievance to court.

Posted at 12:01PM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

On one hand I think that banning patches won't work for Whanganui. On the other, I'm not really sure. It's kind of handy that this kind of law can be trialled on a local basis - nothing can show more clearly that it's not working than actually trying it. And who knows? Maybe, after all the outrage and bluster, the gangsters will actually just not bother wearing their patches in town, and the town could be a bit safer.

The human rights issue is problematic, though. Banning certain clothing on account of a 'probability that people associating with this organization will cause trouble' seems like a slippery slope. On the other hand, I'm damned sure if I walked around Whanganui 2 weeks ago wearing Black Power regalia, I'd get in big trouble, and it wouldn't be from the police. There's something pretty fucked about that, too. Would anyone say that I wasn't 'asking for it' if I did?

Posted at 12:13PM on 2 Sep 09. Permalink.

the gangsters will actually just not bother wearing their patches in town, and the town could be a bit safer

There's some logic missing there. I doubt public safety will be improved at all.