Hard News: Media freedom in the Pacific
37 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Just for the sake of clarity, Fiji's participation was uncontroversial from 2002, and then after the 2006 coup, Trevor Mallard declared that the tournament parade would not be welcome at its customary starting point in Parliament's grounds (and, somewhat less convincingly, that he personally would not attend any games involving Fiji).
But I agree, there has been very little difference between the two parties' approaches to Fiji.
-
3410,
IIRC (and open to correction, of course), the IRB forced us to take them, on pain of loss of hosting.
-
There's more to sport than Rugby Sevens, and more to travel restrictions than sport.
-
3410,
There's more to sport than Rugby Sevens, and more to travel restrictions than sport.
Totally agree. Not defending it, but it's relevant in consideration.
-
REDACTED BECAUSE I'VE REALLY GOT TO STOP FOOLISHLY RISING TO EVERY BAITED HOOK THAT CROSSES MY PATH
Does that mean Sacha
is a master baiter?
or a hooker?..though RedAct would be a great name for a united Labour and ACT grouping - if such a misshapen beast could exist long enough to draw breath...
-
IIRC (and open to correction, of course), the IRB forced us to take them, on pain of loss of hosting.
Basically, 3410, you're right on the money. Isn't it just delightful that the IRB sets foreign policy?
There's more to sport than Rugby Sevens, and more to travel restrictions than sport.
Quite true, Sacha. But if you're going to try and assert some kind of moral authority it does help if you don't open yourself to charges of double (or triple) standards, where the severity of the response depends on the profile of the event concerned -- or its proximity to a general election. I sure wouldn't want to be part of the Government that shut down the Sevens. (Though I'm quite willing to grant that, to be a wee bit cynical, one man's hypocritical expediency is another's careful pragmatism.)
-
Since pedantry seems to be the go on this thread:
Clark, well more Winston Peters really, did mandate that a Fijian football player with nebulous links to the government couldn’t visit here to play a qualifier for this year’s World Cup. This meant our “home” leg got played in Fiji.
BTW, FIFA mandate that foreign policy ideals must not come in the way of their tournaments way more than the IRB do.
-
Clark, well more Winston Peters really, did mandate that a Fijian football player with nebulous links to the government couldn’t visit here to play a qualifier for this year’s World Cup. This meant our “home” leg got played in Fiji.
The away leg got played in Fiji, the home leg got played in Samoa I think.
But that's precisely the point. Both governments have been quite principled about the ban until it became rather difficult to do so. Particularly when it starts to affect NZ as much or more than it does Fiji. Much more difficult to ban the Fijian 7s team, than just tell the All Whites that they'll have to play their home game elsewhere.
There are of course principles, and "principles", recent governments seem to have the latter in this area.
-
Basically, 3410, you're right on the money. Isn't it just delightful that the IRB sets foreign policy?
There was a similar thing with the ICC's stance on Zimbabwe when President Mugabe's goon squads were forcing people off their lands and rearranging their faces.
-
Support in the Thai political system is a far more flexible notion than some realise.
Indeed and far, far more complex than the silly, simplistic notion that they are all coming south because Thaksin put a few baht in their savings accounts. How bloody condescending and racially arrogant on the part of that PJM writer.
There were lines in that report that really made me grimace.
I've not been here long enough to really get my head around the incredible complexities of Thai politics, but, hell, I think I could be here for 20 years and still struggle badly.
On the phone to New Zealand the other day I was asked if the redshirts were leftist, and you struggle to explain that they are, in Western terms, neither.
From the little I do understand, and that SMH piece seems to be saying the same thing, the power struggle between the fast rising rural middle classes (60m+ Thai live outside Bangkok) and the traditional Bangkok ruling elite is at the nub of much of this. Thailand has long been ruled by a political elite, including the military, from Bangkok, who don't want to let go, and in the south the fight against that has been bloody for a long time. Thaksin, may come from that centre but sat outside it too, and, for his own ends but to their benefit, empowered that vast rural mass and they too are unwilling to let it go now.
But the the fluidity of support is also obvious. Large parts of the red movement want nothing to do with Thaksin. And there has been a visible movement of broad support, if not quite so street visible, to their cause, nationwide, but most especially in Bangkok in the past few days.
I guess we have an election coming soon but democracy in Asia is not as we know it in the west, neither better nor worse but different, regardless of how hard they rage for 'free elections' in the comments that follow that PJM post.
-
More and more light on Thailand. Wonderful! Thanks some more Simon!
-
David Robie summarises in today's Herald.
While international responses have focused on the serious impact for the Fiji Times group, the terms of the decree will also hit the country's two other dailies - the struggling Fiji Daily Post, which has 51 per cent Australian ownership and is also a critic of the regime, and the Fiji Sun, which has taken a distinctly "pro-Fiji" (i.e. the regime) stance but also has some expatriate directors.
The draft decree follows a year of "sulu censors" keeping tabs on newsrooms after the 1997 Constitution was abrogated by the regime at Easter in 2009, the judiciary sacked and emergency regulations imposed.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.