When I heard the Green Party co-leaders were holding a press conference yesterday, I thought fleetingly, ever the optimist, "Oh, they might be holding a press conference calling for the cessation of protests outside the home of a fellow parliamentarian."  

Undoubtedly they'd couch it in greeny language – they would call out the Foreign Affairs Minister for his lack of courage at the UN, etc, etc, but ultimately they would make the point that protesting in a personal sphere is wrong, and they would call off the hounds and remind people that yes, we have a right to protest, but with that right comes responsibility and it is quite clearly irresponsible to make the attacks personal and bring the protest to the door of an MP's home. That's what I thought, fleetingly. But no, nothing of the sort.  

In fact, it was a PR stunt for the flotilla to Palestine. No mention was made of the protesters outside Winston Peters' home. In fact, one of them was alongside the Green co-party leaders. Chlöe Swarbrick lectured us again about our responsibility to ensure the safety of the three New Zealand citizens detained by the Israeli government after the flotilla was intercepted, and that was that. A bit of tearful beseeching of the government to do something. Love for the detainees, and that was about it.  

Can you imagine what would happen if Groundswell decided to protest Green policies, and they decided to take that protest to the door of Marama Davidson's home or Chlöe Swarbrick's home? I would be absolutely appalled, and I would demand they be arrested or leave immediately. There is absolutely no excuse for it. You might disagree vehemently with policies, you might think you have moral, intellectual, scientific right on your side, on the side of whatever argument you're putting forward, but there are standards and there are limits and there are boundaries.  

The lot outside Winston's house, you're perfectly entitled to hold a point of view. You may well feel that you're on the right side of history. That does not give you carte blanche to invade a man's home, and that's exactly what you're doing, and that of his neighbours. The noise invading somebody's home. You know, if you have had really ugly neighbours who have made your life hell because of the noise they're making, It's an invasion. So too is the bloody rock through the window.  

If anybody thinks that the new legislation around protests at people's homes is going to provide any protection at all for public figures, for anybody, think again. The bill is before the Justice Select Committee. Submissions on it closed yesterday, but critics say it's way too vague to do much good. Constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler said as much to Mike Hosking this morning.  

“There are offences which deal with this already. And I, my suspicion is that the new offence, that the draft, at least at the moment, is so complex, perhaps so difficult to prove, you know, was that the reason they're doing that? Was it, you know, just all the difficulties in proving it, that police may just continue to use the criminal offences that already exist, which kind of have the similar penalties.  

“And when people aren't sure what's covered and it's a criminal offence, courts tend to err on the side of, well, if you wanted to make this clearly legal, you'd have done a better job of writing it. So if it's not clear, you tend to favour on the side of the criminal for criminal cases. And so, hopefully the government can sort of narrow this and fix it to cover exactly what it is they want. I mean, it's sort of protests near residential areas. I mean, Queen Street's got massive apartment buildings on it – are those residential areas and no protests down Queen Street? I mean, no one's going to apply the law that way. The police aren't going to apply that law that way. The courts aren't going to apply the law that way. And so it’s really going to do much of anything.” 

No, it's not. So we're going to have to rely on existing laws to give people a measure of protection in their own homes. That and inculcating a sense of decency and fair play.  

If anyone attempted to disturb or frighten or harass the Green Party co-leaders and members of their families in their own homes, it would be absolutely inexcusable. The Green Party co-leaders have pointed out how inexcusable the internet trolling and the abuses of their MPs, and indeed of other women MPs, but mainly theirs, but women MPs, non-gender specific MPs, they are absolutely ropeable about the level of vitriol and harassment and violent language being used against MPs on social media. What difference is it being outside somebody's home?  

Absolutely no difference whatsoever. They are the first to point the digeridoo at people who have a different point of view and express it vocally and violently, and rightly so. Nobody should be subject to that. They want the police protection, they demand the people have a right to be safe and secure in their workplaces and to be able to do their jobs. What the hell do they think these people are doing? Their internet trolls come to life and on the backyard of the home of a fellow parliamentarian.  

It would be absolutely inexcusable if they were experiencing the same thing from those who had a different political viewpoint. The weight of the law should come down upon any protesters who did that to them, and to these righteous, sanctimonious vandals outside Winston Peters' house. Any point they are trying to make is being drowned out by their own noise. 

When I heard the Green Party co-leaders were holding a press conference yesterday, I thought fleetingly, ever the optimist, "Oh, they might be holding a press conference calling for the cessation of protests outside the home of a fellow parliamentarian." &nbsp;
Undoubtedly they'd couch it in greeny language – they would call out the Foreign Affairs Minister for his lack of courage at the UN, etc, etc, but ultimately they would make the point that protesting in a personal sphere is wrong, and they would call off the hounds and remind people that yes, we have a right to protest, but with that right comes responsibility and it is quite clearly irresponsible to make the attacks personal and bring the protest to the door of an MP's home. That's what I thought, fleetingly. But no, nothing of the sort. &nbsp;
In fact, it was a PR stunt for the flotilla to Palestine. No mention was made of the protesters outside Winston Peters' home. In fact, one of them was alongside the Green co-party leaders. Chlöe Swarbrick lectured us again about our responsibility to ensure the safety of the three New Zealand citizens detained by the Israeli government after the flotilla was intercepted, and that was that. A bit of tearful beseeching of the government to do something. Love for the detainees, and that was about it. &nbsp;
Can you imagine what would happen if Groundswell decided to protest Green policies, and they decided to take that protest to the door of Marama Davidson's home or Chlöe Swarbrick's home? I would be absolutely appalled, and I would demand they be arrested or leave immediately. There is absolutely no excuse for it. You might disagree vehemently with policies, you might think you have moral, intellectual, scientific right on your side, on the side of whatever argument you're putting forward, but there are standards and there are limits and there are boundaries. &nbsp;
The lot outside Winston's house, you're perfectly entitled to hold a point of view. You may well feel that you're on the right side of history. That does not give you carte blanche to invade a man's home, and that's exactly what you're doing, and that of his neighbours. The noise invading somebody's home. You know, if you have had really ugly neighbours who have made your life hell because of the noise they're making, It's an invasion. So too is the bloody rock through the window. &nbsp;
If anybody thinks that the new legislation around protests at people's homes is going to provide any protection at all for public figures, for anybody, think again. The bill is before the Justice Select Committee. Submissions on it closed yesterday, but critics say it's way too vague to do much good. Constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler said as much to Mike Hosking this morning. &nbsp;
“There are offences which deal with this already. And I, my suspicion is that the new offence, that the draft, at least at the moment, is so complex, perhaps so difficult to prove, you know, was that the reason they're doing that? Was it, you know, just all the difficulties in proving it, that police may just continue to use the criminal offences that already exist, which kind of have the similar penalties. &nbsp;
“And when people aren't sure what's covered and it's a criminal offence, courts tend to err on the side of, well, if you wanted to make this clearly legal, you'd have done a better job of writing it. So if it's not clear, you tend to favour on the side of the criminal for criminal cases. And so, hopefully the government can sort of narrow this and fix it to cover exactly what it is they want. I mean, it's sort of protests near residential areas. I mean, Queen Street's got massive apartment buildings on it – are those residential areas and no protests down Queen Street? I mean, no one's going to apply the law that way. The police aren't going to apply that law that way. The courts aren't going to apply the law that way. And so it’s really going to do much of anything.”&nbsp;
No, it's not. So we're going to have to rely on existing laws to give people a measure of protection in their own homes. That and inculcating a sense of decency and fair play. &nbsp;
If anyone attempted to disturb or frighten or harass the Green Party co-leaders and members of their families in their own homes, it would be absolutely inexcusable. The Green Party co-leaders have pointed out how inexcusable the internet trolling and the abuses of their MPs, and indeed of other women MPs, but mainly theirs, but women MPs, non-gender specific MPs, they are absolutely ropeable about the level of vitriol and harassment and violent language being used against MPs on social media. What difference is it being outside somebody's home? &nbsp;
Absolutely no difference whatsoever. They are the first to point the digeridoo at people who have a different point of view and express it vocally and violently, and rightly so. Nobody should be subject to that. They want the police protection, they demand the people have a right to be safe and secure in their workplaces and to be able to do their jobs. What the hell do they think these people are doing? Their internet trolls come to life and on the backyard of the home of a fellow parliamentarian. &nbsp;
It would be absolutely inexcusable if they were experiencing the same thing from those who had a different political viewpoint. The weight of the law should come down upon any protesters who did that to them, and to these righteous, sanctimonious vandals outside Winston Peters' house. Any point they are trying to make is being drowned out by their own noise.&nbsp;

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Kerre Woodham: A different view point does not permit you to invade someone's home

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/4bb3f4c5-c5d1-4b38-b71d-b36e01716799/transcript

Advertisement