On 14 February, in an earlier Political Bytes blog posting, I wrote about the anti-vaccination occupation of Parliament grounds and surrounding streets and other locations. rights, responsibilities and the far right influence
An important aspect of this blog was contrasting the anti-racist South African Springbok rugby tour movement of 1981 with this 2022 occupation (as part of wider anti-vaccination protests and with an emphasis on the role of the far right in the latter).
In respect of the anti-vaccination protests, I was careful to distinguish between far right leadership and leadership that was far right influenced. There is a difference between them that is more than subtle; my emphasis was on the latter.
Seven days later I did another Political Bytes posting about the anti-vaccination occupation and protests but its focus was the event as a public health emergency (virus spreader) Wellington faces public health emergency.
Reith article
Now an Alastair Reith has published an article in Stuff (12 March) accusing the anti-racist tour movement in 1981 of using violent tactics, as violent (or more so) as in the recent anti-vaccination protests 1981 anti-racist tour protesters as or more violent.
Reith is not responding to my blogs (probably he hasn’t read them). Instead he is taking umbrage at views expressed by anti-racist tour leaders and activities in an earlier Stuff feature on 8 March we did things differently in 1981 .
I had not heard of Reith before his published article and, to the best of my knowledge, we have never met. He was formerly active in the Unite Union (including being on its national executive) and, at least until 2021, a media advisor with the Public Service Association. Assuming that he lacks Peter Pan genes, he was born sometime after 1981 (not that this matters).
Although Reith does not say so, the practical effect of his article is to assert that the anti-racist tour protests of 1981 were as morally (or immorally) equivalent as the anti-vaccination protests of 2022 (with particular emphasis on the Wellington occupation).
If one read Reith’s article in complete isolation (without knowing anything more about him) one would find it difficult not to believe that he has much more empathy with the anti-vaccination protests than the earlier anti-racist tour protests.
His article has the appearance of someone on an ideological journey from the left to the right (of course, appearance may not be reality; but it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy).
Selectivity
Reith’s article is superficially selective. He begins with his acceptance of the claim that that the occupation was about being anti-mandate. This is simplistic nonsense.
While opposition to employment mandates and vaccine passes were the ‘official’ slogans, the driving force behind the protest and most of the behaviour was anti-vaccination. This included opposing the right of New Zealanders to be vaccinated during a pandemic.
Anti-vaccination, reinforced by vicious far right agendas, was the driver of the various collective protest behaviours. Reith downplays this in order to legitimise his nasty put down of the integrity of the anti-racist tour movement.
Reith fails to appreciate the fundamental difference between 1981 and 2022. In 1981 the objective was to increase public support in order to stop a racist rugby tour and support the struggle in South Africa against racist oppression.
In 2022 there was no objective to win public support. Instead all the public saw was aggression including against members of the public.
Reith’s attacks
Reith engages in a selective and out-of-context attack on the anti-racist tour movement. He fails to recognise that this was a mass movement throughout the whole country and across the spectrum of Aotearoa society.
This breadth even included business leaders (he is particularly snide about this) marching with unionists. In terms of breadth of support and mass participation there is no comparison between 1981 and 2022.
He then resorts to nasty anti-communist redbaiting against what he describes as the “…leading role of a radical Marxist minority, in Wellington most notably the Workers’ Communist League. These days the Party’s paper would be declared a source of extremist misinformation.” I didn’t agree with everything in the “Party’s paper” but his accusation, in addition to being false, is absurd.
His rebaited target includes people I know well and greatly respect. They have given a lifetime to advancing progressive causes. The role of this “radical Marxist minority” in the anti-racist tour movement was constructive focussing on ensuring mass civil disobedience instead of violence. Reith’s redbaiting resonates with the similar behaviour of Prime Minister Robert Muldoon at the time.
Overwhelmingly the anti-apartheid movement in 1981 was about mass disobedience in order to extend police resources as much as possible so that the racist tour would be called off.
Despite coming close (one game was cancelled), the aligned approach of trying to increase public support succeeded (from a big minority to a small majority that became much bigger over years).
The 1981 protests ensured that there were no further racist official tours. It also helped embolden the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa as confirmed by a prisoner by the name of Nelson Mandela (himself accused of being a Marxist and communist).
Different Policing strategies
Understanding history, let alone historical comparisons, is clearly not Reith’s strong point. The approach of the Police to the 1981 and 2022 protests could not have been more opposite. After the successful ground invasion in Hamilton early in the tour, the Police strategy became more aggressive including violence (primarily batons).
This contributed to the Police baton attack on a large peaceful demonstration in Wellington’s Molesworth St which Reith is dismissive of (I was a participant very close to the attack).
It was after this unprovoked attack that marchers began to wear helmets and other protective gear. This and subsequent violence led to a lowering of public respect for the police.
Police Commissioner Andrew Coster is acutely aware of how reputationally disastrous police behaviour was in 1981 and how it contributed to increasing tensions as the tour proceeded.
He was determined to ensure that it was not repeated this year. Although Coster can be fairly criticised for some slowness in the police response early on in the occupation, his overall approach was mature and sound.
The only action that came close to being violent was on the final day when the occupiers were evicted. But that primarily involved defensive shields (in part to protect against violence) and avoided the use of batons.
Violence accusations
Reith identifies several cases of violence or allegedly violence but he lacks perspective. Overwhelmingly these were individual actions outside the mainstream of a mass movement. By ignoring the mainstream strategic direction of the anti-racist tour movement he embellishes the significance of these incidents.
Further, Reith claims of violence have to be taken with a grain of salt. His reference to the use of a small truck to ram through gates at the first game in Gisborne is contradicted by a recent review article published by the Gisborne Herald (21 July 2021) which makes no reference to such an incident. frightening intensity .
Instead the Gisborne protest is described as spontaneous and involving pushing and shoving between tour opponents and supporters. It was the unexpected large number of protesters at a small city that was the biggest feature.
Where Reith might potentially be on stronger ground in respect of violence was the final test in Auckland. There clearly was violence with emotions exploding after eight weeks of games twice a week. But much of the violence was initiated by pro-tour supporters and police behaviour. Further, it was one out of around 15 games.
Contrasting defining features
There was never any pretence that the civil disobedience strategy of the anti-racist tour protests would be completely lawful. In fact, as the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s showed, breaching the law is an essential feature of civil disobedience.
After all, ‘disobedience’ is the opposite of obedience. But ‘civil’ is also the opposite of violent. Individual violent actions in such a huge mass movement are often unavoidable but they do not define it.
So what were the defining features of the anti-vaccination occupation and protests. The obvious immediate difference was that in 1981 there was a strong focus in reaching outwards to the public for support whereas in 2022 there was no such focus. What the public experienced was aggression towards them.
For me the greatest criticism of the occupation was that it occurred in the middle of a pandemic (a public health emergency). Given the overwhelming domination of unvaccinated participants, the crowded conditions and the complete absence of protective public health measures, this was a virus spreading event creating a serious risk to the health and safety of the public.
As of today, hospitalisations are nearly 1,000 (much higher under Omicron than any other earlier part of the pandemic). Of the total Covid-19 deaths, around 17% occurred in the first 17 months of the pandemic and another around 17% occurred under the Delta variant.
The remaining around 66% only occurred this year under Omicron. The precise contribution to hospitalisations and mortality of this virus spreading event will never be known but there is no doubt that it has contributed.
In contrast, threats, intimidation and violence were defining features of the anti-vaccination protest, especially when reinforced by far right extremists. These features (either downplayed or ignored by Reith) include the following:
- Encroaching on the right of the public to safety and life by putting their health at risk.
- Different far right groups, with good reason, saw much of the mindset behind anti-vaccination views as fertile territory for their extreme conspiracies. They could not hope for better recruitment potential. Counterspin Media thought so too with its regular streaming into the protests. Counterspin Media is hosted by GVT Media Group in the United States and, in particular, far right leader (and Donald Trump adviser) Steve Bannon.
- Attempting to intimidate and threaten workers in nearly workplaces such as the New World supermarket, shops, university, cafes, and Parliament itself as well as journalists.
- Forcing the closure of two neighbouring primary schools.
- Preventing Wellington Free Ambulance from providing medical care at Parliament grounds.
- Forcing the closure of the Victoria University precinct.
- Intimidating local residents and other people passing by, especially those wearing masks.
- Petrol-ignited fires burning tents in overcrowded circumstances thereby putting others, including children, at risk of serious harm.
- Aggressively (but unsuccessfully) attempting to move on to an unwilling local marae.
- Vigilante-type group behaviour at vaccination centres and schools (separate from the occupation but a central part of the anti-vaccination movement).
When the specific circumstances and defining features of the 1981 and 2022 protests are fully considered, there is no moral equivalence between the two. To argue (or imply as Reith does) that there is requires a mindset that believes Nelson Mandela and Steve Bannon are moral equivalences.
A lesson from Hegel
In October 2019 Reith had published an interesting and balanced article in Spin Offarguing for protests to focus more on winning public support. contrasting Extinction Rebellion with School Climate Change.
He contrasted the negatively of the smaller spectacular actions of the Extinction Rebellion which only disrupted the uninvolved public (but not those responsible for environmental damage) with his positive assessment of the tens of thousands who had marched in the School Climate Strike acknowledging that this had also caused some disruption.
Comparisons are limited (there nothing in common between the motives of Extinction Rebellion and the anti-vaccination protesters). But both the School Climate Strike and the 1981 anti-racist tour movement shared a similar focus on winning public support.
Unfortunately Reith’s recent Stuff article falls well short of the standard of his 2019 article. The former is written in an irritating ‘smart aleck’. He would do well to learn from German philosopher Georg Hegel.
In his Elements of the Philosophy of Rights (1820) Hegel observed that “The owl of Minerva begins its flight only with the coming of the dusk.” That is, wisdom follows experience. Had Reith better understood the experience of 1981, there would have been much more wisdom in his 2022 article.
Ian Powell was Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the professional union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand, for over 30 years, until December 2019. He is now a health systems, labour market, and political commentator living in the small river estuary community of Otaihanga (the place by the tide). First published at Political Bytes
Love (sarcasm) how so many recent politically motivated cases seem to be trying to try and link themselves to NZ historic events such as Springbok and Dawn Raids…
We have Greenwashing, now Racewashing to help the pretenders…
The polls seem to show that Labour giving in to the protesters, lost ground in the polls…
Likewise their woke fart, power grab, 3 waters, for nearly 3 terms the government has allowed the current state of pollution and poor laws – overseas water bottling, water for golf course grabs.
Government could have changed the law under urgency 8 years ago to stop it. A bureaucratic management structure over the top of the mess does nothing, when simple laws changes could have made a big difference and been active immediately.
Otakiri water bottling appeal heard in Appeal Court
https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/128092075/otakiri-water-bottling-appeal-heard-in-appeal-court
Green MP and minister Eugenie Sage under fire from party members over Otakiri water-bottling decision
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/green-mp-and-minister-eugenie-sage-under-fire-from-party-members-over-otakiri-water-bottling-decision/XETTF4KJUR72EEF3NPQGBBIJGE/?c_id=1&objectid=12069999
There seems to be no government support for the ‘stop the dome’ landfill in Auckland going ahead – government pretend it is out of their hands, but failed to protect the environment or even to collect data properly.
“A year on, however, the Environment Ministry could not provide up-to-date waste composition numbers. It pointed to greenhouse gas inventory reporting, which does not break down categories of inert rubbish.”
No wonder we are now receiving fossil awards!
Pro Talks: NZ awarded humiliating ‘fossil’ status at COP26
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/cop26/pro-talks-nz-awarded-humiliating-fossil-status-at-cop26
Excellent! A very good response and summation.
False equivalence has been a fingerprint of far right authoritarianism for quite a few hundred years now.
It pays to be alert to it…
” While opposition to employment mandates and vaccine passes were the ‘official’ slogans, the driving force behind the protest and most of the behaviour was anti-vaccination. ”
You know this how? Is this your opinion, did you do a survey or is it just what you saw in state owned media? LOL
All protests especially those held over a long duration will inevitably attract people who are just there for the fight. These are the ratbags who were throwing bricks at the cops on the last day.
An old friend of mine has lived near Eden Park for decades; a few houses from Helen Clarks old place. On the day of the big anti apartheid demo at Eden park a group of protesters tore down his picket fence in order to use the palings as weapons against the cops. They were there for no other reason than a scrap with the cops. And there’s your moral equivalence.
Yes, Ian. The Reith experience may be the particular dialectic of the young who do not know their history, who do not seek primary sources, who do not listen to the voices of their elders, and who unfortunately, are too ready to disparage others from a position of woeful ignorance.
In acknowledging the wisdom of Andrew Coster – who I don’t think is the chappie in the photo above – it could be useful to ascertain from him the number of fully jabbed and boosted front line police officers who succumbed to the virus after attending the demonstrations at Parliament. I think the numbers are very high, and possibly higher than in the general population, that some may have been quite sick and ditto their families, have had to quarantine with children missing school, and which constitute a significant “ waste” of person- power and tax payer resources. The Springbok protests did not have such personal, health, social and economic ramifications.
I erred in the Coster photo which has now been corrected.
It looks like the same one as before (not Coster)??
I corrected it on my blog site but what you read is the original republished by TDB.
Found. Thanks.
Just a note on 81. I was there. Its disingenuous to draw up our anti tour protest as having a unitary nature, a pure cause. Just as we were anti tour the antivaxers were believe it or not antivax. But both covered a vast array of opinions and politics. We had plain nasty anti authority types who wanted a fight, we had Maori nationalists, we had everybody who hated Muldoon. To lump antivaxers as all rwnjs or conspiracy theorists is insulting our intelligence.
And my mate who marched cos he hated rugby.
Ha, I’d love to have a beer with him. I was playing senior rugby that year.
It was an anti commonsense protest and while some were genuinely upset with a reason most were rent a crowd looking for a fight losers.
Nonsense Trevor. There were all sorts, including small town mumsies having a cheap summer camping holiday in downtown Wellington, deluded Northlanders and Southlanders, sickos using small infants as shields, and some with honestly held concerns.
Am I might missing something here? That photo is not Andrew Coster. Is it Mike Bush?
Wheel – Sometimes Coster goes undercover, but don’t tell anyone. It could also be Clarke, but don’t tell anyone. It could be George Bush, or Kate Bush, or Mulberry Bush, but it looks too much like Mike to be him. Elvis ?
My error re Coster photo and now corrected.
I disagree Ian.
The sanctimonious comments from former anti tour protesters is hypocritical.
I was there in 81. I recently watched Patu, where there was a meeting in which violence was discussed. The speaker was refusing to commit to non violence, even though some people wanted this. At the last test someone flew a small plane over eden park, dropping leaflets. There was street fighting, Molotov cocktails thrown. Recently a female member of the red squad talked of being trampled on. There was also a protest with a dummy hanging from a noose (Ron Don)……
I absolutely are pro vaccination. During the protest I started to wonder about the mandates. The protesters were there because the govt brought in legislation that had significantly impacted on some peoples lives.. They had a right to their protest even if I disagreed with it. The vast majority of the protesters were not violent. Just like in 81
One thing struck me as particularly incongruous about the parliamentary grounds occupation. While ostensibly decrying ‘mandates’ they were operating under their own mandate. Though unwritten and even unstated as-such, it was at all times evident.
Anyone wanting to protest but NOT to contact or spread Covid during this pandemic, was dissuaded from taking that basic health and safety action of wearing a mask, – by the often aggressive enforcement of their anti-mask mandate.
I have yet to see any clear justification of that anti-mask rule/ mandate, or even much reference to it. Yet it defined the occupation and has certainly contributed to the spread of Covid.
Ian, the core issue at the protests was the vaccination mandate. I was not present myself, but three of my acquaintances were, and none of them want to deny anyone’s right to be vaccinated. None of the three are violent or aggressive types, but one was violently arrested on the final day of the protest.
So let’s focus on the real issue. The WHO warned against mandates. The High Court of New Zealand has deemed two of the “No jab, no job” mandates to be ineffective, disproportionate and unlawful. You have said that you are pro-mandate but have consistently failed to come up with a justification which would overcome the objections of the WHO, the High Court and common sense.
Those on the left do not want to address the real issue focus on the beliefs and alleged behavior of the protesters rather than the merits of their cause. I say “alleged behavior” because some of the claims made in your previous posts were false. No protester threw excrement at the police. This was a rumor that got air time from Lisa Owen on RNZ Checkpoint, and was then taken up by the Prime Minister, but it was never more than a rumor. Neither the Police nor RNZ are now claiming that it actually happened.
So please stick to the facts, and deal with the real issues if you want to retain the respect of all your readers.
You misrepresent WHO whose warning was that they should be a last resort. I believe the circumstances were such that this was a justified last resort. The point is that you misrepresented WHO’s position.
The High Court is also misrepresented. The Court was clear that its decision was specifically confined to the Police argument about staff deployment, not the health safety of the public or other staff. It does not set any precedence for a public health safety argument (or any other arguments).
I’m not sure what past errors I have made on this matter. While I don’t recall writing anything about throwing excrement but believe that it did occur (as offensive as this was it was not part of my argument in my blog because it appeared to be very individualised rather than collectively defining. I don’t believe the Police have stopped talking about; it is more that public comment has understandably focussed on the events of the final day of the occupation.
Kia ora Ian
I said that WHO warned against mandates. That is a fact, not a “misrepresentation”. I said the High Court ruled that two mandates were unlawful. Again, a fact and not a misrepresentation. The ruling addressed the issues of effectiveness and proportionality which are relevant to all mandates. In that regard it establishes a precedent.
Vaccine mandates could be justified in circumstances where they pass the tests of effectiveness, proportionality, necessity and lawfulness. That is what is meant by “a last resort”. But that is not currently the case in New Zealand and it has not been the case since the government abandoned its Covid elimination strategy, deciding, rightly or wrongly, that New Zealanders can live with Covid.
Believe me, you did repeat the claim that the protesters threw human excrement at police. This is just one example, but it is important because it shows how misinformation can be spread through official and other channels, whether by accident or design, and is then used to justify the application of force against political dissidents.
I would be interested to know why you still “believe it did occur”. Do you have any evidence to support your belief, apart from the fact that other people also seem to “believe that it did occur”?
If either you, the Prime Minister, RNZ, or the NZ Police had the integrity to apologize for this false claim I would have less cause for concern. As it is, I see a cavalier disregard for truth within the colonial regime as a whole, which bodes well for our ability to peaceably get along with each other.
Families and individuals from our village went to the protest in Wellington. I did not, because I did not believe that Her Majesty’s New Zealand government, the colonial Parliament or the official media would allow them a fair hearing or indeed any hearing at all. I think I was right, and I hope that in future the focus remains on keeping our people at a safe distance from the regime, rather than engaging in vain attempts to keep it obedient to its own laws.
Your two ‘facts’ were incomplete ‘facts’ which meant they were taken out of full context and therefore, in my opinion, misrepresentations.
Kia ora Geoff, and respect.
I hope your community, your whānau are all kept safe and well through these troubled times and that your spirit stays strong. I also hope there will be greater understanding in the times that are ahead.
Kia kaha.
This was a right-wing (Nat Act, Pati Maori, NZ First, Destiny, Billy TK, Alps, Chapman, Baker anti government HATE Jacinda rally. The cowardly protesters placed young children and babies on the front line from start day 1 to the end thus ensuring the police wouldn’t move them on. Even the Springbok tour and Trump protests did go as low as having babies and children in their protests.I saw swastikas, hammer and sickles, plenty of sick references to Jacinda and Clarke, – definitely no left support there. The Natz Dirty Politics brigade did a clever job at mobilising and manipulating right wing followers, MSM.
Jacinda & Coster 10 Right wing ZERO.
His whole argument could be distilled down to him not liking the anti-mandate protestors or their cause; therefore, anything showing similarity between liked causes and protests and this intensely disliked one, is obviously wrong. Moreover, because the other protest was in 1981 and this one in 2022 and they were for different reasons, there is no equivalence whatsoever. Yes, yes, he adds lots of words to justify his stance. But ultimately, it comes down to that.
As for the 1981 protests, they barely blipped on my consciousness. Being of the Gen-X generation, I was still at school and not a rugby fan. While as my boomer husband had a friend was arrested for running on the tarmac at Wellington Airport.
Your friendly “far right” influencer.
Comments are closed.