(no subject)
Sep. 14th, 2005 10:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labellementeuseOkay, now that the, ahem, "riot" at the Canty rally has been mentioned all over the place including TVOne last night, Hard News and That Waste of Time occasionally known as David Farrar (I went through it to get to some photos where, in fact, if you're very clever you will be able to see myself and ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sixth_light although only if you know exactly what we were wearing. :P) Anyway, I feel that since it's been mentioned by all these people who, you know, weren't actually there, I am maybe more qualified to actually say something about it.
Firstly: I am among the crowds who feel kind of annoyed that Helen didn't stay very long and there was no opportunity to ask questions and so forth. On the other hand, I am a heck of a lot more sympathetic than most seem to be and I will add: I was actually there. Also, all that "aggression" and supposed near-rioting there... it was only really in the front metre or two; I mean, it was there, but I don't think anyone- even Helen- was in any physical danger at any point, and the further you were back in the crowd- like three metres like me andsixth_light and thinkaholic were- the more peaceful (and pro-Helen) the crowd was. I really do think that it was a smaller group of Nats who were just more noisy and aggro than a mostly red crowd.
We were quite close to the front and did manage to see a couple of glimpses of Helen- but the view was mostly obscured by a small group of rowdies with signs. This pissed me off and will continue to do so because I actually saw this group arrive: they'd come in a group, they'd got signs and they were clearly planning on doing exactly what they did do- be generally threatening and aggressive, along with causing the speech to be cut short (Fuck you very much, retards.) But beyond their attitude, and their being a pain in the ass for those of us who were there to actually listen to the speech- which we couldn't do. Ultimately, actually, if she'd left at 1.15 or two minutes after she'd begun, I- about five metres away- would have heard basically the same amount, which was zip, because of the losers who set themselves up to be pains. Beyond them being a pain for everyone else- I am quite frankly disgusted at the nature of the signs they were carrying. There were some perfectly peacable blue "Vote National" signs- no problem with them although they did meanI couldn't see. Even "I acheeved wif NCEA" was okay- although it was fucking rude to dyslexics (a lot of the letters were back to front) and simply served to demonstrate that, forget NCEA, whoever wrote that sign seemed to have failed out of primary school. But "Y R U so ugly"? I could have hit the guy carrying that without compunction.
I'm sorry, I think it's below the belt. Would anyone with any sense of human decency go up to someone in the street, to a stranger, a loved one, who-the-fuck-ever, and say "Why are you so ugly"? Why is Helen up for insult in this way? No-one tells Rodney Hide he's a fat, ugly bastard (or I don't, and I would not be impressed with Labour supporters who did) As Lucy said at the time, it's representative of the idea that men can be ugly but women in the workplace must be pretty and that whole archaic attitude. Someone's probably going to tell me it's all PC crap, but in my not very fucking humble at all opinion: insulting someone on the basis of their looks is about as barbaric and acceptable as insulting someone because of their skin colour or sexuality, and it is not okay. Interestingly it's the voters for those parties who want us all to stop being so "nancy" (sorry, consideration for others' feelings is a bad thing now?) and PC and whatever who are the ones holding these signs.
Assholes.
Anyway, this is just me registering my contempt and anger with them. Yeah.
Also? She was born that way. They don't have that excuse for their asshattery.
sixth_light although only if you know exactly what we were wearing. :P) Anyway, I feel that since it's been mentioned by all these people who, you know, weren't actually there, I am maybe more qualified to actually say something about it.Firstly: I am among the crowds who feel kind of annoyed that Helen didn't stay very long and there was no opportunity to ask questions and so forth. On the other hand, I am a heck of a lot more sympathetic than most seem to be and I will add: I was actually there. Also, all that "aggression" and supposed near-rioting there... it was only really in the front metre or two; I mean, it was there, but I don't think anyone- even Helen- was in any physical danger at any point, and the further you were back in the crowd- like three metres like me and
sixth_light and thinkaholic were- the more peaceful (and pro-Helen) the crowd was. I really do think that it was a smaller group of Nats who were just more noisy and aggro than a mostly red crowd.We were quite close to the front and did manage to see a couple of glimpses of Helen- but the view was mostly obscured by a small group of rowdies with signs. This pissed me off and will continue to do so because I actually saw this group arrive: they'd come in a group, they'd got signs and they were clearly planning on doing exactly what they did do- be generally threatening and aggressive, along with causing the speech to be cut short (Fuck you very much, retards.) But beyond their attitude, and their being a pain in the ass for those of us who were there to actually listen to the speech- which we couldn't do. Ultimately, actually, if she'd left at 1.15 or two minutes after she'd begun, I- about five metres away- would have heard basically the same amount, which was zip, because of the losers who set themselves up to be pains. Beyond them being a pain for everyone else- I am quite frankly disgusted at the nature of the signs they were carrying. There were some perfectly peacable blue "Vote National" signs- no problem with them although they did meanI couldn't see. Even "I acheeved wif NCEA" was okay- although it was fucking rude to dyslexics (a lot of the letters were back to front) and simply served to demonstrate that, forget NCEA, whoever wrote that sign seemed to have failed out of primary school. But "Y R U so ugly"? I could have hit the guy carrying that without compunction.
I'm sorry, I think it's below the belt. Would anyone with any sense of human decency go up to someone in the street, to a stranger, a loved one, who-the-fuck-ever, and say "Why are you so ugly"? Why is Helen up for insult in this way? No-one tells Rodney Hide he's a fat, ugly bastard (or I don't, and I would not be impressed with Labour supporters who did) As Lucy said at the time, it's representative of the idea that men can be ugly but women in the workplace must be pretty and that whole archaic attitude. Someone's probably going to tell me it's all PC crap, but in my not very fucking humble at all opinion: insulting someone on the basis of their looks is about as barbaric and acceptable as insulting someone because of their skin colour or sexuality, and it is not okay. Interestingly it's the voters for those parties who want us all to stop being so "nancy" (sorry, consideration for others' feelings is a bad thing now?) and PC and whatever who are the ones holding these signs.
Assholes.
Anyway, this is just me registering my contempt and anger with them. Yeah.
Also? She was born that way. They don't have that excuse for their asshattery.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 09:31 am (UTC)... oh yeah we've had great economic growth over the past six years, outstripping most of our trading partners including the capitalist-run Australia. 100,000 people have come off the benefit, compared to several thousand going on it under the last National-led government; the minimum wage has increased several times, teachers and nurse have both had payrises (I think); the passing of the CUB and the Prostitution Reform Bill have made important steps towards better human rights for everyone; crime has decreased under Labour; state houses have not been sold or had their rent raised to market equity. This country is better off under Labour and I'm not quoting the billboards, I'm saying from where I standing a whole lot of good stuff has happened, for me personally, for people I know, and for people I don't. Changing for the sake of change is more than pointless, it's stupid. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
That doesn't mean we don't continue to improve: in the same direction we've been improving in for the last six years, towards a country that's fairer for everyone to live in.
And that's why I'm voting Labour and you know what? You can't even pick a party, and maybe next time you'll vote you'll vote for whatever colour is your favourite, orthe the McGillicuddy Serious party because they're hilarious, hahaha, or for Winston because it would be funny if he was PM, or because it's "time for a change"- not because you have a problem with the current government, not because you disagree with what they've been doing. And what a waste of your constitutional right.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 09:53 am (UTC)And it's true that right now I'd be more likely to choose a party just because it would make my parents angry, but the truth is every party I know very much about has just as much about them that I don't agree with as things that I do, and I don't want to feel like in picking a party to support I was being influenced by my parents or the media. So I try to stay neutral. Since I last saw you I decided that if I was pushed I would have to pick the Greens because of the whole Peak Oil thing. I'm not making that up to avoid an argument, either.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 10:12 am (UTC)You're in a tough position, I guess. But I'm glad you're going Green just now :P because they're my second pick. Or third, if Progressives wouldn't be a waste of my vote...
no subject
Date: 2005-09-14 10:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-15 09:23 am (UTC)