Fellow blogger Inv2 has suggested that I remove my post which asks whether the state of emergency in place for the Canterbury earthquake should be of the 'national' type or the 'local' sort.
I've taken his advice.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Unbelievable. Even though it truly galls me to endorse a feral tree hugger like yourself, I always thought greenies did have strong enough principles to stand by what they said.
I too fully endorse your question (and NRT) as to why do we need a national state of emergency, rather than a local one?
I look forward to post being reinstated.
I have read your post on another site, leave it down it is a fucking disgrace
I think the strength of reaction against Robert is a little precious.
His post was too soon perhaps, but I think it is an interesting position the nation is currently in and asking why and how we are responding the way we are is hardly worthy of such contempt.
The post still exists in the RSS feed.
Robert I'm curious what the rationale was for removing the post?
Personally I don't see anything wrong with it. It's not a loaded or disrespectful post. I appreciate the link to NRT as I'm not reading much in the political blogosphere at the moment so rely on people like yourself to flag important issues.
It's ok, I've read the RSS comments now too. I'm sorry Robert that you've come in for such stick on that. It's appropriate for people outside of a disaster to keep an eye on political issues. Keep it up.
Also, this is your blog, so your rules. It looks like some people are attacking your for your politics rather than the substance of the issue. Shame.
Hmmm.. I've just returned from a 'Land and Water' forum where I met all sorts of people I'm usually at logger-heads with - Fed Farmers guys, dairy farmers (some with famous brothers) and a farm advisor I once had a battle with through the letters to the letters to the editor column and it was a very enjoyable event, arguing the toss in a good natured way, face to face, saying outrageous things and having a laugh. That contrasts sharply with the 'discussions' that I was party to here on my now deleted post about the 'national state of emergency'.
PM of NZ - by way of answer to your question, I took down my post knowing that I couldn't be here for the evening to counter the intolerant comments I was getting on that post. Notification comes onto my email and I didn't want my wife to be unpleasantly surprised by that stuff from over-reactive commenters who were reading their own messages into what I'd written, so I pulled it. Not an ideal action I know, but I was in a rush. I do stand by what I said, but given the reaction, might phrase it differently now, so as not to give those who don't read with a discerning eye, the opportunity to go off half-cocked the way they did.
Wildcrafty, thanks for your comment - I agree that I've come under some attack from people who see a 'lefty' or a 'greenie' when there eyes pass over what I've written and don't search for meaning in the words. It's something I experience regularly on right-wing blogs I comment on, but not here, until now.
Too soon Shunda? Obviously, but as I hear repeated over and over on the news that we are in this 'state' I wonder if in fact it is too late! It takes no time at all for ideas, concepts and situations to become accepted and 'normal' - who will question the action in a week's time?
What I find most interesting about this issue is what Key himself said about the tow 'states of emergency': local and national"
Blah blah ... there is no other difference between the powers under a state of local emergency and a state of national emergency' - Interesting that asking why one was chosen over the other should invite such vitriol. Inv2 declared that this was the lowest thing I'd ever done.
What's with that?
I know Santa would have a pithy response :-)
The lowest thing? Wow. Apparently it's taboo to question authority in a time of crisis? That is unacceptable. A good example of why is the amazing legislative stuff the US govt. got away with, using the demolition of the World Trade Centre (and the fear it induced in the population) as justification.
There are opposing views on the local vs national emergency issue, but discussing them is not disrespectful. Suggesting that the quake's aftermath is not necessarily a national emergency does not impugn the suffering of those in chch. Telling us to shut up and accept what we're told *is* disrespectful. I'm going re-post the argument here. Delete my post if you must.
Idiot/Savant's view: http://goo.gl/04zJA
Andrew Geddis' view:
http://goo.gl/5ZLAg
Thank you Frieder.
I'm feeling a little foolish now, having withdrawn so readily.
Your description of the nub of the issue here: the vehemence of criticism of questioning authority at a time of crisis and high emotion, is spot on.
What I also find telling is the use of anonomynity by those willing to fly into attack mode so quickly and the apparent blindness to the fact that my comments are made under my real name. Commenting under a pseudonym seems also to grant the user confidence to use foul language and comment multiple times, where a 'traceable' commenter will stick to a single comment.
Andrew Geddis' is interesting also and I've certainly taken note of what he thinks.
@ Robert; whilst I applaud you for having removed the post, I apologise for my overreaction. We have however in the last 12 hours learned of at least three deaths of people whom either Mrs Inv or myself knew personally. We have staff down there whose homes, or whose families' homes lie in ruins. Emotionally, we are pretty raw just at the moment, hence the reaction.
In one way or another, this tragedy and its aftermath will touch every New Zealander. Andrew Geddis is no friend of the Key administration, but his views on the unprecedented declaration of a national state of emergency are an excellent summation.
I trust that you will accept my apology in the spirit in which it has been offered. Kia kaha.
Robert I responded this way to Paddy and his slag of at NRT article on National vs local control. I was very interested in your response in the original post re the controls it gave the Government ...as I said to Paddy we really need to be on our Guard with the corruption we are seen both locally and internationally
Re National vs local – and your response Don’t you think Paddy most people like to have the word “Please may I have” before taking your diggers than as you suggested I am taking these diggers.
Yes it could be naive of me BUT I believe most kiwis would say “sure if it could help the problem..then naturally they should be entitled to some insurance/ compensation for their use of machinery etc etc. This could all happen under local control of an emergency. So I again-ask why what advantages are there in declaring a national emergency over a local one……
The problem is Paddy in these days we are seeing so much dictatorial governance where accountability and transparency is non existent both locally and internationally It is therefore very important to be on the guard for corrupt practices by asking why is this been done ??
We see this in ICC and their many many meetings where decisions are been made behind closed doors let alone the decisions of Holdco companies where we the owners are not entitled to ask questions re company privacy rules
I remind you the Canterbury people have seen this govt act dictatorial and undemocratic before re Ecan and I understand there is strong local concern at autocratic and dictatorial controls with the Govt earthquake body that was formed after last Septembers quake
Inv2 - thanks for your comment and I'm very siorry to hear about your friends.
You and Mrs I2 have had a rough time of it lately!
Pauline - I admire your stand over Paddy's post and support your comments there.
You have recognised the same aspect of the situation that raised my flag. It interests me very much that many others don't even detect it when it's pointed out to them, in fact flare up incandescently when someonme else does.
Robert,
Found this for you. It is a response to the drival that No Right Turn posted, that you copy and paste here (then subsequently took down).......
Now Professor Geddis has himself been very willing to criticise the Government when he feels they are acting inappropriately with regard to their powers. He criticised the Act responding to the last earthquake and the sacking of ECan. But in this instance he says:
To use a phrase much beloved of I/S himself, I call bullshit.
First up, the declaration of a national state of emergency does not mean that there is now a power to do all the horribly draconian things that he claims can be done in places like Invercargill, Whangarei or other places far from Christchurch. All the powers given under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (CDEMA) can only be exercised for the specific purpose of things like “saving life, preventing injury, or rescuing and removing injured or endangered persons”, or “prevent[ing] or limit[ing] the extent of the emergency”.
There is no way that these purposes can be said to exist outside of the immediate environs of Christchurch, so the specter of the police “clos[ing] public spaces in Invercargill” or the like in the wake of this declaration is a complete red herring.
So that puts paid to the so called gross abuse of power. And as for why make it a national state of emergency:
But what about emergency situations where the resources of a single Group are inadequate to respond? There, help from other Groups may be needed. But getting that help requires those in charge of the affected Group to coordinate with those in charge of others, which is yet another task on top of the many they will have already. Furthermore, all they can do is ask for help – which other Groups may or may not be able to give, depending on availability.
However, now that there is a state of national emergency, two things can happen. First, the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management can take over the coordinating role between different Groups and centralise that process. Second, the Director can instruct other Groups to initiate their own emergency management plans and thus release resources to help Canterbury.
These powers may not be as earth shattering as empowering the police to shut down central Invercargill, but neither are they insignificant. Indeed, it isn’t going overboard to say that the fate of people’s lives may depend on the bureaucratic niceties involved in the declaration of national emergency.
Geddis concludes:
So, like I say – I/S’s posts regrettably are bullshit. I rather fear that he’s fallen victim to exactly the disease he accuses John Key and National of … being so partisan in outlook that everything must have a motive other than the obvious one.
Sometimes even politicians just want to do the right thing.
I was appalled by some of the comments directed at you last night, one in particular, questioning your right to exist, or some such obscenity.
Having said that, I think even you acknowledged that in such tragic times, peoples nerves and emotions are frayed and tattered, people are operating on fear and grief, and the timing of your critical post was ill-advised, (I accept you disagree with the timing).
I know after the suicide of my brother, I simply felt like one raw, exposed nerve, everything hurt, and that's how so many NZers are feeling right now.
For the Record - yes, thanks for that. I had read it, commented on it and left a link here in the comments section from Frieder. There are many views being expressed across the media about this issue and my question sought to attract some of those here.
Suz - yes, I know you are right about the tattered emotions etc. Guess I asked for it but no worries - I didn't take umbrage at any of it - I've been subject to far worse under previous guises on harsher blogs. I didn't however, want 'my' readers subject to those comments, nor my family, who also follow my tappings, mainly to ensure that I don't fall into holes of my own making.
It looks as though the national state of emergency makes sense.
I am of the understanding that more than half of our ambulances and fire engines have gone over to Christchurch, so obviously a disaster that requires that level of assistance is national in nature.
That might well be the case Shunda. The most effective response is the best response, provided there are no serious down-sides.
It's a matter of thinking it through and considering all the possibilities, I'd have thought. Not one for leaping at the first thing offered, me!
Earthquake in a teacup, eh?
Ha!
That's clever.
Based on some of the responses I got Shane, I'd say 'tea party'.
Post a Comment