« Offensive language | Main | Sunday paper lies to boost circulation! »
Stormin’ Norman
By Steven | June 21, 2010
So police have investigated the incident in which Greens leader Russel Norman claimed to have been assaulted by members of the Chinese delegation who wrenched a Tibetan flag from his grasp on the grounds of Parliament… and concluded that there is “insufficient evidence to substantiate any assault charges at this time”.
Police say the “available footage” and information from “a number of people who witnessed the incident” was not enough to support a finding of assault. That’s surprising, given the phalanx of journalists and hangers-on who were around. But let’s assume it’s right.
Still: why was the word of an MP not enough to substantiate an assault charge? (The only possibility that doesn’t leave me gob-smacked is that it’s hard to work out precisely who committed the assault. In that case: what steps have police taken to try to ascertain the identity of the alleged assaulter?)
[Update: Colin Espiner has watched footage and seems to doubt there has been any assault. I haven’t seen the footage. But I think it would be difficult to rip a flag from someone without committing a (technical, at least) assault.]
Also: why is the PM apologising to the Chinese when they appear to have committed a contempt of Parliament?
Topics: General | 54 Comments »
54 Responses to “Stormin’ Norman”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 21st, 2010 at 1:34 pm
I think you are assuming that the assult is against Russel rather than by him…
June 21st, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Yes, given that he’s complained of assault and no-one else has.
June 22nd, 2010 at 8:41 am
> why was the word of an MP not enough to substantiate an assault charge?
I would’ve thought the answer was obvious – MPs are known for being economical with the truth, with telling porkies, with lying. Heaven forbid that we should accept an MP’s word at face value.
June 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 am
*sigh* although I fully support old Norman’s right to protest after watching the footage I did think the claim of assault was nothing more than attention grabbing (and quite effective it was too). Good on the police for not making a mountain out of an anthill… but shame on the PM for feeling he needed to apologise for anything.
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 am
1. From the snippets of footage I’ve seen on the news, it appeared to me that Norman (also) assaulted one of the security personnel, perhaps going so far as to take himself outside the protections of the defence of movable property in section 53 of the Crimes Act.
2. I cannot see a contempt of Parliament. The following example, taken from the examples of contempts in S.O. 401, is as close as you get: “(l) assaulting, threatening or intimidating, a member or an officer of the House acting in the discharge of the member’s or the officer’s duty.
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:55 am
1. The possibility that Norman also committed an assault does not mean that he was not himself assaulted. Again, you might like to explain how wrenching a flag off someone who doesn’t want to release it does not involve an assault…
2. That also covers 401 (l). But I was thinking of 410(m):
“obstructing or molesting a member or an officer of the House in the discharge of the member’s or the officer’s duty”. They put up an umbrella between Norman and the VP to stop him seeing the flag Norman wanted to draw to his attention on behalf of his party and constituents, and then took that flag away from him. I’m not sure that this is contested.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
You may have noted my use of the word “also”.
Perhaps I can get even more ludicrous. Was there an intention to permanently deprive Russel of his flag? If so, it may constitute theft. A theft accompanied by violence is a robbery. A robbery committed by more than one person is an aggravated robbery. Perhaps he should go for the king hit?
That said, the police don’t seem interested, so let’s hope he has his contempt complaint handed in to the Speaker by 2pm. Although I’m not convinced that waving a flag about Tibet on the Parliamentary forecourt is an MP’s “duty”.
June 22nd, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Hang on. Is my assault argument ludicrous? Or is it one you accept by your use of the word “also”?
I can’t see any evidence of an intention to keep the flag. You still haven’t explained how wrenching it from Norman is not an assault. Perhaps you mean it’s a minor and technical one and not worthy of prosecution. That seems a fair point.
I’d be interested in your definition of “duty” that excludes Norman’s attempt to deliver a political message that accords with his party’s foreign policy to a visiting leader on the grounds of Parliament.
June 22nd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Of course I haven’t explained how wrenching a flag from Norman isn’t an assault. I accept that there was one. I suspect, but don’t know, that “duty” probably has a limited meaning, although that would be for the Speaker/Privileges Committee to consider.
I’d be interested in a definition of “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee” that means that giving a false answer to a supplementary question is okay, but that seems to be the case, because one can only mislead the House in “a situation of some formality (e.g. a ministerial statement, a personal explanation, a minister moving the first or second reading of a Government bill in his or her name, or possibly replying to a primary question).”
ref: http://blog.labour.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/skmbt_c35309082510160.pdf
That said, I’d very much like him to have a go, because I don’t believe it’s on.
May 21st, 2020 at 1:14 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
May 22nd, 2020 at 8:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
June 12th, 2020 at 7:07 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
June 23rd, 2020 at 3:45 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
July 19th, 2020 at 7:09 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 85359 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
July 25th, 2020 at 4:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
July 30th, 2020 at 12:28 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
August 1st, 2020 at 6:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
August 6th, 2020 at 2:55 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
August 7th, 2020 at 2:31 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
August 24th, 2020 at 1:00 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 77406 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
September 2nd, 2020 at 5:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
September 3rd, 2020 at 8:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
September 19th, 2020 at 9:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
September 20th, 2020 at 6:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
September 21st, 2020 at 11:12 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
September 29th, 2020 at 12:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 96485 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
October 16th, 2020 at 11:11 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
November 17th, 2020 at 8:56 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
November 24th, 2020 at 3:41 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
December 19th, 2020 at 6:18 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
December 22nd, 2020 at 1:36 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
January 1st, 2021 at 3:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
January 6th, 2021 at 3:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 33178 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
January 13th, 2021 at 10:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
February 8th, 2021 at 7:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
March 2nd, 2021 at 2:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 25831 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
March 26th, 2021 at 12:38 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 64042 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
April 1st, 2021 at 3:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
April 13th, 2021 at 11:44 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
April 22nd, 2021 at 6:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
May 26th, 2021 at 9:36 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
June 20th, 2021 at 2:53 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
June 23rd, 2021 at 3:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 12:02 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
June 29th, 2021 at 10:27 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
July 3rd, 2021 at 8:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
July 12th, 2021 at 12:24 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
July 16th, 2021 at 4:32 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 22003 additional Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
October 16th, 2021 at 1:20 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
November 22nd, 2021 at 1:22 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
December 17th, 2021 at 12:50 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
April 19th, 2022 at 7:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
April 20th, 2022 at 9:35 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]
April 26th, 2022 at 11:48 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=379 […]