Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick was accused of double standards, and, in Civis’ view, with some justification. Not all the accusations levelled by her opponents were fair, but the core charge of hypocrisy deserves scrutiny.
Ms Swarbrick might reasonably be excused for appearing alongside actor Acadia O’Connor, the woman who broadcast Mr Peters’ address during a live feed.
She explained that the Greens had no control over who joined the community stand-up about New Zealanders intercepted by the Israeli navy while attempting to deliver aid to Gaza. Moreover, she said she was unaware of Ms O’Connor’s actions.
Yet, Ms Swarbrick consistently sidestepped any condemnation of the protest at Mr Peters’ home, not even conceding that it was ill-advised.
She, of course, roundly condemned the window-smashing, as did nearly everyone. Whatever the cause, such violence must never be condoned. Nor should she be held responsible for the actions of one individual with a crowbar.
What was also needed was a clear recognition that politicians’ homes must remain off-limits. Ms Swarbrick and the Greens, more than most, should be acutely aware of the dangers of personal targeting.
The Greens have endured more than their share of abuse. Ms Swarbrick herself has faced unconscionable death threats. Her colleague Benjamin Doyle felt compelled to leave what he described as a "hostile and toxic" Parliament. He also received threats to his life.
Both current and former Greens have spoken out about the toxic culture in Parliament as well as the appalling public behaviour and harassment directed at politicians.
Yet what are the protests outside Mr Peters’ home if not harassment — not only of him, but of his partner, and neighbours subjected to stress?
Journalists naturally pressed Ms Swarbrick on the issue. On RNZ’s Midday Report, she was asked directly whether protesting outside politicians’ homes was OK. She deflected, saying the real issue was genocide. When pressed again, she noted the protest was entirely legal".
Really? The fact that something is within protesters’ rights" does not make it morally right.
Ms Swarbrick repeatedly denied any connection to the protest, at least three times. Yet she consistently avoided doing what Labour leader Chris Hipkins did: explicitly calling such protests totally unacceptable".
Is this the slippery slope where ends begin to justify means? No doubt the man who smashed the window believed his violence served a greater good.
How would Green MPs feel if citizens with opposing world-views staged protests outside their homes?
Mr Peters drew widespread sympathy, especially after his black Labrador, Kobe, was sprayed with shattered glass. Yet, Mr Peters is infamous for ad hominem attacks, and many would accuse him of repeated hypocrisy and incitement.
* * * * *
The intimidation, vandalism, and protest have sharpened focus on the Summary Offences (Demonstrations Near Residential Premises) Amendment Bill.
The Bill passed its first reading with support from the three government parties, while the Opposition voted against.
Labour has raised concerns about its reach, particularly on free speech grounds. The Greens may yet find some common ground.
Hopefully, the select committee process fulfils its purpose: to raise concerns, weigh consequences, and reach a sensible outcome.
While Civis’ stance on protests at MPs’ homes is firm, any curtailment of citizens’ rights and freedom of expression must be approached with caution.
Meanwhile, the protests at Mr Peters’ home have backfired, not only because of the vandalism, but because they’ve failed to advance the cause.
Whatever your view of elected officials, they warrant civil treatment.
No ifs. No buts. No double standards.
