Greens bill potentially a good idea

I have to say, the hysterical response from some punters to the Greens' proposal to stop the Zimbabwe tour by the Black Caps is quite bizarre.

There is no issue of human rights involved in banning NZ sports bodies from touring dictatorial regimes. So long as such a policy was applied on an even handed basis, against all those countries where despotism is in place, I would have no problem with it as a matter of principle.

Nothing would change about the rights of individuals to go and tour Zimbabwe. They could even go there and play cricket. They just couldn't represent New Zealand. And that is fair enough. New Zealand's name and international involvement is a political issue, not a private issue.

I hope other parties including mine do look carefully at the Greens legislation. I hope they react to it based on what it is, not on what they are saying it is. It's a potentially reasonable measure which would help NZ uphold human rights on the international stage.

That said, Parliament doesn't have the time to pass such a bill before the election (or so the commentators are saying). And, there are other costs to bear - if NZ banned sporting contacts with dictatorial regimes, how broadly does that apply? China? If to China, does that imply banning economic contact too (good bye FTA)? Would we lose the right to host some major tournaments here, due to countries not being able to visit?

Surely these are more interesting matters to debate than sterile, odd questions about whether the proposal would breach people's human rights, when it so obviously does no such thing...

If someone can actually make a reasonable argument as to how such a proposal could possibly be a real breach of the rights of private people to travel and do what they please (as opposed to what I think it is, a ban on organisations conducting activities in Zimbabwe), then please explain....

Comments

[stephen]

Freedom of association? Freedom of expression? You can get together, but you can't call yourselves what you actually are.

NZ cricket like all NZ sporting bodies IS a private association, not a government one.

I'm sure the right to be known by the name we choose for ourselves is well down the list of important human rights, but I think that's the principle at stake.

Personally this doesn't bother me, but I wonder how we would set an objective standard for assessing despotism. What happens when an NZ team wants to tour China or Pakistan?

[Nigel Kearney]

If teams can't go to Zimbabwe, then they shouldn't go to China either. That means no Olympics for us. I know Clark is already very similar to Muldoon but there's no need to copy absolutely every mistake he made.

It's also quite wrong to say that all manner of restrictions can be placed on organisations, as long as individuals can still do as they please. As a supporter of the union movement, I would expect you to understand this.

[sock thief]

But any attempt to be consistant - to stop sporting and economic contact with unsavoury regimes - would be absurdly unworkable. And also open to problems of interpretation. Many people see Cuba as oppressive but many go there believing it to be a model for NZ.

We would be ruling out cultural and ecnomic contact with large sections of the world. And for what? Would the cricket tour really mean anything to Mugabe? He has shown his complete disdian fro world opinion time and time again. I find it unlikely he cares one way or the other but is probably amused by the bickering this issue has caused here in NZ.

[Glenn]

I love the language being used by legislation-happy lefties on this issue: “Nothing would change about the rights of individuals to go and tour Zimbabwe. They could even go there and play cricket. They just couldn't represent New Zealand.”

I find it hard to believe that you’d be happy with each of the members of the New Zealand cricket team traveling to Zimbabwe and playing the Zimbabwe cricket team *as individuals.* No doubt the television stations would want to cover such an event, private companies would want to be in on sponsorship, so your ban would have accomplished nothing. Is it really just the technicality of “representing New Zealand” that you want to prevent?

[James]

By what right does the Govt have to tell anyone that they can't call themselves representitives of New Zealand? Govt are our servants ,not our masters.Butt out Big sister, you bitch!

[Adolf Fiinkensein]

The only way you can legislate to stop the tour is to legislate for a total ban on all trade with Zimbabwe. NZ Cricket is a business and has very right to trade with whomever it wishes, within the law of NZ. The most sensible suggestion I have heard thus far is for the Gummint to approach the National Bank and pay for the bank to assign it's sponsorship to Amnesty so that everytime the TV cameras close in on a player the world is reminded what a prick Mugabe is.

[insider]

Jordan, the BCs do not represent NZ. They represent a private organisation. Just as you did in that human rights nirvana of China recently. They no more represent NZ than a business buying or selling products to Zimbabwe. Do the Greens want to ban TV coverage of the tour too becuase that might 'legitimise' Mugabe?

We do not have 'state' teams like China etc. Phil Goff represented NZ when he held hands with Arafat; Cullen represented NZ when he shut down Parliament for some foreign despot; HC represented NZ when she spent a day hosting Musharraf.

The change in tone from Goff since talking to Snedden shows how kneejerk his initial reactions were. Not what you expect from a foreign minister responsible for representing NZ's diplomatic interests.

[paul]

Holly shit, you bastards on the right really have my freakin goat up today.

"Butt out Big sister, you bitch!" That is a well constructed and argued point there, shame it wasn't what is helpful, wanted or needed.

"the BCs do not represent NZ."
Yes they bloody do, they are the offical New Zealand Cricket team. Otherwise I'm putting together some mates and calling them the New Zealand Cricket team.

Bugger me there are some lame arsed arguements going on out there.

"Would the cricket tour really mean anything to Mugabe?" He's the president of Zimbabwe cricket association and loves the reflective glory that shows his team playing other nations on international tv. This is why we shouldn't travel to the place.

The guys a bastard, evil despot. But points raised about China are very valid, and yes if we are to be consistent of course we shouldn't go to the olympics and of course we shouldn't trade with these bastards.

But you have all placed way too much emphasis on the importance of the dollar to consider human rights and human life as important to you.

[sock thief]

Paul, it is actually a reasonable question to ask whether or not stopping the tour will have the desired effect. Mugabe has given plenty of indication that he does not care what the world thinks of him. There is no indication that he would gain or be seeking to gain anything from the tour going ahead.

That is different to South Africa where there was clearly an attempt by the apartheid regime to gain credibility through sport, especially Rugby. Mugabe, in contrast, is not interested in gaining credibility.

[Logix]

"Paul, it is actually a reasonable question to ask whether or not stopping the tour will have the desired effect. " Precisely the same argument was used 25 years ago against the Springbok tour protests.

1. A large majority of kiwis feel that Mugabe's regime has stepped over the line.

2.Yes the Chinese regime has done many things I am entirely uncomfortable with. Personally I would like to more pressure put on them, but at this point in time the China govts' human rights issue has yet to capture the public's imagination. Does this absolve us from action with respect to Zimbabwe?

2. NZC and the Black Caps represent NZ. This places a range of obligations on them that do not pertain to private individuals.

3. This is not an easy issue, and the Greens Bill is a sensible option to have on the table that may in fact be welcomed by NZC, who may be very quietly hoping for face saving way out of this mess.

[rightkiwi]

Paul - you wrote:

"Yes [the Black Caps] bloody do [represent New Zealand], they are the offical New Zealand Cricket team. Otherwise I'm putting together some mates and calling them the New Zealand Cricket team."

You are of course right. They are recognised as representing New Zealand and we feel and believe that they represent us.

The point I think is this: There is nothing to stop you putting together some mates and calling them the New Zealand Cricket team - this would not be illegal, it is just that no one would take them seriously unless they were recognised by the ICC.

Therefore, it would be a big step for Parliament to pass a law deciding who represents New Zealand as some sort of matter of state. What would the penalty be for you and your mates (or me and my mates) going to a country and "representing" New Zealand in cricket?

There is multiparty agreement on the main points, but I think it is important to remember that what is being suggested here is a very, very big step, and much bigger than anything that was ever suggested by HART with respect to tours TO south africa in the 60s, 70s and early 80s.

A bit of caution is not a bad thing.

[GeniusNZ]

> But any attempt to be consistant - to stop sporting and economic contact with unsavoury regimes - would be absurdly unworkable.

as is any attempt to be moral. And yet most people dont abandon such attempts just for this reason.

Also yes cricket is a small thing but if yo uare willing to take giant leaps surely you must be willing to take small steps.

GeniusNZ

[insider]

The BCs represent me as a cricket fan, and NZ Cricket the organisation which runs cricket in this country, they don't represent the country in a political or diplomatic sense - they have not been given that right.

DId Kim Hill, a highly paid public employee "represent" NZ when she went to Cuba? Of course not, and no responsibilities or obligations flowed onto her and her private visit as a result of her position in NZ society and NZs view of the Cuban regime. So why should such an obligation rest on the BCs. Is popularity the measure?

It's not just semantics it demonstrates the important point that sports teams or other groups are not normally tools of national foreign policy except in totalitarian states.

THe BCs are going under their own steam without govt funding so how can the Govt make any claim over their actions unless they are doing something illegal.

If the Govt wants to use sports teams to make political points then it needs to pay for that privilege.

The Breakers went to a tournament in China. Were they 'representing' NZ in the political sense? Why no fuss there?

[GeniusNZ]

I guess then that trade doesnt represent Nz so we arent allowed to place trade sanctions either.... Basically the closet of international policy tools is bare.

[ZenTiger]

GeniusNZ: Not quite re the trade sanctions. The government could refuse to accept any taxes derived from the trade profit of those countries. Now that's taking a stand!

The Cricket Question is certainly creating a lot of lively debate.

I just hope the range of options considered is not restricted to sports.

[Drone]

In this article http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0507/S00047.htm

the greens endorse the comment that the Mugabe regime is genocidal and that he intends to kill his opponents en masse. Their plan to stop this impending disaster - try to ban our cricket team from travelling there. Yes that is really going to help the oppressed people of the country. Imagine if you were a person facing impending genocide and you heard that this was the action being taken by a government of NZ in response.

If genocide is occuring (I don't know) theen the greens should be organising a coalition of the willing for a bit of regime-changing.

[Paul]

So Hodo

you support Mugabe?

But the state buldozing your house would be seen as state sponsoured destruction of private property.

But because these people are Black, not here, not you, don't matter, it's ok of Mugabe to do so and because you are on reactionary bastard, just because the Greens oppose him, you don't.

Give in and just condem the bastard instead of incorrectly paraphrashing people.

[Paul]

well why didn't you say that without the racist overtones and the innane criticism of the greens from the start.

Mugabe must go.

[Craig Hall]

Hypocrisy is a feature of politics in general, where-ever parties place themselves on the spectrum.