John Minto recently posted an article on The Daily Blog in which there is this ominous statement: “Transformation will only come from radical political action outside parliament while the barricades are burning.”
To put it in context, he was talking about the “lack of transformation” on issues such as poverty and corporate influence of politics. Some readers of The BFD will agree with this until the solutions proposed are highly socialist, which is where John Minto unashamedly comes from.
Putting that aside, veiled threats of violence such as burning barricades on parliament grounds is a very big deal even if you don’t ask exactly where the barricades were and who built them and why. I don’t think any existing security fixtures at parliament are made of combustible materials for exactly that reason and I don’t think they could reasonably be called “barricades.”
So how do I interpret John Minto’s veiled threat? It would appear to me that he could be referring to a protest at parliament so violent that someone sees the need to build barricades. (Presumably inside, meaning outer security is breached, and presumably out of whatever they can grab, even if made of wood, such as desks/chairs, etc) To fulfil John Minto’s prediction, these barricades could possibly be set on fire by the protestors.
I am not seeing any other way to interpret his comment, especially as he uses the word “radical” in the same sentence as burning barricades at parliament. I can’t read his mind. Maybe it’s not that bad. Maybe it’s a symbolic pile of boxes on the grass by the street that is set alight, in mid-winter, on a wet day, with fire extinguishers nearby, and buckets of water, just in case.
That would still be a very bad incident for parliament security, rightly resulting in criminal charges. Nowhere on The BFD, despite strong feelings on issues discussed, have I ever seen violence and destruction called for like that.
Hopefully, New Zealand is not going to go nuts like America is right now, where police let Antifa run riot then arrest pastors for hate speech. At least not yet. Which should mean that, even if you are a ‘liberal’, threatening violence against parliament is absolutely not okay.
But this threat does come from the same mouth which said on The Daily Blog that the policies of Islamic Jihad were a “micro issue” when defending the Palestinians against the Israelis.
Five bucks says that if a conservative personality made a veiled threat like John Minto did they would get a visit from armed police with full-sized automatic weapons “designed to kill people” and NH90 helicopters even if it’s on an airport approach path.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.