Every time they are challenged, they cry persecution.
Every time they are criticised, they claim oppression.
For years, that strategy worked. The media, academics, and sympathetic politicians gave them endless platforms and moral cover.
But in recent days, the façade has cracked. What we are witnessing is not principled activism. It is aggression dressed up as virtue, and it has become dangerous.
Take this past week. A Green Party leader reposted violent rhetoric online, directed at political opponents.
Can you imagine the media circus if David Seymour reposted violence?
Winston Peters’ home was vandalised after a protester circulated his address.
And the same Green Party now stands shoulder to shoulder with the activist who led an earlier protest outside his house.
Acacia O’Connor, from the Global Movement to Gaza, was filmed outside Winston Peters’ home, calling him a “disgrace” and identified his address online to encourage others to join in.
Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick at a party press conference refused to condemn the earlier protest.
That appearance sent an unmistakable signal: harassment and intimidation are no longer fringe tactics.
They are being normalised, even rewarded, by elected officials who should be condemning them.
Peters delivered a furious rebuke and rightly so.
Protest has a legitimate place in a democracy. Turning up at someone’s private home and inciting others to do the same does not. It is a form of psychological intimidation designed to frighten families and silence dissent.
But this culture of extremism goes deeper.
Just months ago, Auckland lawyer was convicted of vandalising the offices of National Party MPs with red paint in protest at the Government’s position on Israel.
Instead of drawing a clear line between legitimate protest and criminal damage, Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March chose to write a letter of support for her sentencing. On official Green Party letterhead, he described the lawyer as “diligent” and “committed to social causes,” as though those traits excused her deliberate acts of destruction.
When an elected representative uses the authority of Parliament to defend someone who vandalised political offices, it ceases to be a question of compassion. It becomes an endorsement of unlawful behaviour, cloaked in moral justification.
Even at the local level, the same hostility is showing through.
In Christchurch, one regional councillor publicly wrote about “candidates you wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire.” That kind of language isn’t political debate. It’s contempt masquerading as conviction.
What links these examples is a growing belief among activists that moral certainty grants them immunity from basic standards of decency.
They speak of kindness, empathy, and inclusion, yet routinely use intimidation, vandalism, and verbal abuse to advance their causes. They insist on tolerance but display none.
The tragedy is that many of these causes once had public sympathy, environmental protection, social justice, human rights. But their message has been drowned out by self-righteous aggression.
Those who dare question their tactics are branded bigots, racists, or enablers of violence.
New Zealand’s democracy depends on open debate and mutual respect. What we are seeing instead is a politics of permanent outrage, fuelled by moral vanity and emboldened by political validation. These same parties want to form the next collation with Labour.
It is time to stop pretending these activists are victims. They are not. They are participants in a dangerous new culture of intimidation, a culture cheered on by a Green Party that has lost its moral compass.
Broadcaster Chris Lynch is an award winning journalist who also produces Christchurch news and video content for domestic and international companies. This article was originally published by Chris Lynch Media and is published here with kind permission.
But in recent days, the façade has cracked. What we are witnessing is not principled activism. It is aggression dressed up as virtue, and it has become dangerous.
Take this past week. A Green Party leader reposted violent rhetoric online, directed at political opponents.
Can you imagine the media circus if David Seymour reposted violence?
Winston Peters’ home was vandalised after a protester circulated his address.
And the same Green Party now stands shoulder to shoulder with the activist who led an earlier protest outside his house.
Acacia O’Connor, from the Global Movement to Gaza, was filmed outside Winston Peters’ home, calling him a “disgrace” and identified his address online to encourage others to join in.
Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick at a party press conference refused to condemn the earlier protest.
That appearance sent an unmistakable signal: harassment and intimidation are no longer fringe tactics.
They are being normalised, even rewarded, by elected officials who should be condemning them.
Peters delivered a furious rebuke and rightly so.
Protest has a legitimate place in a democracy. Turning up at someone’s private home and inciting others to do the same does not. It is a form of psychological intimidation designed to frighten families and silence dissent.
But this culture of extremism goes deeper.
Just months ago, Auckland lawyer was convicted of vandalising the offices of National Party MPs with red paint in protest at the Government’s position on Israel.
Instead of drawing a clear line between legitimate protest and criminal damage, Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March chose to write a letter of support for her sentencing. On official Green Party letterhead, he described the lawyer as “diligent” and “committed to social causes,” as though those traits excused her deliberate acts of destruction.
When an elected representative uses the authority of Parliament to defend someone who vandalised political offices, it ceases to be a question of compassion. It becomes an endorsement of unlawful behaviour, cloaked in moral justification.
Even at the local level, the same hostility is showing through.
In Christchurch, one regional councillor publicly wrote about “candidates you wouldn’t piss on if they were on fire.” That kind of language isn’t political debate. It’s contempt masquerading as conviction.
What links these examples is a growing belief among activists that moral certainty grants them immunity from basic standards of decency.
They speak of kindness, empathy, and inclusion, yet routinely use intimidation, vandalism, and verbal abuse to advance their causes. They insist on tolerance but display none.
The tragedy is that many of these causes once had public sympathy, environmental protection, social justice, human rights. But their message has been drowned out by self-righteous aggression.
Those who dare question their tactics are branded bigots, racists, or enablers of violence.
New Zealand’s democracy depends on open debate and mutual respect. What we are seeing instead is a politics of permanent outrage, fuelled by moral vanity and emboldened by political validation. These same parties want to form the next collation with Labour.
It is time to stop pretending these activists are victims. They are not. They are participants in a dangerous new culture of intimidation, a culture cheered on by a Green Party that has lost its moral compass.
Broadcaster Chris Lynch is an award winning journalist who also produces Christchurch news and video content for domestic and international companies. This article was originally published by Chris Lynch Media and is published here with kind permission.
7 comments:
Chris the question also must also be why do 20% of nzers want to vote for a pro hamas activist like chloe who screams river to the sea in a loud spreaker in britomart auckland every weekend. If you walk through the area holding a nz flag, the police will tell you to move on.
Illustrates the deep commitment to social equity driven by cultural marxism (paid for by tax payers) .... But do the sheeple protest loudly ?
Chris, I couldn't say it better myself. They have been given a free ride but not now. Their game is up.
Sadly Chris, it is not only the "young' here in NZ that support the Green Party, there are those of the older age group who have done so since Rod Donald took 'charge' along with his deputy - Jeanette Fitzsimons (from Coromandel).
Whether this "group" support the current Greens, is unclear, as they "do not" stand in a public space and demonstrate - they are the "silent" majority/minority, who stand in the background and support with money & votes.
At the time of Donald & Fitzsimons - Nelson was "noted" to be a Green Constituency, so was Coromandel.
My take on the "current" NZ Greens is the similarity to the Baader Meinhof Brigade (Red faction) of West Germany (1970's) who through their activities were labelled a "Terrorist" group by West German Police & Intelligence Services.
It was quickly found that their "major sponsor" was the Russian KGB and later a link with Vladimir Putin (whilst a KGB Officer in East Germany) was apparent.
In this context, it is interesting to see (not that NZMSM will tell you this) - but the latest Greta Thunburg "incident", that funding (apparently) came from Hamas, the flotilla, having the support of an American Academic, who is now 'labelled' as a Militant supporter of Hamas.
Our NZ Green Party are "noted" supporters of Hamas, all be it ignoring their militant activities.
Oh when the Baader Meinhof group were arrested it was found that the females where lesbians - characteristic of our NZ Greens?
The Greens exemplify the move away from intellectually honest analysis of social and geopolitical issues using objective parameters in favour of ideological frameworks which all observed data are made to fit (if they won't, they are simply ignored). This is pseudointellectualism - it sounds intellectually 'up there' but it isn't because of its terminally flawed epistemology. Where intellectualism fails, thuggery takes over.
Barend: Chloe swarbrick’s non thinking verbosity in multisyllables is a prime example of the pseudo intellectualism that the current greenie fans admire so much.
She sounds smart, so she MUST be smart, they reckon.
Chris, you nailed it 100%!
Post a Comment