By Crosbie Walsh
 |
| Bruce Hill |
A year ago Bruce Hill interviewed me and later phoned to ask how I thought the interview went. He asked whether I could detect his opinions on the Fiji situation. I clearly surprised him by saying yes. He was anti-Bainimarama government. Asked how I knew, I said because of the questions you asked and did not ask.
 |
| Prof Yash Ghai |
No one could possibly be in doubt about his feelings during the Yash Ghai interview. There was no attempt at neutrality. He provided a grossly inadequate background, did not challenge Prof Ghai on some matters that should have been questioned, and towards the end of the interview when talking about the "burning" incident he asked a string of heavy loaded leading questions
This article does not purport to support or denounce the actions of Government, the police or Professor Ghai. It is written to correct misunderstandings and interpretations of the facts. Only when a fact is established can its causes and consequences be considered, and only then can one take up a position on the fact.
There seems little doubt, from reading Prof Ghai's interview by Bruce Hill that both he and the policeman at the "burning" incident became over-excited and said and did things they would not normally do. There is little doubt also that the way Bruce Hill conducted the interview further inflamed the incident, creating what a wisecracker could say was Hill making a mountain out of a molehill. Two puns intended.
I republish the interview below with parenthesised notes in:
- italics
questioning
Prof Ghai's statements,
- underlining
where I think there were errors in fact or omission, and
in
- bold where I think Hill's questions inflamed the situation. No pun intended.
The
Radio Australia Report
The
outgoing chair of the Constitution Commission, Yash Ghai, has told
Radio Australia Fiji police illegally
confiscated
printed
copies of the draft constitution, and set
some of them on fire.[the
police took 599 copies of the draft . It was the galley proofs that
were burnt.]
Ghai
says all 600 copies of the draft document were seized from the
printer
three
days before Xmas, on Saturday the 22nd. He also told Pacific Beat he
was abused by the police officer
in
charge of the operation when he tried to tell them their actions were
illegal. Predictably
the regime has not responded to the allegations. [Note: See my 'Nit-picking' article. The word 'predictably' was not in the ABC release. It was added by one of the anti-government blogs and copied in error by me. ]
Ghai
told presenter Bruce Hill he was called when police arrived at the
printers to confiscate the copies of the proposed new constitution.
GHAI:
Well I decided that I would go to the printers and talk to the police
and tell them that the copies of the draft constitution belonged
to the commission and we had ordered the printing, we had done
the report, therefore they should desist from confiscating those
copies.
[Correction. With
the presentation of the draft constitution to the President the
previous day, the Commission ceased to exist and Prof Ghai was no
longer a commissioner. The copies therefore belonged either to
Government or to the Commission Secretariat that continues to exist
until the convening of the Constituent Assembly in the second week of
January, in which case Keshwa Reddy of the Secretariat had
responsibility for the draft copies and not Prof Ghai.]
HILL:
What was the response of the police when you went down there and
remonstrated with them about this?
GHAI:
Well there were 12 policemen there who had been sent to collect the
boxes, and they didn't really know how to respond to me. And I said
the police had always to act according to the law and the documents
belonged
to us.
But they were a bit embarrassed and they didn't know what to say.
Then after a while they rang someone and they told me that the
officer in charge of the particular operation was going to come and
explain to me the reasons. Well it took about half an hour, a bit
more, before that officer came, and he seemed very angry with me and
was quite rude to me. But I explained to him the background of the
printing of the documents. He used language I can't repeat on the
phone … and sort of brushed me aside and ordered the staff to, or
the police to upload the boxes in the truck they had brought for this
purpose.
HILL:
Presumably the police don't make this decision by themselves. Did the
officer in charge tell you had ordered this?
GHAI:
No, he said he had his orders. I told him that I'd be trying to call
the Commissioner of Police as soon as I heard that the police were at
the printers, but I could not reach him. I wrote a letter when he I
couldn't reach him setting out the circumstances of the printing and
saying that he should instruct his police not to confiscate them. And
I showed him that letter and said if he were to take the copies, I
would be grateful if he could sign that letter so that … but he
took it knowing that I thought it was illegal.
[If the copies did not belong to the defunct commission, Prof Ghai was exceeding his responsibilities.]
[If the copies did not belong to the defunct commission, Prof Ghai was exceeding his responsibilities.]
HILL:
So was this in any sense legal? Was there a warrant to take these?
Was this simply as you say a confiscation of what was officially the
Constitution Commission's property?
GHAI:
No there were no instructions, no written instructions. In the
beginning he just said this printing is illegal, and I said under
what law? He said under the decree, he
meant the decree which governs the process.
And
I said no, on the contrary, we are completely independent and we
decide how we distribute our documents.
Then I said he contradicted me, abused me, then I said are you
a lawyer?
He said no. I said well I am, and I've been working under the decree.
And then it seemed that it was a bit pointless, so then I stopped
trying to persuade him.
[Correction. There are two decrees on the 'process'. The first, passed in July, set up the Commission and defined its roles. The second, passed on 31 October, amended the earlier decree and expressly forbade the Commission from distributing the draft prior to its receipt by the Constituent Assembly. The amendment was a result of increasing Government concerns that the Commission had not maintained its neutrality as required in the original decree. I shall address these concerns in a later article. I am surprised that a lawyer of Prof Ghai's calibre chose deliberately to not distinguish between the two decrees and used the original one to claim ownership of the draft copies.]
[Correction. There are two decrees on the 'process'. The first, passed in July, set up the Commission and defined its roles. The second, passed on 31 October, amended the earlier decree and expressly forbade the Commission from distributing the draft prior to its receipt by the Constituent Assembly. The amendment was a result of increasing Government concerns that the Commission had not maintained its neutrality as required in the original decree. I shall address these concerns in a later article. I am surprised that a lawyer of Prof Ghai's calibre chose deliberately to not distinguish between the two decrees and used the original one to claim ownership of the draft copies.]
HILL:
Now I understand that there was another incident just on the tail end
of this in which some shredded copies of the final document the
printers had used for proofing, were actually piled in front of
you, soaked in kerosene and set on fire? [The general impression is
of multiple copies of the draft going up in smoke when only galley
proofs, that would have no further use unless a further reprint was
required, were involved.]
GHAI:
Yes exactly and I was saying why are you setting it on fire? You have
shredded it, nobody can put it together or you can just take it with
you and you can cut up a bit further, but they insisted on, they
brought a tin of kerosene and spread all the papers, brought some
stick with a flame at the end and started the burning of it, and
every few minutes or seconds they would come and put another dose of
kerosene, so the flames would rise up again until everything was
reduced to ashes.
HILL:
As you were watching this draft constitution that you've been
working on for months, what was going through your mind?
GHAI:
Well I was of course
extremely upset and
I thought that this was some sort of symbolic act on the part of
whoever gave the orders to tell me that this is how we will treat
your work. And I felt extremely sorry, not for myself, but for the
people of Fiji,
if this was indeed an order from the government
then it shows such contempt for our work, and in turn contempt for
the people who had come out in their thousands and thousands to give
us their views, participate in the process. And I felt really not
just a betrayal, I just felt will Fiji ever have a democratic
constitution.
[The copy presented to the President the day before was well received. Prof Ghai had no reason to assume Government was behind the burning; that the act was anything more than at act of frustration and annoyance by one police officer, possibly in response to his own emotional demeanour, or that the work of the Commission was held in contempt. He knew the draft would be subject to amendment by a five-person Tribunal (that will include two international experts) as permitted under the original decree before it is presented to the Constituent Assembly.]
[The copy presented to the President the day before was well received. Prof Ghai had no reason to assume Government was behind the burning; that the act was anything more than at act of frustration and annoyance by one police officer, possibly in response to his own emotional demeanour, or that the work of the Commission was held in contempt. He knew the draft would be subject to amendment by a five-person Tribunal (that will include two international experts) as permitted under the original decree before it is presented to the Constituent Assembly.]
HILL:
Given that this has happened, what do you feel now about the
government's publicly stated commitment to return Fiji to democracy
in a fair and transparent process? [The event is of little
national consequence and will have no impact on the previously-stated
requirements of the two decrees or the Constituent Assembly.]
GHAI:
Well I hope that the government will ensure that the Constituent
Assembly that it proposes to establish will really be representative
of the people.
HILL:
Given however that they quite literally made the constitution go up
in flames in front of you, can you really have confidence that this
government will actually do that?
[Hyperbole! That's telling them! "Quite literally" the constitution did not go up in flames?]
[Hyperbole! That's telling them! "Quite literally" the constitution did not go up in flames?]
GHAI:
Well I have to say this is very discouraging.
[An understandable emotional, but not particularly reliable, reaction to Hill's prompting.]
[An understandable emotional, but not particularly reliable, reaction to Hill's prompting.]
HILL:
Do we know where the actual physical printed copies of the draft
constitution were actually taken away to by the police?
GHAI:
Well they didn't tell me. I heard some people say it will go to the
Attorney General's office, some saying it'll go to the police
station. And I had wanted to know because I had this letter they had
signed saying they were taking it, but they won't tell me where it
was to be taken.
HILL:
Given
that this whole process is not your process, you
were the chair of the commission, but it's very much everyone's
process, a lot of people and groups in Fiji took part in this. What
message do you think the people of Fiji should take from what's
happened?
GHAI:
Well I don't know, I think they should continue to take part in the
remaining stages of the process, which is the next one is convening
of the Constituent Assembly. The government has said those who wish
to be on the assembly should express their interest through a letter
to the PM's office. And I believe that people should
participate in the process despite their scepticism.
[He must know they will participate and that only some are sceptical.]
[He must know they will participate and that only some are sceptical.]
HILL:
Well given what you've just said they would have a right to be
sceptical wouldn't they?
GHAI:
Well they indeed have a right to be, [See above, ditto]
but I think institutions like this one has to do one's best to
participate. I think people should participate even though they have
reservations about the process.
HILL:
You've done this sort of thing all around the world, you've been
involved in similar activities in Kenya, in Cambodia, you've guest
lectured in Sweden and America and all over the world. Have you
ever faced a situation like this where something this bad has
happened and you've been personally abused by a police officer?
[As bad as Cambodia? Didn't he walk out of that process? Verbal abuse? Unpleasant but not really threatening.]
GHAI: No not really. I've had hard times in many places, but not quite to this extent, and I have never been in a process where there has been such an attempt to hide the recommendations of a body which was setup by this very government, which was encouraged to have a completely participatory process, which was assured they'll be completely independent.
[Not hide. Delay public participation until the Tribunal has commented and passed the draft to the Assembly where it will then be fully discussed in open forum.]
And if this is the draft to be discussed by the Constituent Assembly, I would have thought that in keeping with good process people should have had a chance to read and discuss this, which indeed was what we had agreed, and that was what was in the decree which started the process.
[As bad as Cambodia? Didn't he walk out of that process? Verbal abuse? Unpleasant but not really threatening.]
GHAI: No not really. I've had hard times in many places, but not quite to this extent, and I have never been in a process where there has been such an attempt to hide the recommendations of a body which was setup by this very government, which was encouraged to have a completely participatory process, which was assured they'll be completely independent.
[Not hide. Delay public participation until the Tribunal has commented and passed the draft to the Assembly where it will then be fully discussed in open forum.]
And if this is the draft to be discussed by the Constituent Assembly, I would have thought that in keeping with good process people should have had a chance to read and discuss this, which indeed was what we had agreed, and that was what was in the decree which started the process.
[This
is only partly true. The original decree (Part 3) stipulated that
the Commission's draft would, after presentation to the President, be
considered by a Tribunal (see above) and, if necessary, referred
back to the President, before being referred to the Assembly.
Recommended changes by the Assembly must then be referred back to the
President and Tribunal for approval before final adoption by the
Assembly. It was hoped that most Assembly decisions would be agreed
to my consensus. Prof Ghai casts an unfair light on this part of
the process to which he agreed in taking up his appointment.
One
suspects Prof Ghai's frustration is due to his not being able to
distribute the draft publicly after it had been presented to the
President on Friday 21 December. But he would have know this was
prohibited under the amended 31 October decre, with which he disagreed but had legally to heed.]
HILL:
Is there anything that we haven't touched on in this interview that
you'd like to mention about what's happened and what it means for
Fiji?
GHAI:
Fiji cannot go on like this. Fiji has to return to some normality,
but above all it has to make decisions about the future, about
working and living together, creating national unity around certain
common values, which are sketched out in great detail in the draft
constitution, and which we believe is what people wanted. This is
what we gathered from our discussions with them. I'd very much like
to be able to encourage all the sides to work together. This is not a
question of party politics, this is a question of the national
interests and a constitution has to be a consensus document,
otherwise it fails to perform its essential function of a kind of
social contract. I have done the best I could, I'm an outsider, I was
privileged to be asked to chair it. I was able to look at all points
of view with some objectivity, and to suggest a compromise, not even
a compromise really because I think it's in the interests of all the
groups that institutions, procedures, values we have recommended
should become the foundation of Fiji.
[The Commission virtually ignored the RFMF submission and may have gone too far on consensus but that will have to be the subject of a later article.]
[The Commission virtually ignored the RFMF submission and may have gone too far on consensus but that will have to be the subject of a later article.]
42 comments:
You've lost the plot mate - the money that paid for your holiday in Fiji has corrupted you, as it inevitably would have had you thought about it. Burning paperwork is what Nazis did.
Ignored the RFMF submission ? Croz you have to be joking. The RFMF didn't even bother with a submission until after they had closed. And what part of being independent does theRFMF not understand or you Croz.
If the commissions work falls over it will only be one parties fault - he PM/ militarise.
You seem I accept the government has no fault at all in this. Surely the fact that they changed the decrees to suit themselves halfway through the process shows they never intended to accept anything other than their own view.
My way or the high way has been the poms mantra s once day one
Croz, your love of this government and decrees has reached new heights. Surely you can see some fault in the military led government in all this. You warned early of the SDL and FLP derailing the process......but what happened was the Government and RFMF have derailed it.
You are fucked; nothing can justify the destruction of documents - unless a cheque from Washington has
Um Croz you say that Bruce Hill was not neutral. Are you suggesting that this blog, article and your informants from the Government are? You accuse Bruce Hill of avoiding the hard questions in his interview of Ghai, but did you ask hard questions of your own informants?
Assuming that the Commission ceased to exist on the presentation of its draft to the Prez, and that the 599 copies belonged to its Secretariat or the Government, that still begs the question of what right the Police had to seize it. If they did not have a search warrant, I would think Ghai was correct in calling the seizure by the Police illegal. But then we would also have to assume Fiji is governed by the rule of law.
You suggest that Ghai is dishonest by referring to a decree when there have actually been two. Your informants are wrong and Ghai was right, The second decree amended the first. When legislation is amended, one does not refer to the amending legislation but rather continues to refer to the original legislation (with the amendments incorporated into it). I suggest that you take a look at the second amending decree (No 64). You will see that it (like most amending legislation) has no real substantive meaning as it comprises a set of directions as to what to delete from, and insert into, the original decree.
You attempt to explain the quite unjustified Government embargo on the draft constitution by claiming that this is to allow the Tribunal to comment on it before it goes to the Constituent Assembly. On my reading of Decrees 57 and 58, (even as amended by Decree 64), the Tribunal only has a role AFTER and not before the Assembly considers the draft. If you accept that you are wrong (or that your informants have misinformed you once again), will you accept that Ghai was right?
In any case, even if the Tribunal did have the role that you say it does, why shouldn't a document of such public importance be available to the public while the Tribunal does its work? Why would secrecy be necessary?
I'm sorry Croz, but this article is full of BS.
Anonymous misses all points I believe. The point is that Yash Ghai agreed to work under the Decree and its amendment and he even signed a code of conduct on disclosure! So under the Decree he a had agreed to he was not allowed to distribute the draft. His action goes beyond the unwise to the devious and even to the dishonorable. His economy with the truth in the Hill interview only confirms my view.If he didn't like the terms of his appointment and waork he should not have agreed to them.
Questions to help Bruce Hill in his next interview of Yash Ghai
1. What do think of the Constituent Assembly, and will you be disturbed if it alters your draft significantly?
2. Do you think your draft has legitimacy?
3. You hired a consultant to give you insight into the itaukei community. Was that consultant representative of that community, and were you in danger of believing there is one homogeneous itaukei world view? Did you hire consultants to give you an insight into other communities in Fiji?
5. Under the Decrees creating your commission were you allowed to distribute the draft before or after the President was given it?
6. If no to 5. then why didn't you negotiate distribution of it with the government to avoid the ugly police scene?
To Anonymous at 9.41 pm. If you are referring to the post at 9.31 pm I don't think I missed the point at all. I am merely challenging some of the points that Croz has made. It is self-evident that if he made them, he must think them relevant to the discourse.
BTW are you able to share the terms of the Code of Conduct on disclosure which you say Ghai signed and breached or is this more disinformation? I can't see anything to the effect of what you claim in the Code or the Oath in the Decree. I have searched but I can't see anything forbidding the Commission from distributing the draft. The Decree required the Commission to act in the best interests of the people of Fiji. Again, how can distributing a document, that is intended to govern their lives hereafter to the people be unwise, devious, dishonourable or against the people's interest- unless like Mr Bainimarama and Mr Sayed-Khaiyum, you think that the public interest is synonymous with the self-interest of the two men.
I think that the points are: why the seizure? Why by the police? Why the burning of anything by a senior police officer (without any apparent official acknowledgement, explanation or censure)? Why all of this secrecy at all?
Croz
As usual you are pissing into the wind. Nothing is going to save Bainimarama and his dictatorship. It is now time (very urgently) for the muslims of Fiji to distance themselves from Khaiyum and his treasonous clan. This treasonous criminal has done irreparable damage to Fiji. It is time for him to be brought to justice and punished.
Croz
What exactly is it about this incident that you have a problem with?
The manner in which it occurred? The fact that Ghai has apparrently exceeded his mandate? That he may broken a law or thumbed his nose at whatever decrees apply to the process?
Or is it the manner in which Hill has conducted his interview? Is he really anti-Bainimarama or anti-military dictatorship?
The fact of the matter is a version of the draft constitution is now out there and there really isn't much anyone can do about it. It may well turn out to bear no resemblance at all to the final product. Or it may. What is important is that the readers of it can assume that the leaked verson is a close proximation to what Ghai and his team intended to be their published work.
You need to stop shooting the messenger.
The decree (#57) establishing the commission under which Prof Ghai agreed to work required the commissioners to be "politically neutral (13) and in Schedule 2, the Code of Conduct, to "rigorously avoid any involvement with politically or otherwise political organizations" and "no accept ...hospitality from (anyone) who "stands to gain" from offering the hospitality.
The seizure was because the unauthorised distribution of rhe draft was contrary to 7(1)k), 8(1(c) and 10(3) of the amended (#64) decree.
Cin Cin ... I agree that giving this incident air focuses attention on a relatively minor event (my mountain-molehill heading made this point) but I felt I should comment to spell out the facts, particularly those which related to decrees #57 and 64, which were glossed over or not mentined in the interview and which have been ignored by the anti-bloggers and most people now commenting on this blog article.
Thank you for your incisive comment. Pity the wind changed.
Nice to see you and your junta groupie slurpers eating their own vomit. He he he!!
I am not bound by neutrality; Hill is. This is a personal blog where I express opinions that try to be fair and helpful. Hill is a state-paid journalist on a public media channel. It is not his prerogative to express his personal opinions.
I think you are splitting hairs about the one one-two decrees? The decree as amended expressly prohibited Prof Ghai from taking the action he did. How then could he overlook this fact and claim legality?
I made no attempt to justify or condemn government's action on holding back the draft, and I can well understand Prof Ghai's frustration. The purpose of the article, as I explained in the opening paragraphs, was to explain the law, ignored or misconstrued during the interview, and now also ignored or misconstrued by most other commentators,on blogs and in the media.
Croz you are basically a decent and wise man, but now making vain attempts to defend the indefensible. The burning of the constitution gives the regime a very nasty look, not that they had a good look to begin with. Is there no one in authority or with influence who posses the tinniest amount of intelligence? Forget about intelligence. What about common sense? Claims that this was the work off a rogue cop are unbelievable. Or is the junta losing control? If that is the case, then the situation isn't laughable!
Croz.....agreed, definitely an incident that should have been handled differently by all parties. However the the burning was a bit excessive don't you think?
Weilei! @ your lame attempt at picking on technicalities to defend the indefensible. Didn't hve to get past your first silly point where you claim Professor Yash Ghai had misrepresented himself as Commissioner since his tenure had lapsed. Not only did the professor correctly refer to "the Commission" in that particular response, and not to himself as Commissioner, but there was nothing wrong, sinister, erroneous or misleading in his response to the officer. Does the obligations of a Commissioner/Director to safeguard work he had just completed, cease immediately upon the lapse of his contractual tenure with a corporate body, much less a decreed entity? Particularly as in this case, he received reliable information that the product of their work was about to be destroyed? You can't simply ignore the broader context within which the incident occurred esp. the difficulties encountered by the Commission leading up to the bonfire event. Nor can you clutch lamely at your straw decrees to base your arguments on - decrees which are by themselves draconian and inconsistent with international law to which Fiji is obligated to, to begin with.
Worse than pathetic you are, Cros Walsh. You've been operating from a very shaky premise from the get-go and you're running out of excuses. Pathetic. I have found you to be quite presumptuous about Fijians and the affairs of this country as if we are a bunch of idiots who can't make sense of our own national affairs and find solutions that are sustainable for us for the long run. Who do you think you are that you can't you leave us Fijians alone to get on with rebuilding our own country? Shame on you.
So everything is defensible because the good professor did not obey the decrees. But, brilliant man, what of the decrees? At the point of a gun? Democratic? Correct? Just how much money did that Washington company give you?
Marc Edge, in terms of objectivity, fact, opinion etc, we are well aware of journalists wanting to have their cake and eat also, that's why their credibility ranks lower than, or close to, weasels like used car salesmen and lawyers across the world, so spare us your long-winded pontificating, we know exactly where you coming from and what tour agenda is mate. You are hardly a credible or independent source yourself my friend. In fact you are highly suspect and discredited in he eyes of many who have been following your saga at USP.
It looks as though croz and his 'when is my next free junta trip" wife are nothing but junta sluts?
Offensive personal remarks, other than those from the obviously illiterate such as the person who calls my wife a slut, are general deleted. More is expected of educated people.
The whole problem with the Yash Ghai Bruce Hill scenario is the emotional investment we tend to have sometimes with work. I think, the decree was clear, the legality of it arguable, but nevatheless clear. Printing the 600 copies had the clear intention of distribution. I suspect that was being provocative and with all dues respect driven by emotion. Getting the draft done Yash should have left it at that and flown overseas and had that interview with Bruce Hill on the key elements of the draft outside of Fiji. The distribution of the draft, as the President mentioned to someone at the post-handover cocktail at Tanoa Plaza, "the moment I received it I knew it would be the worst kept secret." Drafts are everywhere, Fiji leaks etc.... The Bruce Hill interview turned out to be swipe back Aiyaz, a la William Marshall, Sri Lankan Judge etc... I thought it would have made sense to talk about the draft and we know it is a good constitution and let us mobilise to back it up. Now Yash joins the ranks of the slay ASK brigade and we the people to conitue with the aftermatch and to do our own battle.....!
If Yash Ghai does not like decrees why did he agree to do the review under a decree? He can't have it both ways? He can't now say he decided the decree was not going to be followed by him, having signed a contract to act under it/them. This is not a principled position. It is not even a pragmatic position.
Sorry, Croz. You can't shut me up that easily. Remember, I have a blog, too. And my research this morning has revealed that you owe Bruce Hill a big apology.
CROZ: I am not bound by neutrality
The understatement of the year.
You call people names...people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
But families should not get caught in the cross-fire. Unfortunately history tells us that meglomaniacs families often cop the crap for their evil outbursts.
"More is expected from educated people" The ramblings of an elitist or what. I know plenty of uneducated people who are more civilised than you Croz. You really are Crazy, Walsh.
You're a fine one to talk about facts, Croz. Here, delete this. http://fijimediawars.blogspot.ca/2012/12/the-crosbie-walsh-problem.html
Marc Edge - one thing you obviously haven't learnt about Fiji is that it is a small place and news travels fast. You were sacked from the USP for your behavior and hardly have any credibility in Fiji. Try and get over it
Not true. For my own safety, I had to get out of Fiji before Yash Ghai left. http://fijimediawars.blogspot.ca/2012/12/i-have-been-hounded-out-of-fiji.html
The Marc edge saga is very boring. He came, they didn't like him at USP and they sacked him. He left with narry a tear spilt for him.Can we move on please.
Can't wait to red your book about how you made a brave and daring escape from Fiji with your life. Must be breathtaking stuff huh Marc? lol!
Interesting that ther is os much focus on Ghai's legitimacy and the military regime decrees, when the rgime is wholly illegitimate and their decrees as well. To give this regime and their laws any respect is a complete joke given the way they took powerand hold power and given recent events of the police raiding a fijian for what he had on a facebook page makes us all think about their true intentions.But we can all expect a thorough explanation and defense from Croz, just not from the regime, as usual.The regime is just so misunderstood isn't it Croz.
Croz, your articles never seek to 'denounce' government actions on anything, very predictable really.But look out anyone who claims to be beaten or intimidated by police or military thugs, you are very quick to heap doubt and scorn on their claims, create an explanation/excuse usually on behalf of the regime and they always get the benefit of any doubt. We always know what we gonna get...There were some good Nazis too.
Given the history of the regime in deporting anyone for any reason before they even get to court to file an injunction (at time after the injuctionanyway) and the history they have on beating people up.. this comes as no surprise at all, but after elections all this will magically change... oh really. This fool (Anon) would have you believe that only the right people get a good beating an innocents are left alone. Yep , until its you or a family member.We can expect (Anon) is quite typical of what we expect of those that did nothing but moan prior to the coups as well and feel they are getting some benfit now. We'll see.
Maybe because the antis spread so many deliberate untruths and Croz corrects them? And the reaction to being corrected is never 'I am sorry' but 'how dare you !' dear dear. And the king of all disinformation is C4.5, the holy grail of all antis.
But never contradicts the regime, all he is a cheerleader and mouthpiece for an unelected and unaccountable bunch of self interested thugs and their cronies. 'Anti' is 'anti military regime' not anti fiji, lets be real clear.Why do you think these blogs were created, if there was any accountability or freedom of expression they would not be necessary or read. Guess whose fault that is.
Sorry, Croz but I think you owe Hill and apology. The version you downloaded was the one C4.5, the Holy Grail of all anti's, ran. It was not the original head to the story that was run by the ABC - check the transcript and you will see the difference. It appears you downloaded directly from C4.5, mistaking it for the entire ABC story. Is it perhaps a case of nit wit instead of nit picking?
The outgoing chair of the Constitution Commission, Yash Ghai, has told Radio Australia Fiji police illegally confiscated printed copies of the draft constitution, and set some of them on fire.[the police took 599 copies of the draft . It was the galley proofs that were burnt.]
Ghai says all 600 copies of the draft document were seized from the printer three days before Xmas, on Saturday the 22nd. He also told Pacific Beat he was abused by the police officer in charge of the operation when he tried to tell them their actions were illegal. Predictably the regime has not responded to the allegations.
Ghai told presenter Bruce Hill he was called when police arrived at the printers to confiscate the copies of the proposed new constitution.
So did C4.5 deliberately edit the story in order to mislead its readers? Caught with its pants down again?
I have been checking out a few of your stories and i can state pretty good stuff. I will definitely bookmark your blog click here
If you have ever used Twitter - and these days, who hasn't? - you've certainly seen shortened URLs from services that make brief addresses out of long and unwieldy ones. These shorter URLs takeup less space, which is very important on Twitter. adult url shortener
Post a Comment