"MPs must be free to criticise the government of the day without being viewed as a security risk, as was the case with me."Now here is what Keith Locke, John Key or the Herald - or, apparently, anyone that reporter Claire Trevett has talked to - does not say:
"New Zealanders must be free to criticise the government of the day without being viewed as a security risk, as was the case with me."That's not totally fair - Locke is reported as calling for an inquiry into why so many files are kept on "legitimate dissenters" - oh yes, Trevett was sure to put that in scare quotes. Am I the only crazy person who things that it was scary that Locke was watched from childhood for being a dissident? It's not like this is totally new - it was only recently that the police were exposed for infiltrating such radical revolutionary groups as Greenpeace. Obviously I'm not claiming that no one ought to be monitored at all, but it seems like the way things are working is out of wack with any concept of proportionality or probable cause. Was Keith Locke or Greenpeace ever likely to try and violently overthrow the government or, I don't know, launch a terrorist attack? It seems pretty implausible. Quite why it should matter in a democracy that Locke became part of the structure of government is beyond me.