OK, but what I didn't see (maybe I missed it) in the article is any knowledge of that by the New Zealand authorities ahead of this action. And even if that were

OK, but what I didn't see (maybe I missed it) in the article is any knowledge of that by the New Zealand authorities ahead of this action. And even if that were the case this would be an incredibly heavy handed response to this kind of venting. You can hear people say I wish we could drone strike {{politician name}} on a daily basis and it should take a lot more than that to get your passport revoked. Surely we can find a more reasonable response that reflects the reality that people say things like this without serious intent all the time. The article also points out that was timed such that it would be a convenient gesture of goodwill towards the Fijian government during negotiations. So there's also a believable reason why the government of New Zealand might have subjected these folks to this. The level of reaction doesn't fit the evidence at hand. The effects for this guy are ongoing as he now must put up with more hassle every time he travels forever. IMO it's just not a reasonable response. All for his very reasonable advocacy for democracy and maybe someone venting without serious intent about killing a dictator.