Question time from yesterday regarding police raids
KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Police: Has she made any complaints over any aspect of police operations in the last week; if so, on what grounds?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): No. There is a necessary separation between the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of Police over day-to-day policing decisions. This separation has been consistently upheld by the courts, and was the subject of an authoritative opinion by the then Solicitor-General in 1993. The constitutional principle of police operational independence is one that this Government is committed to uphold, and we look to other political parties to do likewise.
Keith Locke: Will the Minister be seeking an explanation from the Commissioner of Police about raids such as one on Tuesday where a Tauranga pensioner’s home was raided in his absence—his window was broken, his door latch was smashed, and his belongings were strewn all around his house and his shed—yet no charges or explanation followed?
Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I will not be seeking explanation of police actions in their operations. If any member of the public is dissatisfied with any action of the police, there is a proper and appropriate body for people to go to, to lay those complaints. It is not for the Minister of Police to troll through police operations and decide which bits are the good bits and which bits are not.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister’s answer mean that there is nothing the police could do that would lead her to seek an explanation from them or to make a comment to them; does this mean that she is quite satisfied that, by disrupting a workshop on yeast-free bread baking and seizing the computers and the underwear of the organisers of the very popular Ecoshow, under the Terrorism Suppression Act, the police are contributing to protecting the New Zealand public; if so, from what?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The New Zealand Police must act within the law. If the police did not act within the law, then this House and the Minister would be concerned. I do not know why the police would be looking at particular items; neither does that member. I suggest that those members breathe through the nose for a little longer, and allow the police to do their work and the proper institutions in this country to look at those actions, rather than rush to an opinion, which I do not believe is helping at all in terms of the debate over this issue.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: How does she believe it possible that the New Zealand public could have been protected, and from what, by the police seizure of the computer of a visiting Swedish banker, a keynote speaker at the Environment and Conservation Organisations show in TaupÅ? yesterday?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I have no idea what is on any computer that has been seized. I suspect that the member does not, either. I believe she should not rush to judgment, but should wait until the proper processes have been gone through to see whether what the police did is correct. The member is making judgments without having all the facts. I do not believe that is helpful to the debate, at all. The member knows—because I have spoken to her—that the police were taking this very carefully. They were being very careful about what they did. They tried to follow through what was an operation of many, many months as carefully as possible, wanting to get to the bottom of what could be a very serious issue for this country.
[Maori Party asked questions about the raids also.]
October 19th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I read a Trotters column today in the Dom. He was angry at the people who were arrested, saying that he trusted Howard Broad and he did not believe the police had acted wrongly. Perhaps its time for others from the far left to stop being hypocrites, stop making excuses and conspiricies and condemn the people who were arrested on firearms charges.
October 19th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
are you seeking a kangeroo court nick c..?
(you could be in the right place..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 19th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
No, not really phil, if the greens openly advocated armed resistance against the government, there wouldnt be a problem with the current line they are putting out. They arent exactly doing themselfs any favours defending these people who are charged with unlawfully owning guns when they claim to support non-violence. They are clearly concerned more about the accused then they are about their parties principals.
October 19th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Indeed, they wouldn’t want their principals inconvenienced, although their principles seem to be flexible.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
what a load of crap from you both..
go and ring talkback..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 19th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
What exactly did I say that you dispute Phil? My pedantry over Nick’s spelling, or the Green position on the EFB?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Greens appeal to police to show more respect
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR11312.html
………………………………………………………….
What does Keith feel about the possibility of there actually being groups who are prepared to use violence?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
jh, Nick :
I haven’t seen any Greens defending the possession of unlawful guns…
Perhaps there’s a possibility that there’s a nuance between arresting people who seem to have been preparing violence (Iti and cohorts) and disrupting bread-making seminars?
Or perhaps the yeastless bread was actually plastic explosives, and the seized underwear was some sort of suicide girdle?
October 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
When Keith goes on about the appropriateness of the Police actions, how are we supposed to know he’s only referring to those against environmentalists? People are judging his comments against the possibility that the police have a live one this time (ie people who are prepared to murder for the cause)….
ps funny to hear Mrs Milosovich talking about TamaIti and his teaching youth to use guns.. its benign nature etc (which it could be)… Isn’t it she who makes veiled threats about brown faces out numbering white faces in the future and she hopes that they will treat the white people better than they were treated…
October 19th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Just an observation,
Perhaps Keith as the employer of the Police would consider the implications off an OSH charge by sending employees (Police staff) into what was considered, by their superiors, to be a dangerous workplace environment without proper safety equipment.
He would be the first to jump on on the bandwagon if a private employer (say a building company) sent their employees to work without a hard hat, steel capped boots, dayglo vest, gloves, etc. and was injured on the job due to lack of safety equipment.
Yet he would be happy to send state employees into a dangerous work place (where semi-auto weapons, molotov cocktails, etc) were (or intel said were) able to be deployed.
The state has a legal obligation to provide the safety equipment required for the police staff to operate in the workplace in safety. Just as the police staff have to wear it.
If wearing this safety equipment, (steel helmets, fire proof balaclavas, steel capped boots, and weapons for defence purposes) are intimidating, what are his suggested alternatives while still complying with the relative safety in the workplace laws?
October 20th, 2007 at 1:40 am
I think this is racist
If it was a non maori home that was raided and they found the sort of guns that were found no one would be criticizing the police. The maori have got away with far too much, from slaughtering and enslaving the occupants of the country when they arrived to now days when they have gangs which terrorize neighborhoods while bashing their children.
Not saying they are all doing this, just as not all non-maori people aren’t just saying.
As for Keithe Locke I think he should keep his criticisms to hiself until he understands the full story and stop being a bleeding heart fanatic just because he can. (not everyone is innocent)
October 20th, 2007 at 1:54 am
I think some of you rightwingers should “breathe through your nose” a little longer. I wonder why all those hundreds of police involved in this operation did not do something about all those gangs who really do have weapons which they use against other people rather than for pig and deer hunting. While all these police were busy doing this, how many burglaries, murders, rapes, domestic violence cases and child abuse cases went unattended and unsolved due to lack of police. Perhaps the police are trying to make a case for more funding.
October 20th, 2007 at 2:18 am
I ask again Nick, who exactly from the “far left” (whoever they are) or from the Green Party do you have in mind when you say they are making conspiracies and excuses for armed violence? Any what did those people actually say?
You couldn’t answer on the other thread and I bet you can’t answer now.
The Greens have certainly not. All we have done is question the behavior of the police in some of the raids and arrests they have made.
You are just seeking to make hay while the sun shines and tar us all with a violent label while you can. I’m surprised you haven’t used the word eco-terrorism yet.
October 20th, 2007 at 2:32 am
JH, “What does Keith feel about the possibility of there actually being groups who are prepared to use violence?”
According to his first PR on the subject, 3 days ago, he is “utterly against it”. Happy now? Or would you like him to suplicate himself and chant a mantra “crime is bad, criminals are bad, build more prisons, support the police, I’m tough on crime”. Would that make you happier? Does everyone who expresses an opinion on these arrests and raids have to chant that mantra to prove to you they are not a terrorist? Or is it only elected officials you require this clarification from? Or is it only Keith perhaps?
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR11301.html
October 20th, 2007 at 9:37 am
ekstatek said “(not everyone is innocent)”
Yes, but they ARE until the proven guilty in a court of law and not in a court of public opinion fueled by media hysterics and talk-back bile.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:49 am
It seems to me that Nick & others are, as is often the case in politics in general and right-wing politics in particular, looking at this as a black and white issue. Their motivations in doing this are obvious I guess, but it’s pretty weak guys. The Greens are not jumping to the defense of those who want to bear arms. Rather the Green Party comments I have seen so far are questioning the need for raiding unlikely targets such as the pensioner in Tauranga or the couple in Taupo etc. Jeanette is for example expressing geuinine concern given she knows the people in Taupo. I am sure she will exhibit even more surprise should they be found guilty by their peers of anything.
The Greens are also questioning the need for the level of force used or the need to invoke the name of Terrorist in doing what they have clearly felt needed to be done. There are plenty of laws available as many have pointed out already.
None of this make the Green Party advocates of armed struggle. That makes the Greens, as usual, concerned with due process and wanting to avoid unnecessary use of force. It would be great to hear from some Libs on this, who as far as I can tell seem strangely silent.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:56 am
“Or perhaps the yeastless bread was actually plastic explosives, and the seized underwear was some sort of suicide girdle?”
You jest but personally I’d like to hear Sam B front up and explain his (obviously evil) plans for those two avacados that got seized and then returned. No doubt they were meant for some sort of illicit foreign dish, maybe even guacamole. Given the number of known troublemakers from Central America perhaps it was premature for the police to return that bag of veg???
Mind you, I hope now they have been returned they will be put to good use in bringing down the State and it’s support of the Meat and Three Veg culture facists. The mind boggles at what evil could be caused when combined with home-made-bread.
October 20th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
BLAT … sure sounds like a terrorist weapon to me.
October 20th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
benw,
Great post ! Thanks for the well needed laugh !
There was a good turnout at the Protest Rally/ March to the Central Police Station in Christchurch today. It was a well managed and positive meeting of a large group of like-minded people of all ages … and it was interesting to watch the varying reactions of the different Police Officers who were on duty. Overall they deported themselves very well.
I thought it was a good demonstration of the fact that “we Kiwis do a lot of things well”.
Long may we continue to do so!
eredwen
October 21st, 2007 at 8:27 am
If you look at Green Party policy re Maori you’ll find the most fundamentalist version… (Very similar to far-left views).
EG (off the top of my head)
Captain Cook comes to conquer not explore
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2006/03/10/commonwealth-more-like- stolen-wealth/
No jh, it is NOT dumb - because it is the just thing to do. It is the Maori version of the treaty that the Maori agreed to, not the mistranslated english version of it and that makes it the correct version, because we came here asking them to allow us to live in this country and those are the terms that they agreed to by their own understanding.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2006/12/11/metiria-on-the-maori-pu rposes-bill/
And then there are a raft of other ideas which loosen rocks:
[ expressed as] The stockmans classification of race is “highly offensive” to Maori…
We can’t live in your culture..
we are a colonised people
It is the land alienation [paradigm] that….. [and it applies to anyone with a Maori ancestor]
holocoust (tariana didn’t mean…Holocoust!!!!)
Te Reo to be taught (anywhere anything is taught)…
Ranganui Walker and the Chatam Islands “myth”…..
Jeneatte says Maori aren’t accorded their “proper status”…. Meaning what: place in history or place in the present? Is’nt it healthier that we all have equal status???
October 21st, 2007 at 9:00 am
And I should add that it is considered that violence is a natural consequence of not honoring the treaty.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:17 am
I took great delight in smearing ripe avocado on my lunchbread at District Court on Friday.
I was not disarmed by the security present in the foyer. Neither were they alarmed by my lunch.
See
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/73908/index.php
and
http://indymedia.org.nz/feature/display/71726/index.php
for recent events as described by those who were present.
No incendiary avocados available at present, sorry.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:02 pm
JH, your attempts to make the Green Party facts fit with your theory are completely ridiculous this time. So what is the proof that you offer of Green Party policy on Maori/the treaty being “fundamentalist” and “far-left”? A link to a frogblog article, written by a guest writer, about Australian aborigines! I mean, are you incapable of noticing that that that is not relevant, and not official? Or did you just hope that no-one would follow the link and they would just read your interpretation?
The actual Greens Treaty Policy is here, by all means have a look and see if you can find some facts to fit your theory and get back to us eh?
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy5085.html
October 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
You can read the connection here:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2006/03/10/commonwealth-more-like- stolen-wealth/
As for far left, I admit that is a bit shonky, however there seems to be a correlation in views if you read anything from say Left Green Weekly:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/
and consider the histroical formation of the Green Party (GPANZ) where radicals from the Alliance Party made a prescient political investment getting themselves into parliament as list MP’s under an MMP environment.
I have a theory that the far-left see the world by a different paradigm such that anything that rocks the boat may ferment a revolution and bring about radical change.
I stand by my statement that Green Party Policy on Maori is fundamentalist… and that opinion piece from Frogblog is pretty much bang on.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Raise your voice before you lose your soul - protests across Aotearoa
http://indymedia.org.nz/feature/display/71726/index.php
or join a brass band and have fun… “um pa pa, um pa pa….”
October 21st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
The only thing that is “fermenting” here appears to be jh’s brain !
October 21st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
do you think the police found any handheld missile launchers when they raided my cousins address?
man he’s been investigated numerous times and has been under survellance for years.
remember he shot off his old double barrel on tv years ago.
but you must remember that 50% of rural maori own guns for pig hunting which is Mmmmmmlicious!
you can’t tell me that none of you have not had wild boar from one of my cousins?
if you have’nt then you are obviuosly ill equipped to call yourselves kiwi.
so what if we have a few radicals every country has them, this is not england nor are we european, no this is one of a few remaining places on earth that a man can feel safe walking his kids down the street.
to quell silly irrational pakeha fears, (1) i don’t think your giong to see us blowing ourselves up to get at ol helen
(2) what you think we’re stupid to try and wreck the machine that’s already in place?
(3)if Osama has had contact with any of us it’s because he’s living in te Awamutu he came in on a russian passport under the alias vladimir Putin hehehe
What concerns me is the way the country reacts to things that are….well obviously not national security but with actual on going real crime? are we turning into the rapacious consumer nutty monster with the advent of the massive influx of asian products,this week food prices has jumped up a dollar, and yet you still see people driving to work by themselves everyday, i pick up my mate and we toodle off to work in our underpowered diesel and this week we saw something that got us thinking.
the building manager of 45 queenstreet got angry with all of us tradesmen and our vehicles clogging up the loading zones the funny thing is he kicked out all those that came by themselves and let us park there as he said “the companies have got learn to start carpooling their men it’s a waste of gas”
he’s right
company tradesmen are the worst and the most dangerous of drivers on the roads their mentality is it’s not my vehicle and the company will pay for it be wary when you see a tradesmens van come roaring up behind you in rush hour traffic.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:05 pm
oh and political manipulation of certain political agendas makes the ordinary guy feel dirty you expect that from day to day buseness but from our own government i think maori are going to start taking an interest in the next election in just who they are electing
October 21st, 2007 at 10:47 pm
jh off the deep end yet again :
“however there seems to be a correlation in views if you read anything from say Left Green Weekly”
You do realise that they are a bunch of superannuated Trots who added “green” to their title to try to make themselves trendy again? They are not part of the Green international, I suspect they are still part of the Fourth. Besides which, they are Australian. All pretty wild and tenuous jh… As for convergence of views on any particular subject… well it’s not my fault that Hitler was a vegetarian. Grow up jh, you can keep flinging sh*t but it’s not sticking.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 am
[Excerpt from David Rounds Column in the Press 23 Oct 07]
There is a serious threat, though, the more serious because more insidious and slow. It lies in what Julien Benda called the “trahison des clercs” (the treason of the educated classes). It is a common problem wherever the blessings of civilisation are
taken for granted and insufficiently appreciated.
Articulating a deep inferiority complex, it despises European
empires and “colonialism”, and therefore naturally sides with radical Maori interpretations of the Treaty. It is rife in universities and the bureaucracy, where career success is often difficult without regular admiration ofTreaty principles. It has even infected some judges, who should be foremost in their
defence of our laws and liberties.
Our very own Chief Justice, for example, has publicly declared at this stage, fortunately, only in conference speeches that the supremacy of Parliament, which we take to be the fundamental principle of our constitution, is only an assumption- one which judges have been happy to go along with for some centuries, but which judges could, if they saw fit, overturn tomorrow. She claims that the Treaty made no mention of
parliamentary sovereignty, and so Maori never consent to that.
Judges might therefore be entitled to strike down acts of
Parliament because they breached Treaty principles.
Those principles are, of course, the vaguest of platitudes which
would enable a judge to do anything she wants. Toadies applaud and repeat her opinions. Parliament must be “bridled”. No matter that it is answerable to the people every election, and indeed every day.
None of these people would do anything as vulgar as stand
before the people for election, let alone prepare widely acceptable policies. They operate behind the scenes.
They desire irresponsible power, without elections or
accountability. For a judge, under our constitutional
arrangements, to strike down an act of Parliament would be
as much a coup d’etat as if Iti and his mates were to enter the
House of Representatives and drive the members out at
gunpoint.
Iti is just a diversion. Beware the intellectual fifth column
operating from within.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 am
“..They desire irresponsible power..”
is that the electoral finance bill you are talking about there..?
phil(whoar.co.z)
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
jeez jh, are you doing the devil’s advocate thing, or do you agree with this Rounds fellow?
He is advocating an end to the independence of the judiciary, which is an intangible taonga to me and to most thinking New Zealanders. We didn’t only inherit the “Westminster system”, which is merely the mechanics of parliamentary practice, but the principle that legislation is not the only source of rights and obligations. If you’d prefer not to have an independent judiciary, then you should go to hell/the USA. Your choice.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:39 am
I see the Terrorism Amendment Bill is back on the Agenda and due to be tabled today. I looked on the Greens website and couldn’t see anything about it. Do the Green MPs support this bill then? Are they hoping for early retirement?
October 24th, 2007 at 4:49 am
Here’s the bit you missed Buzza:
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR11251.html
“Green Party MP Keith Locke has issued a minority report opposing the foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee report on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, tabled today.” …
“Several provisions in this Bill reflect a hasty over-reaction to threats that are not directed at New Zealand, and the Bill infringes the rights of its citizens, for no discernible gain.”
October 24th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Where is this bill at now then?
October 24th, 2007 at 8:39 am
buzz: The Greens will be strongly opposing the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, just as they opposed the original Bill.
The full Select Comittee report is here.
This includes Keith Locke’s minority report, the text of which is:
“Green Party minority view
The Green member holds that several measures in the bill detrimentally affect the civil liberties of New Zealanders, a view that was backed by several submitters to the select committee.
The Green member opposed the removal of the ‘‘avoidance of doubt’’ clause in section 8 of the Terrorism Suppression Act, which allows collecting funds ‘‘for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights.’’ This is important as New Zealanders often aid liberation movements, like Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress, that are largely engaged in peaceful struggles for the rights of their people, but may also be engaged in some level of armed action or sabotage that could be defined as terrorism under the Terrorism Suppression Act. The ‘‘avoidance of doubt’’ clause helps prevent good-hearted New Zealanders aiding democracy and human rights from being turned
into criminals.
The Green member supports the New Zealand Law Society submission that a new crime, engaging in a terrorist act, should not be added to our statute books. Such terrorist behaviour is already covered by a range of offences, such as murder and kidnapping, each with heavy maximum penalties. The new terrorism offence could cause confusion among prosecutors, as to which charge to lay— engaging in a terrorist act or the underlying offence—which could
result in inconsistent sentencing and potentially double jeopardy.
The Green member agrees with Greenpeace that an additional problem with a new terrorism offence is that under the current definition in the Act, terrorism can apply to people who have no intention of harming people or destroying property. To narrow the definition he supports the Greenpeace proposal for a ‘‘terrorist act’’ to only cover ‘‘serious disruption to an infrastructure facility’’ if there is ‘‘the intention of endangering human life’’.
The Green member believes that recognised international human rights standards apply to the designation of all terrorist entities, including those coming from the United Nations Security Council. Automatic listing of Security Council designated entities could lead to injustice, in view of the recognised flaws in the Security Council designation process. The existing provisions in the Act should remain in place: namely, that United Nations Security Council information on terrorist entity designations will be regarded as ‘‘sufficient evidence’’, ‘‘in the absence of evidence to the contrary’’.
The Green member believes it is wrong to give the Executive branch of the State the entire power to both make terrorist entity designations and review them after three years. The Prime Minister is responsible for the first designation, after consultation with the Attorney-General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and is now to be responsible for the renewal of designations. Given that arguments over terrorist designations can be politically charged, the Green member supports retaining a non-political agency, the High Court, as the body to review terrorist designations after three years. He agrees with the Human Rights Commission that the logistics of High Court procedures for reviewing designations can be investigated
further, rather than removing the High Court from this role, as the bill does.
The Green member supports the provision implementing the Nuclear Terrorism Convention and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.”
The Nats have issued a minority report too - but they support the Bill. Seems their only concern is that New Zealand isn’t designating enough organisations as “terrorist”. Funny how their often-trumpeted concerns for individual rights go out the window on this issue. The Greens and the Maori Party are the only ones standing up for the freedom of the individual here.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:16 am
[Excerpt from The Press
The Press 3 August 07
One size doesn’t always fit all]
/ /
Try answering this. Do you think that the same standards of procedure should be used for all alleged offences against the public, no matter the circumstances and no matter the background context? In other words, are you the sort of person who thinks a good Western liberal democracy can remain that only if it accords to everyone, always, the same procedural safeguards? Are you motivated by a sort of one-size- fits-all absolutism, where someone accused of seeking to blow up trains or nightclubs packed with scantily clad women or of trying to poison a city’s water supply in the cause of some illiberal ideology must be accorded the same presumptions and protections as alleged house burglars or rapists?
I think the best answer to these sort of questions is an emphatic “no”. Start by remembering this. We have a criminal justice system that deliberately makes it procedurally difficult to convict people. Better that 10 or even 100 guilty people should go
free than that one innocent person should go to jail.
If there is any reasonable doubt at all, then you as a juror must say “not guilty”. If you think the accused did it, that’s not enough. If you are sure enough he did it that you would never employ him or let him near your family, that is not enough. If you figure the odds
are attractive enough that you would bet the mortgage he did it, that is still not enough.
Quite bluntly put, in our system a “not guilty” verdict means nothing of the sort. It simply means “not proven”, however much the media elides the two. In fact, we go a lot further than that in making our rules of evidence and what our police can and cannot do favourable to accused persons. We, as a society, deliberately (and in my view wisely) set up all sorts of roadblocks to stop innocent people from being convicted of criminal offences. And we do that knowing that the unavoidable side-effect of it all will be that many guilty people escape punishment. Keep quiet, get a lawyer, and there is a chance enough doubt will be raised for you to be acquitted.
/ /
James Allan is Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Habeas corpus = “one-size- fits-all absolutism”? No to torture = “one-size- fits-all absolutism”?
OK, I’m an absolutist. Are you a moral relativist, jh? Do you believe that a person accused of terrorism by someone (the Algerian government, an ambitious police commissioner, a politician looking for a distraction from their economic policies) becomes sub-human? Exempt from human rights?
Bearing in mind that you also seem to want to abolish the independence of the judiciary? Are you confident that NZ’s police and politicians can successfully skate on the slippery slope?
(Ah the poetry)
October 25th, 2007 at 5:38 am
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy5085.html
“Acknowledges the indigenous language” well isn’t it a shame we don’t really know the indigenous language of new zealand because the maori slaughtered or enslaved them a few hundred years before europeans arrived.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Thanks Toad for the info.
Last night’s news coverage answered my question also.
These are dark days for NZ with worse to come.
Imagine how many will be designated “terrorist” organisations once Key gets in.
Perhaps the Green Party website could feature an ecard campaign to help lobby against the Amendment Bill.
October 25th, 2007 at 8:02 am
# alistair Says:
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
jeez jh, are you doing the devil’s advocate thing, or do you agree with this Rounds fellow?
He is advocating an end to the independence of the judiciary, which is an intangible taonga to me and to most thinking New Zealanders. We didn’t only inherit the “Westminster system�, which is merely the mechanics of parliamentary practice, but the principle that legislation is not the only source of rights and obligations. If you’d prefer not to have an independent judiciary, then you should go to hell/the USA. Your choice.
………………………………………..
He’s talking about the judiciary deciding it can over ride parliament, as it sees fit. What might they want to do?
The Green party believes that the treaty should be honoured as it was signed. This divides Aotearoa into tribal regions where tribal leaders have tino rangitiratanga;(dominion over the beaches, harbours and fisheries and presumably anywhere where non “Tangata whenua” don’t have a legitimate property right). Honoring the Treaty is the “honorable” thing to do; failure to do so will cause an armed uprising (”bloodshed”), there are people out there now who will do it.
[And]
Indigenous peoples are an integral part of the ecosystem (Maori exercise “kaitiaki responsibilities”, which have been handed down through generations). Etc, etc.
If actions spring from ideas, the radicals in the green party are all over this one.
October 25th, 2007 at 8:08 am
It really is a bit of a worry when any or our political parties (and I include Act in this) lobby for the rights of terrorists.
Is it the Green position that we should wait for a terrorist act before we do anything about it? or are you of the opinion that we would probably deserve it for being friendly with the USA.
October 25th, 2007 at 8:14 am
I think Act are worried about any of their members extensive piles of loot being unearthed and investigated (eg after these strong winds).
October 25th, 2007 at 8:31 am
# ekstatek Says:
October 25th, 2007 at 5:38 am
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy5085.html
“Acknowledges the indigenous language� well isn’t it a shame we don’t really know the indigenous language of new zealand because the maori slaughtered or enslaved them a few hundred years before europeans arrived.
—————
Actually that is a myth ekstatek. it used to be thought that a moa hunting race were here before Maori, but later they found a merging of the two cultures in burial sites on the Wairau Bar. The conclusion was that having hunted moa to extinction Maori had to focus on growing kumara and their culture changed in accordance.
Indigenous: self introduced by wind or water Harriet Fleet. The Concise Natural History of new Zealand.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:46 am
toad said: The Greens and the Maori Party are the only ones standing up for the freedom of the individual here.
BB said: It really is a bit of a worry when any or our political parties (and I include Act in this) lobby for the rights of terrorists.
Sorry, forgot about ACT. Good to see them being consistent and supporting the freedom of individuals to go about their lawful business without being spied on, searched and have their property seized by the State. Pity that the Nats don’t have the same consistency.
BB - this has got nothing to do with “rights of terrorists” - it is the rights of ordinary New Zealanders that are under threat by this legislation.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Unfortunately terrorists etc masquerade as ordinary citizens and so necessitate spying (or checking). The problem is that people screw up, but that doesn’t mean we should abolish the process….
October 25th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Bell tolls for loopy eccentrics
THE LONG VIEW - RICHARD LONG - The Dominion Post |
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4247677a1861.html
October 25th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Toad
OK, lets accept that at face value this is going to threaten the rights of ordinary Kiwi’s, do you not see that this makes the Greens support of the EFB even more confusing.
I always thought that the Greens were consistent, you cannot claim to be worried about the rights of Kiwi’s when it suits you.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Guerrillas in our midst? No!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4245703a1861.html
Is this guy an academic or propagandist??
October 29th, 2007 at 8:17 am
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has launched a scathing attack on racial separatism, accusing protesters marching against the police terror raids a fortnight ago of supporting apartheid.
He also accused Labour and National of not having the courage to confront separatism.
Mr Peters said the hundreds of people protesting against the arrest of Tuhoe activist Tame Iti were not marching because he was guilty or innocent. That was not yet known.
“They are marching because he is brown,” Mr Peters told his party’s annual convention in Taupo.
“We once marched against apartheid, now they are marching for it.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=1047267 3
I remember being taught that nationalsim and jingoism were one of the causes of WW1……
Then there’s the example of Bosnia…….
Being in the Scotish Society is ok so long as you don’t take it too seriously, similarily Tuhoe lite is o.k but Tuhoe radical is not (IMHO)….
The past is littered with injustice but it is composted and forgotten,. Radicals however want it preservred… “we go forward by looking back” (or some such quote).
The greens seem to believe you have to go back, redress the past, and the beast will let out a satisfied sigh……. Maybe but ractions to events tend to depend on the personalities involved and at some stage someone will be saying “no”.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Winston’s just doing a bit of dog whistling. (See “The Hollow Men” - Nicky Hagar). Is he that desperate for votes?
October 29th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Peters may well be positioning. He is also right.
Sadly.