Comments on: Question time from yesterday regarding police raids

By: PeterExitsLeft

PeterExitsLeft — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:43:05 +0000

Peters may well be positioning. He is also right.

Sadly.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: buzz

buzz — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:41:02 +0000

Winston’s just doing a bit of dog whistling. (See “The Hollow Men” – Nicky Hagar). Is he that desperate for votes?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: jh

jh — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:17:17 +0000

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”.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: jh

jh — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:49:57 +0000

Guerrillas in our midst? No!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4245703a1861.html

Is this guy an academic or propagandist??

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: big bro

big bro — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:43:00 +0000

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.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: jh

jh — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:42:29 +0000

Bell tolls for loopy eccentrics
THE LONG VIEW – RICHARD LONG – The Dominion Post |
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4247677a1861.html

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: jh

jh — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:34:42 +0000

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….

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: toad

toad — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:46:45 +0000

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.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: jh

jh — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:31:06 +0000

# 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.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: jh

jh — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:14:54 +0000

I think Act are worried about any of their members extensive piles of loot being unearthed and investigated (eg after these strong winds).

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: big bro

big bro — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:08:05 +0000

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.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: jh

jh — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:02:22 +0000

# 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.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: buzz

buzz — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:59:51 +0000

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.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: ekstatek

ekstatek — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:38:52 +0000

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.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: alistair

alistair — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:53:52 +0000

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)

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: jh

jh — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:16:25 +0000

[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.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: toad

toad — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:39:58 +0000

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.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: buzz

buzz — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:40:47 +0000

Where is this bill at now then?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: alistair

alistair — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:49:20 +0000

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.”

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: buzz

buzz — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:39:32 +0000

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?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)