Brash and Zaoui
One of the interesting revelations in Nicky Hager’s book is that Don Brash was of the view that the case against Zaoui was “flimsy”.
“Guys, I have to say that, after reading some of the stuff on the case today…I am absolutely appalled at the way it has been handled. I think the evidence that Zaoui is a security risk is extremely flimsy.” (Oct 2004)
He apparently thought Zaoui’s case should be reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committtee. As Leader of the Opposition he was a member of the ISC, which is a closed committee chaired by the PM with a membership of the PM, the Leader of the Opposition and three other MPs (two chosen by the PM and one by the Leader of the Opposition). The ISC is supposed to oversee the security services. Unfortunately it appears that Richard Long convinced Brash that once again he should hide his views in the interests of political expediency and Brash didn’t pursue it.
As Leader of the Opposition Brash would have had access to at least some of the classified information about Zaoui and yet he still thought the case against Zaoui unconvincing. And yet still Zaoui is living in limbo, waiting for the review of his case while his family are overseas.
Of course while Brash may have chickened out of telling the truth of his views on Zaoui, it is Labour that is fundamentally to blame for what’s happened to Zaoui.
December 17th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
You’re comparing Brash’s private thoughts with Labour’s “public” face. I’m sure that many Labour MPs had similar apprehensions.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:01 am
and russell..?..your point is..?
so..still with the brash..eh..?
um..aren’t there some current and future ‘issues’ you could/should be focussing on/talking about/writing about….?
as stuey pointed out…all this stuff has gone down..
and nothing from frog world.?…
‘cept yet another moan about yesterdays’ man..?
whoar..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 18th, 2006 at 6:45 am
Focus on current policies and the next election.
For the money spent on lawyers for Zaoui we could have had a new Kopu bridge.
Where are our priorities.
Brash has gone. Hager’s book is in the christmas bargain bin already.
December 18th, 2006 at 6:47 am
PS
Zaoui is free to leave and join his family. Or does the New Zealand tax payer have to pay the fare as well?
December 18th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Hmmmm….. I think Gerrit and Phil may well have a point.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Meanwhile the western world is on high alert as the peace loving Muslim people plan a new terror attack at the height of the Xmas rush.
This man Zaoui does not belong in NZ and should be sent home immediately, when I think of the (tax payer) money spent on this man and how it could have been spent on far more important things it makes my bloody boil.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:31 am
So let me get this straight. It’s OK to deport a refugee back to the country he’s escaping from (or to another country from whence he’s likely to be deported back in his original country) where he’s likely to face imprisonment and/or torture and death for non-violently opposing the regime? I don’t think that’s a Green thing to do. It might be a Labour and NZ Last thing to do, and it might be a thing that National will turn a blind eye to, but I don’t think the Greens are like that.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Oh yes, and not forgetting that the case against this refugee is based on secret evidence that the refugee and his lawyers are not allowed to see and which most likely is sourced from the regime he is non-violently trying to change or by the regime’s sponsor nation (in this case France).
December 18th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Russell
Yes it is OK, he is NOT our problem, I do not care if he is a security risk or not as far as I am concerned we cannot afford to take the chance.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:16 am
I would have thought by now that Zaoui and his supporters could see that this government (and possibly any future ones) are not going to do anything and that he will stay cloistered (pardon the bad pun) up for ever? His family getting permission to reside here is almost zero.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:24 am
“Meanwhile the western world is on high alert as the peace loving Muslim people plan a new terror attack at the height of the Xmas rush.”
Hadn’t noticed many muslims planning attacks, the tiny minority doing so are no more typical of muslims than the murderous IRA were typical of peace loving Christians.
“This man Zaoui does not belong in NZ and should be sent home immediately, when I think of the (tax payer) money spent on this man and how it could have been spent on far more important things it makes my bloody boil. ”
It was the people trying to send him home that cost us most of the money.
“I do not care if he is a security risk or not as far as I am concerned we cannot afford to take the chance.”
Maybe we should deport Big Bruv? I have no reasion to suppose he is a security risk, but then why take the chance?
December 18th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Well said Sam!
December 18th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
All of this argument without the benefit of the real information used to make the decision about the security risk certificate. Let’s just see what the Inspector General says. He and he alone will determine whether he evidence relied on for the risk certificate justifies it’s imposition. In the meantime, I think Dr Brash has claimed much of the stuff reported in Hager is twisted or simply made up. I would be more reliant on what Brash has said publicly on the case. I think the Hager material is too disputable.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
“He and he alone will determine…”
That’s just the problem, isn’t it?
December 18th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Sam
The “tiny minority” as you say are well supported by the vast majority who will do NOTHING to help the authorities stop them.
As for Zaoui, please stop telling fibs, it is not the people who want him sent home that are costing us, it is the likes of Mrs Manning (who would of heard of her had it not been for legal aide?) and her misguided support group who want this security risk in our country…..as for me, I suspect your last comment is exactly what would happen should the hard left ever actually be allowed to do what the really want.
December 18th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Zaoui very much belongs here. He was accepted as a genuine refugee by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, the very body put in place by successive National and Labour governments to make such decisions. Indeed, the RSAA is actually a very hard body to get such a favourable decision from; it declines 80% of the cases it sees.
The case against Zaoui is unbelievably dodgy with French and possibly American fingerprints all over it. Those that claim he is a threat have, it seems, been duped again by the Western propaganda machine.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
What Big Bruv duped?
Never !!
Us peace loving pro-American-bomb-the-shit-outta-Saddam (and whoever else gets in the way) types could never be duped - we’re believers.
Don’t trust any of those pesky Muslims eh BB?
I don’t think those hard lefties would ever want to deport you BB, what would they do for entertainment then?
December 18th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
M
So you are happy to let in people with terrorist links then?…look if the Yanks and the Frogs say he is dodgy then that should be enough for us.
We cannot and should not take the risk.
I do not want my country turning into a state that harbor terrorists just so Mrs Manning and other anarchists can claim a victory over the state.
If this Zaoui is such a “good and decent man” why the hell does he not return to his family now? after all his safety has been guaranteed.
Or perhaps life is a bit too easy here.
December 18th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Right,
If I was Zaoui’s terrorist mastermind contoller (and, I shouldn’t have to say that I don’t think one exists) I’d be telling him to get the hell out of NZ, stop wasting time, get the peace loving muslim people ruling Algeria to send him to Iraq and to blow himself up beside the first westerner he can find.
What the hell do you people think is so important that it’s worth a terrorist blowing his cover wide open, wasting years of his life getting refugee status in New Zealand and being watched by security services for the rest of his life.
Deep cover for the Rugby World Cup?
Some people really are refugees. Some people really are smeared by security services, even those of democracy loving allies of NZs.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Excellent! Thank you for that Pip!
December 19th, 2006 at 7:08 am
Pip
You over look that Zaoui has been told he is free to return home, he is free to rejoin his family, he is free to stop wasting tax payer money.
Some people tell lies about who they are, some people have hidden agenda’s…….Muhammad Atta anybody?
Look you are probably right, the man is PROBABLY not a terrorist, but he is also NOT a kiwi, he is now free to return and should be put on the first plane out of here.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Except, since refugee status was granted, I’d say he is a “Kiwi”
December 19th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Kiwi is when you have a NZL passport, no?
December 19th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Big bruv would probably have wanted to deport me as well. I arrived from the UK in 1974 but did not take out NZ citizenship until 1981. There is no evidence at all that I am a security threat, but then again why take the risk. I must be dodgy after all because I oppose the war in Iraq. And someone with a British accent who opposes vivisection and animal abuse must of course be affiliated to the ALF!
Kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz
December 19th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
“If this Zaoui is such a “good and decent manâ€? why the hell does he not return to his family now? after all his safety has been guaranteed.”
Guaranteed by whom? The Algerian Government? Are you seriously telling us we should trust the word of those murderous bastards?
“look if the Yanks and the Frogs say he is dodgy then that should be enough for us.”
Ha ha - that’s a joke, right? I’ve got a clipping some where quoting the French embassy the day after the Rainbow Warrior bombing stating hand on heart that they would never stoop to terrorism and somebody else must have done it… Shame to see you taking the cringing “us Kiwi’s are just a little country and we should do as we are told by our betters” line, Big Bruv - I would genuinely have expected better of you.
By the way, I was joking about deporting you as a security risk - it was aimed at your comment that you don’t care if Zaoui is a security risk or not. There is no way on earth I ever want to have you deported or be in a position to do so. I’ll happily leave the pursuit of power to those peculiar individuals who enjoy it.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Kiore1,
How did you get off so lightly? Can we retrospectively spend a lot of money trying to prove that you’re a security risk and still get you thrown out of the country?
Of course, any money that we did spend in this worthy cause would be entirely the fault of any lawyers springing up to defend your rights and not the fault of those of us who are trying to get you deported - regardless of how flimsy the evidence (eh Big Bruv?).
December 19th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Kiore
If you are dodgy for being somebody who is passionately against animal abuse and anti vivisection the we do indeed share some common ground, because on that subject I am as about as dodgy as it gets.
Very little in todays world would make me feel capable of murder (I guess you see so many bad things on the TV that you become cold) apart from Animal abuse and those vivisection scumbags, if you line them up I would happily run the buggers over in my big shinny 4WD.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Kiwinuke
And of course your evidence to the contrary is compelling?
Send him home!…hell send the man first class and I will pay.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Oops, sorry Big Bruv - I was relying on one of those dodgy emails as reported in the Hollow Men reporting that even dodgier Don Brash who (reportedly) said that the evidence against Ahmed was flimsy.
Guess there’s plenty of room for doubt in there. Either over Brash’s assessment or Hager’s reporting of it.
Can’t be any doubt if our good mates Bomber Sam and Limpet Frenchie say he’s a bad’un though eh? We both know about the latter’s well founded reputation for honesty over claims of terrorism as Sam pointed out above.
We’re also well aware I guess by now of Uncle Bomber Sam’s fantastic intelligence record on detecting when terrorists are in your country learning to fly planes (but not land them). Yep, they were really on the ball. You’d be nuts not to rely on them eh?
December 19th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Kiwinuke
Just as I thought, you have no evidence to the contrary do you, just an overwhelming hatred of all things American.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Well big bruv, it is usual for anyone pro animal rights to be right wing on other issues, but I guess it is not logically inconsistent. And if you can persuade the National party to put forward a good animal rights policy then I will even vote for them although I disagree with just about all their other policies.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Keep living in your world of delusion BB, you have absolutely no idea about my views on “all things American”.
The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from my above statement is that I think the US war on Iraq is a disaster (and unjustified) and the US intelligence services were incompetent on 9/11. A lot of Americans (many of them Republicans) share these views.
If Don Brash’s own assessment of the evidence are insufficient for you too bad. He had access to the evidence and I’m willing to take his views on that seriously as he had nothing to gain politically from coming to that conclusion (as was shown by his decision not to pursue the issue).
You do like to jump to coclusions and assume everyone else is as biased and judgemental as you are eh sweetie?
December 20th, 2006 at 12:18 am
Hehehe kiwinuke, I am amused by the reasoning that no evidence to the affirmatory holds more weight than no evidence to the contrary.
Can’t you just imagine BB as Judge in the “One Rule For All” court where everyone is guilty until proved innocent.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Big bruv says You over look that Zaoui has been told he is free to return home.
I guess you would have counseled Hussein Kamal to return to Baghdad in 1996. Maybe taking the word of those from whom refuge is being sought from isn’t always the logical step.
Can’t get it right every time, can you.
December 21st, 2006 at 8:07 am
zANavAShi Says:
December 20th, 2006 at 12:18 am
Hehehe kiwinuke, I am amused by the reasoning that no evidence to the affirmatory holds more weight than no evidence to the contrary.
Can’t you just imagine BB as Judge in the “One Rule For All� court where everyone is guilty until proved innocent.
Don’t be silly Zan, but I can tell you one thing…..the excuse of “he/she had a terrible upbringing and there fore should not go to prison your Honor” would not wash with me.
There would be one rule in my court…you do the crime, you do the time, and scum like Chrsi Kahui would NOT be out on bail thats for sure.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:50 pm
BB,
I don’t think zaN was being silly, just pointing out that earlier in this post you had been.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I am surprised that Keith Locke has the cheek to expect Zaoui’s family to be allowed in to NZ, given that we have not been able to get rid of him I sure as hell do not want the rest of his family here costing us a fortune.
For a man who is supposedly missing his family I find his behaviour strange, he is free to leave at any time as far as I am aware, mind you I suppose that is the last thing his lawyer would want him to do.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
i don’t get this climate change thinmg fwwog please ecxplain
February 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
“Immigration Minister David Cunliffe has decided the family of Ahmed Zaoui cannot come to New Zealand while the Algerian refugee’s security risk certificate review is being determined.
“As Mr Zaoui’s own status in New Zealand is yet to be determined, I have decided that it is not appropriate that his family should be allowed to come here,” Mr Cunliffe said.
“I have made this decision without prejudice to any final decision on Mr Zaoui or his family. I can make no further comment on this matter.”
It is not often that I will ever congratulate a Labour minister but on this he deserves it.