Amnesty reiterates its opposition to zapping people with 50,000 volts
Amnesty International has released it’s massive annual report on global human rights - you can read it here.
New Zealand takes up just half a page of this 240+ page door-stop. The report does not make for easy reading.
America, Russia and Israel bear the brunt of Amnesty’s criticisms. But it is absolutely true that we must keep our own house in order if we expect to have any credibility when we tell others how to operate. And it remains a shameful lapse that recent visits with American counterparts have not produced strong statements from our Government on the myriad of disgraceful human rights breaches at home and abroad that the US is justifying using the ‘war on terror.’
As John Edwards said, that’s a bumper sticker, not foreign policy.
The Zaoui case is a very dark stain on our human rights record - some days Frog simply can’t believe it has happened here. Read Fisk here, and wikipedia summary here.
Keith’s release is here.
Just by the by, this is a pretty crazy interview - could be a hilariuos satire from The Onion if this guy weren’t so deadly serious.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Everyone, everywhere has the right to live with dignity. That means that no-one should be denied their rights to adequate housing, food, water and sanitation, and to education and health care.
Huh - I’d always thought AI did good work, supporting political prisoners and arguing against capital punishment. When did they become overrun by socialists?
May 24th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Duncan, is there a difference between dying by capital punishment or torture and dying by malnutrition, typhoid, cholera or asthma?
The only difference I can think of is that the latter options are usually slower and more painful.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
It is about time that something was done about the terrorist Zaoui, he has no right to be in New Zealand and the sooner he is kicked out the better.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
“The Zaoui case is a very dark stain”
Agreed. He should never have been allowed in in the first place.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Bro - he is actually avery tolerant and pleasant guy - I’ve attended a few hours of his many hours of Court hearings and spoken with him on a couple of occasions.
If he wasn’t such a tolerant man, he would probably have filed a defamation suit against you by now - this is not the first time you have called him a “terrorist” on this blog, despite the fact that every judicial ruling to date has found no evidence of any terrorist activity by him and the Refugee Status Appeal Authority have found him to be a genuine refugee.
But I suppose you would still call David Bain a mass murderer too, or is there a difference between how you treat a white man brought up in realtive prosperity into the Christian faith and a brown man brought up in relative poverty into the Islamic faith? And, as we have agreed before BB, (one of the few things we do appear to agree on) neither of us have much time for Middle-eastern superstition.
Or don’t you accept the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty” BB, in which case, I guess, even Guantanamo Bay is justifiable? The terms “fascism” & “Stalinism” spring to mind, for some reason!!!
May 24th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
big bro,
There is simply no evidence that Zaoui was or is a terrorist - as the Govt. and SIS have been forced to admit. If you have some evidence, please supply it; I’m sure we’d all be fascinated to read it.
toad,
The difference is in what AI is demanding. In the former case they’re demanding that people no longer torture or execute other people. In the latter, they are demanding that one group of people be forced to pay for the food, shelter & medicine of another group.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
BTW, BB, haven’t heard much from you about the fate of Paul Wolfowitz or the impending fate of Alberto Gonzales. Thought these guys were your heroes!
Just waiting now for federal charges to be brought against Rove over the email scandal and impeachment proceedings against Cheney for lying to Congress about the weapons of mass destruction. That will take the smirk off the face of the Smirking Chump.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
toad,
In fairness, we haven’t heard much from left-wing commentators about Chavez since he started going public with his totalitarianist goals. I recall I/S gloating about his election victory a while back, but since the nationalisation of industries and food shortages, things have been a bit quiet
Who was it who said “I can’t be a Democrat because I want to spend my own money; I can’t be a Republican because I want to spend it on women and drugs?”
May 24th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Toad
I do not care if he is a “tolerant and pleasant guy”, the man has terrorist links and has no place in our country.
Actually I find it interesting that you should say he is tolerant, if you ask me the only people who are being tolerant are the people of NZ who have to put up with this guy in our country.
As for the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty, I do agree with that, but the point is that he should go home (to the family he says he misses soooooooo much) and face a trail there, it is not our place to judge the man.
As for Bain, he is as guilty as sin, I cannot believe that you think he is innocent, I guess you stop thinking logically whenever a cause is taken up by the left.
It seems that the entire left wing media (led by Comrade Campbell) have turned into “Bainiacs”, have a look at the facts Toad, it all points to David Bain.
There must be another trial, and after Bain is found guilty he should be sent back to prison for the rest of his life.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
big bro,
> it is not our place to judge the man.
By refusing him entry, that is *explicitly* what you are doing. Besides, if he is seeking entry into the country it is our place to judge him. And guess what? We’ve judged him, and AFAIK, he’s not a terrorist.
As I’ve said, if you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
big bro - I have to side with the Greens on this - Zaoui was trying to set up peace talks in Rome while massacres from both sides were going on in Algeria, and France was effectively turning a blind eye -
In fact France was even assisting the very violent Algerian Govt by rounding up any oposition members who were in exile (including democratically elected MPs like Zaoui).
It’s amazing what you can get away with when you have oil.
Which ties in nicely with Toads comment about Cheney - every time I hear Roger Waters “The Bravery of Being out of Range”, I laugh cause it’s got to be about Cheney, even if it was writen 15 years ago….
“Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
Hey bartender, over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They’re really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range…”
May 24th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
BB - Actually, I didn’t care much about Bain’s fate for a long time - and really wasn’t convinced that he should not have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt (which is different from being innocent obn the balance of probabilities) until I read the Privy Council judgment.
I’m actually much more concerned that other individuals, notably Peter Ellis and David Tamihere, were wrongly convicted on the basis of fabricated or tainted evidence and prejudice against them because Ellis is gay and Tamihere is a convicted rapist, and those facts were made well known by Police/media to the public before their respective trials.
As for Scott Watson (and I have read the evidence presented at trial), his case is a total perversion of justice. No-one should ever be convicted on evidence as equivocal as that. Even if he did do it, the test remains “beyond reaonable doubt”, and there is no way the evidence can lead to that conclusion. But he is a mysogynist loser with a bad attitude towards women, whom I would probably also dislike intensely if I ever met him, so was easily set up and convicted.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:11 am
big bro - Bain.
There was a headmaster about to be outed for incest - about to be completety and totally humiliated in society and his community - about lose his career, his family, social status, and was facing the terrifying prospect of being locked away in prison for years.
Or we have David, who apparently decided on the very same day Robin Bain was about to go down, to suddenly kill his family despite having no known reason to do so. Even more bizarrely, for some reason delivering papers became more iimportant than killing his family so he stopped what he was doing and went and did that for an hour or so. Once the papers were delivered he got back to finishing off his secondary task of wiping out his family. Then he rang the police.
And world-wide 85% of similar cases all happen to be murder-suicide.
For David to be guilty, we have to disregard the highly likely scenario that happens everywhere else, and beleive some truely bizarre set of events with no reason or motive behind them.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:46 am
I have no idea whether Bain is guilty or not but he does deserve a fair trial, and he hasn’t had one yet.
As I understand it Zaoui is likely to be tortured if sent back to Algeria, which is just one of the many reasons why he’s still here.
Anyway, I came here to say that the Robert Fisk link is dead. Can someone please fix that?
May 25th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
SouthernDave said: Which ties in nicely with Toads comment about Cheney - every time I hear Roger Waters “The Bravery of Being out of Rangeâ€?, I laugh cause it’s got to be about Cheney…
Dave, you missed the first half of the lyrics, which I think are even better (and have got to be about Cheney too):
“You have a natural tendency
To squeeze off a shot
You’re good fun at parties
You wear the right masks
You’re old but you still
Like a laugh in the locker room
You can’t abide change
You’re at home on the range
You opened your suitcase
Behind the old workings
To show off the magnum
You deafened the canyon
A comfort a friend
Only upstaged in the end
By the Uzi machine gun
Does the recoil remind you
Remind you of sex
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
I looked over Jordan and what did I see
Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris
I swam in your pools
And lay under your palm trees
I looked in the eyes of the Indian
Who lay on the Federal Building steps
And through the range finder over the hill
I saw the front line boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find
On their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range
Yeah the question is vexed
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
…”
May 25th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
tammy91 said: I came here to say that the Robert Fisk link is dead. Can someone please fix that?
Yep, Google finds the same link, so guess the Independent must have removed the story. But I think it’s the same article that is here.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Fisk is dead? Was he stoned by Muslims with better aim than the last mob to stone him? Did he beg forgiveness from his attackers in his dying breaths?
Oh wait, it’s just the link. Never mind
May 25th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Why wasn’t the ammendment to sect 59 not mentioned?
On the issue of tasers, I never saw one volunteer (as in police) get tasered on the chest, on the tv examples all were tasered on the back, not where the police would normally taser their victim.
Linda Axford
May 25th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
What is it about the Green Party that makes opposition to Tazers a done deal? The Green Charter principle of “Non Violence” is not sufficient explanation (IMHO).
I heard an interview featuring a “human rights lawyer” and the lawyer for the Sensible Sentencing Trust recently. The lawyer for the Sensible sentincing trust pointed out that he was also a “human rights lawyer”…for the victims of crime…Good Point!
Was it Geofrey Palmer who decided prison shouldn’t be for punishment??
jh
May 25th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
jh,
I think non-violence about covers it, actually. From what I can tell from my discussions with Green supporters, they don’t consider self-defense a human right. Thus, they are particularly antagonistic towards armed self defense, regardless of the weapon (knife, gun, pepper spray, or Tazer).
I also have a suspicion that the Green tradition of protesting makes them leery of the Police having access to relatively* safe weapons to deploy against the rowdier of their number.
* It’s never safe to employ violence against another; even pushing a man can cause his death if he falls badly & strikes his head. Some means (Tazers) are less likely to lead to death than others (firearms) however.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
For those who don’t know, it is taser, not tazer.
From Wikipedia:
The name Taser is an acronym: “Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle”
Linda Axford
May 25th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Duncan - I am a Green supporter but must admit that I have long struggled to reconcile the Green principle of “non-violence” with my own instincts for self-defense, and more generally self-preservation.
Self-defense, to me at least, is a reaction against external human threats, which makes it part of the broader subset of biological instincts that is comomonly referred to as self-preservation. In some instances self-preservation and self-defense can only be realised through violently negating the threat, which is seen throughout the biological world.
The only way I can incoporate the Green principle of nonviolence into this instinctive appreciation of the need for self-defense is by drawing on another Green principle of “appropriate decision making.” Hybridising the principles of “appropriate decision-making” and “non-violence” suggests that in certain situations it is entirely “appropriate” for innocent individuals to decide that their lives’ are threatened, and subsequently resort to violent self defense.
Combining “appropriate decision-making” and “non-violence” allows for some nuanced interpretations of what is acceptable under the heading of self-defense:
1. The risk to the individual must be direct and real
2. The act of self-defense must be commensurable with what is required to guarantee self-preservation. This would seemingly rule out the use of firearms, which have a high likelihood of exterminating the offending individual. Tasers, on the other hand, appear to be an appropriate non-lethal technology.
Naturally it may be difficult in some instances to define exactly the types of actions and situation that violent self-defense is “appropriate.” These situations, however, are likely to be best dealt with using judicial discretion rather than principles or ideologies.
May 26th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
The unwritten principle in the charter is “Survival”. Since it isn’t in the charter it leads to some less than appropriate decision making at both the party and the policy levels. Is the omission intentional? It could be. There is a certain subtle genius in forcing people to leave off considering person, person or national when taking a decision.
It’d be a subtle person to think that way though.
respectfully
BJ
May 26th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Stu,
2. The act of self-defense must be commensurable with what is required to guarantee self-preservation. This would seemingly rule out the use of firearms, which have a high likelihood of exterminating the offending individual.
But it’s simply not possible to physically attack someone in a way that doesn’t risk their life. Remember that ‘pacifist’ who was jailed a while back for punching someone who fell, landed badly, & wound up in a coma?
If you argue against the legal use of lethal force in self-defense, you’re arguing that the victim should increase the risk to his or her life, in order to decrease the risk to the life of the criminal. That’s simply not just. If I attack you, you have the right to repulse that attack, and if I get hurt or killed, then quite simply I shouldn’t have attacked you in the first place.
And it’s not just murderous attacks for which handguns are an effective defense. Consider the stats for stranger rape:
“Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department’s annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes.”
Those and other tidbits are listed in Firearms and Self-Defense which I wrote a few years ago, after changing my mind on the issue (I used to be quite anti-gun in my youth).
You might also want to check out Gun Facts for some info on common gun-control myths. In particular, it addresses the defensive use of firearms. When firearms are used to defend against crime (at least in the USA), the criminal is only wounded 8% of the time, and killed only 0.1% of the time - in other words, brandishing is usually enough to solve the problem, without a shot being fired. Those are pretty good stats for a lethal weapon
May 27th, 2007 at 9:46 am
I am not arguing against the lethal use of force. I am arguing that firearms are not the most appropriate way to incapacitate human threats to individual safety.
The end goal of self-defense is self preservation. From your statistics firearms appear relatively effective at ensuring self-preservation. However, the 8.1% casualty rate must be considered an unintended consequence of the act of self-defense.
We must stop and ask whether there are other technologies available that are at least as effective as firerarms in deterring attacks and or incapacitating attackers, which provide for self-defense but with reduced probability of unintended injuries.
Finally, stating that its “simply not possible to physically attack someone in a way that does not risk their life” is a disingenious and logically flawed way of justifying unlimited use of force for the purposes of self-defense.
Imagine an experiment where both a Taser and a firearm are repeatdely and randomly discharged at hman subjects. On average, the risk of resultant permament injury or death would be far lower for the Taser than the firearm. Assuming that it’s effectiveness at incapacitating people is equal to firearms the Taser would appear to be a more appropriate technology for self-defense than firearms.
May 27th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
- “America, Russia and Israel bear the brunt of Amnesty’s criticisms.”
I think that’s all we need to know.
China, North Korea, the vile regimes of the Middle East?
I used to have a lot of sympathy for AI. Sadly they are now just another NGO with a lefty agenda. They’re like Greenpeace without the inflatable boats.
- “The Zaoui case is a very dark stain on our human rights record”
I understood he was free to go any time he wanted. That doesn’t strike me as a “very dark stain”, at least not when put in context.
There are hundreds of millions of oppressed people in the world: every Chinese citizen and every female in the Islamic world, for starters. Given that it’s none of my business who lives next door to me, I’d let as many of them come to live in New Zealand as could afford to buy some land and support themself.
If you aren’t advocating this general right then you are not putting forward any argument at all, you’re just pleading that the residence rules you ordinarily support be bent for a mate.
May 27th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
MW - there is a slight discrepancy between your attitude to Zaoui and your relaxed attitude to immigration. Zaoui has not been allowed to pursue his individual goals, which is what you appear to endorse.
Saying he is “free to go anytime he wanted” is not the same as saying that he was treated fairly.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:17 am
If the quotes in Gaurdian are acurate the main reason USA has been lumped in with Israel and Russia is essentially that Amnesty regards USA as so big and powerful that it must act as role model for the rest of the world, and therefore must do much better than every other country.
A situation that may be better appreciated (negatively) by women than men.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:32 am
Stu
I do not care if Zaoui has been treated “fairly” or not, the man has been bludging off the NZ tax payer for years and it is about time it stopped.
Zaoui often says he is missing his family terribly, if this is indeed the case why does he not jump on a plane and go and visit them?
May 28th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Do the Greens ever poll their members (70.000) on issues? I suspect that the process of having small groups decide policy etc, could lead to a situation where a few control a many?
jh
May 28th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Hasn’t helen Clark seen the “secret evidence”?……she’s no liberal.
jh
May 28th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Actually I was in the bank and a women came in wearing a chador(?) and I thought “bank robber”, then I came to my senses and I wondered if we aren’t going too far……..what would Kate Sheppard think???
There has been a shift in thinking in the UK, I understand.
jh
May 28th, 2007 at 10:46 am
“Zaoui often says he is missing his family terribly, if this is indeed the case why does he not jump on a plane and go and visit them?”
If you mean “why doesn’t he go home”: maybe it’s because the military regime in Algeria would torture him to death. Bit of an obstacle, really.
Zaoui’s party (which was islamist) won the elections in Algeria. He was elected as an MP. The military took over to prevent an islamist govt taking power.
Many thousands have died since, mostly killed by pro-military death squads (which seem largely to consist of members of the military). Many also have been killed by pro-islamist terrorist groups. The military claim that every single one of the elected islamist MPs they depose is a member of one of those terrorist groups. There appears no evidence for that beyond them saying so. But the NZ SIS seems to believe them.
May 28th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Isn’t there any islamic country that protects human rights?. It seems to me to be a case of either or in Algeria > they will kill the islamistists or the islamists will kill them (the present regime)?. While it is flattering that Zauoi wants refuge here it doesn’t mean he likes us, his party supports sharia law.
jh
May 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Icehawk
I don’t care where he goes as long as he is kicked out of our country immediately.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
jh said: Do the Greens ever poll their members (70.000) on issues? I suspect that the process of having small groups decide policy etc, could lead to a situation where a few control a many?
The Greens do even better than poll their members - the members actually make the policies. Each policy area goes out to the entire membership for between 2 and 4 membership consultation and feedback rounds. The objective is to get a consensus from the membership on the policy. This doesn’t necessarily mean everyone agreeing (that would be an impossibility in any political party), but does mean no-one disagreeing sufficiently strongly that they will block the consensus. Very rarely a provincial vote will occur on a policy issue to resolve an issue where no consensus can be achieved.
May 28th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Stu,
I think we’re mostly in agreement on the principles here. I’m not trying to argue for unlimited use of force for self defense - there are obvious limits, such as stopping the use of force when the threat is no longer present, and using no more force than is necessary to prevent the attack without further endangering the victim.
Why I raise the point about the dangers of the use of force is to point out that the victim should be under no obligation to use less effective means in order to reduce the risk to the assailant - because to do so would be increasing the risk to the victim. If the victim chooses to do so, that’s up to him or her - and there are many scenarios when I personally would make that choice, just as there are many scenarios where I would not.
As far as the effectiveness of Tasers vs. handguns - there are a few issues with them that can significantly reduce their effectiveness. Things like layers of clothing and drug use can reduce the effectiveness of a Taser. Plus with the ranged devices, you only get one shot; not so useful if you miss, or if you are faced with multiple assailants.
Personally, I’d like it if Tasers were legal for civilian use & carry; it would be nice if there was something on the market that presented another step in the force spectrum in-between striking weapons like kubotans, and blade weapons like knives.
However, it simply isn’t true that Tasers are as effective at stopping attacks as firearms.
May 28th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I was in the Wellington Library this morning.
Some idiot was causing a commotion. Swearing at the top of his voice - possibly high on something. The police were called. He continued. “Nazis…racists…this is a library!” - shouting at the top of his voice. There was a scuffle. Library shelves went flying. They arrested him. It took four police officers five minutes to just get handcuffs on this guy. Even then he was kicking and thrashing as he was escorted out, reminding everyone, loudly, of his rights and how put upon he was . The police showed a great deal of restraint. They didn’t use a Taser.
I would have….
May 28th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
They could have done something like this:
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=node/4212
jh
May 29th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Big Bro - If he was to leave NZ, first he would have to get a passport from the same people he is fleeing from - duh !
May 30th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
davey
All we do is send him back to his last port of call, failing that we can issue him with a temporary NZ passport.
And as I understand it the people he supposedly fleeing from have told him he is safe to return home, that he chooses to stay here is strange behavior for a man who is apparently missing his family.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
BB, I think you replied to the wrong dave there lol
May 30th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Yep…sorry about that old chap.