Civil liberties form the basis for a working democracy

Search and Surveillance Bill Submission by New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties

Civil liberties form the basis for a working democracy

Far from promoting people’s civil liberties and human rights, the Bill has very few measures to protect those rights, and a large number of measures that can be exploited to infringe those rights, not only of people suspected of committing criminal acts, but also others inadvertently caught up in the activities. Enforcement agencies should be given powers of search, seizure and especially surveillance very sparingly and with limits and safeguards to ensure they are only used for the particular purposes of the agency. The agencies must not be given open powers such as proposed in this legislation. It is the role of parliament to support, promote and protect civil liberties.


Civil liberties form the basis for a working democracy. This Bill constitutes a failure of Parliament to undertake its core function, the protection of the rights of the people it serves. Search and Surveillance Bill 2009 1. Search and Surveillance Bill 2009 There is no denying the need for some clarity and consistency regarding operations and procedures relating to search, seizure and surveillance in New Zealand. In some respects the Search and Surveillance Bill does a good job in making explicit procedures to be followed and parameters of the powers of police and other law enforcement agencies. The Bill gives effect to the Law Commission report, including the extension of the law to meet new electronic communication processes. However the Bill does much more than consider clarity and consistency, or extending to electronic communication the powers in existing law.

It provides police with rights to stop and search vehicles without warrant, to require operators of computers to provide access to all files, it compels people to provide evidence, and permits unwarranted surveillance of businesses and home addresses. The most serious challenge to civil liberties is however that all agencies engaged in enforcement activities will be covered by the same extensive search and surveillance powers as the police and customs. The agencies covered by this include government departments (Department of Labour and Immigration, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Fisheries, Department of Social Welfare/WINZ, Customs), Crown entities (Accident Compensation Commission, Civil Aviation Authority), local authorities (Auckland City Council), or other bodies (NZ Food Standards Authority) that employ or engage enforcement officers. This massive extension of the powers of these agencies has been undertaken not because of need but in the name of ‘consistency’. 2. Balancing civil liberties and security In the Law Commission report, and in parliamentary and public discussion on the Bill, there has been much talk of getting the balance right between civil liberties and security. NZCCL submits that in reality this argument is used only when civil liberties are being eroded. Only rarely in New Zealand history has legislation increased people’s civil liberties or reduced the coercive powers of the State.

Over the last few years, in the name of the ‘war against terrorism’ there has been, in New Zealand, as across the industrialised countries, massive increase in the powers of the state to intrude on the rights of people. This Bill, in the name of creating consistency between government agencies, in fact constitutes another step in a major assault on the traditional rights of New Zealanders, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights Act. It provides a range of law enforcement agencies, and especially the police, with search, seizure and surveillance powers that can be used indiscriminately and with little accountability. 3. The Bill in context The Bill needs to be seen in the context of a plethora of other acts that have been passed during the last few years in the name of ‘the war on terrorism’, including the Terrorism Suppression (Bombings and Finances) Act, the Crimes Amendment Act, the Border Security Act, the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, the Police Act, and many others. The effect of these has been to greatly expand the powers of the police, the SIS and the GCSB to use classified information, to use surveillance, to arrest and detain people under suspicion of terrorism. At the same time the rights of those people to silence and to non-self-incrimination, to access to the information about them, and to legal remedies has been reduced. Some of the legislation has been made exempt from the Bill of Rights Act.

It is clear that similar legislation has been used in other Western countries (including USA, Canada and England) to spy on minority communities and protest groups. There is considerable evidence that that also happens in this country. Recently released information confirms that the SIS has spied on New Zealanders' lawful behaviour and private lives for many decades. We know that different police units have also spied on political activists for many years. The number of units and their surveillance of activist groups and individuals have expanded as the police gained new resources and powers under the ‘anti-terrorism’ laws. Police entities such as the Strategic Intelligence Unit, Threat Assessment Unit and Special Investigation Group feed information into a super-spy group known as the Combined Threat Assessment Group that also includes the SIS, Defence force, GSCB, DPMC. There is no effective public accountability for their activities. Given the blurred boundary line between political activism, criminal offending, threats to security and terrorism, more search and surveillance powers for the police will inevitably feed into this network, and the extension of those powers to other enforcement agencies signals the advent of a society where people can no longer feel themselves safe to express themselves openly.

This Bill, then, is not only a covert and major extension of the powers of surveillance and search to a large number of other government agencies, but is part of a system that has gradually been introduced that suppresses dissent and minority views. 3. The role of government The Bill calls into question the role of a government in a democracy, and the sort of country we would like to see in the future. In the news we see on a day-to-day basis the effects of governments that ally with law enforcement agencies to produce ever more sophisticated processes to combat crime. We know that in those countries with the most oppressive regimes crime has become endemic, and the government uses the measures they have introduced to spy on and oppress dissenting voices and minority groups. In a democracy, it is not the role of the government to ‘balance civil liberties and security’ but to ensure that civil liberties are maintained, even if it may make law enforcement more difficult. Otherwise the government itself becomes oppressive.

The Law Commission report spends considerable time discussing what constitutes ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’. NZCCL considers that this Bill intrudes on the reasonable expectation of privacy as outlined in Section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act : “…to be secure from unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence, or otherwise”. 4. Law by stealth Although it has been sold as a rationalisation of the search, seizure and surveillance powers or a range of existing government agencies (described in up to 50 other pieces of legislation) the Bill in fact increases the power of most of those agencies, to the extent that any of them may use surveillance equipment, seize and copy documents without consent, and require both work and private computer documents to be opened.

The Bill also increases the power of police to conduct car and house searches without warrant, to seize property that may be incidental to a search warrant, and charge people who fail to cooperate. In effect the Bill removes the right of people not to incriminate themselves, by making it a requirement that the operator of a computer open up files to the police. It makes it very easy for all agencies to go on fishing expeditions, and makes it hard for suspects to appeal, because their rights to view evidence against them are diminished. It is the view of NZCCL that changes as substantial as these need to be subject to public debate, instead of being hidden in a complex bill that is promoted as doing administrative tidying up. The Bill challenges the rights and freedoms that are at the heart of our democracy. 5. No case for the increase in powers No strong case has been made, either in the Law Commission report or in the subsequent discussion, for the increase in the powers of the State to search cars and houses without warrant, to seize personal property, to flout laws relating to privilege, to use a range of surveillance measures with little accountability, and to charge people who fail to cooperate.

The argument for increasing such powers has been made in the context of creating consistency between agencies, not based around clear evidence of need. 6. The role of the police The Law Commission report makes various benign statements about the role of the police and other law enforcement agencies: “Law enforcement agencies exist ultimately to protect rather than to control the community” (p.23); “The police and other law enforcement agencies are, after all, meant to be of the people for the people” (p.37). It considers that the police are not opposed to civil liberties but wish to protect them. It is the experience of NZCCL over many years that the police have no regard for civil liberties, and indeed have been the main instigators of the erosion of civil liberties within this country. The police push the boundaries of their power to the limit. It is fatuous to consider that police will use sparingly the powers provided in this Bill, or with regard to the civil liberties of the people who are suspects or caught up in their actions. Yet there is little check in the Bill of the powers of the police.

There are no strong reporting requirements for any of the new powers, and indeed for some of them there are no reporting requirements at all. Thus the police are to a large extent able to be unaccountable and act with impunity. 7. In conclusion It is clear that this Bill attempts to do too much, and so issues of real concern are inadequately addressed. Not only has it the potential to trample on people’s rights, but it may also lead to greater confusion than it is intended to resolve, when a range of enforcement agencies determine to use their new coercive powers. Far from promoting people’s civil liberties and human rights, the Bill has very few measures to protect those rights, and a large number of measures that can be exploited to infringe those rights, not only of people suspected of committing criminal acts, but also others inadvertently caught up in the activities . NZCCL suggests that the Bill be divided into at least two separate Bills, so that the guidelines over the issuing of warrants and other powers, and the reporting of results, are separated from parts considering new powers given to various agencies.

NZCCL considers that enforcement agencies should be given powers of search, seizure and especially surveillance very sparingly and with limits and safeguards to ensure they are only used for the particular purposes of the agency. The agencies must not be given open powers such as proposed in this legislation. Finally, NZCCL considers that it is the role of parliament to support, promote and protect civil liberties. Civil liberties form the basis for a working democracy. This Bill constitutes a failure of Parliament to undertake its core function, the protection of the rights of the people it serves.

Recommendations 1. That the Bill be split into two parts, one considering the procedural, administrative, reporting and accountability requirements pertaining to all search, seizure and surveillance activities carried out by officers of any enforcement agency, and the other relating to the increase in powers of the police, to set up road blocks, to stop and search vehicles, to search without warrant, and other powers. 2. That the part of the Bill relating to all enforcement agencies be restricted to procedural, administrative, reporting and accountability requirements, with the authority for each agency to use the powers to be determined individually on the basis that they should only have the power if there is a strong necessity for it in order to undertake their enforcement activity. 3. That the part of the Bill relating to increase in police powers be subject to further public debate and scrutiny. 4. That a report should be written at the conclusion of ALL search, seizure and surveillance activities, whether or not they are done under warrant or other permission, with that report detailing the purpose, the procedure and the result of the activity. These reports should be subject to external scrutiny, both to determine the effectiveness of the activities and to ensure they are used only where there is a clear purpose that could only be resolved by the use. 5. That clear processes of complaint and redress are included, to ensure that people wrongfully caught up in the search, seizure and surveillance activities have their rights protected

Batch Hales NZCCL Committee 16 September 2009

NYTMARE . REAL HIP HOP

Happy New Year

Terror raids defendants denied jury trial

The 18 defendants in the so-called Terror Raids trial are being
denied a jury trial.

We are being railroaded by the crown and judiciary and there is no way that we can get a fair trial. This is an egregious miscarriage of justice, says Valerie Morse, defendant in the case.

The Auckland High Court ruled this week that the defendants are to be tried before a judge alone, despite pleas to have a trial by jury. The Crown has dragged out the case at every opportunity in order to wear down the defendants and force them into long and expensive legal battles in the hope that the public will forget about the case and ultimately to force the defendants to plead guilty to end this
nightmare.

We are continually having to fight for our most basic rights in this case. The Government is doing everything in their power to deny us a trial by jury. A jury would quickly see through the police spin that has surrounded this case, which is why the crown wants a judge alone to hear the case, said Ms Morse.

The highest lawyer in this country, Solicitor-General David Collins, said in November 2007 that there was no case under the Terrorism Suppression Act, yet more than three years later the crown continues
to relentlessly pursue Tame Iti and 17 other activists in an unabashed crushing of political dissent and aspirations for tino rangatiratanga.

The Terror Raids trial follows a long history of political and racial discrimination in New Zealand's court system. When the people of Parihaka pulled out survey pegs to stop the theft of their land, they
were imprisoned indefinitely under the Maori Prisoners Trials Act 1879 so that the theft could continue unhindered. In 1916, following the armed invasion of the Tuhoe community at Maungapohatu, Rua Kenana was forced to sell his land and cattle in order to pay for his court defence.

The changes to the criminal justice system are criminal. It was part 1 of the Criminal Procedures Bill, passed under the previous Labour government in 2007 that gave the Crown the right to apply for trial by judge alone. Previously only a defendant could request this. Now the government is intent on further removing the right to a jury, the right to silence, the right against self-incrimination, and has just
taken away the right to vote for all prisoners. This is not a democracy, let us not delude ourselves any longer.

The October 15th Solidarity group reiterates its demand that these charges must be dropped.

ENDS

Notes:
1.18 people are facing charges under the Arms Act. Five of the  defendants also face a ridiculous charge for participation in an organised criminal group.

2.Of the 18 defendants, 13 are Maori. They whakapapa to several iwi: Tuhoe, Taranaki, Maniapoto, Te Ati Awa, Ngapuhi and others.

3.The raids took place on 15th October 2007 and the defendants spent
up to one month in jail.

4.A book has recently been published by Rebel Press with the stories
by people (including some of the defendants) affected by the raids. It
can be downloaded for free as a PDF at
http://www.rebelpress.org.nz/publications/day-raids-came

5.You can also email info@october15thsolidarity.info to get in touch with the October
15th Solidarity group.

Police run operations on political activists in NZ

 A recent document released under the Official Information Act (OIA) shows that the Police are heavily spying on and running operations on protest groups. In the Police annual report for the year ending 30th June 2009, a reference was made to “84 operation orders” made in relation to “public demonstrations”. An OIA request for a list of all these operation orders made in October 2009 has now finally been answered by Police National Headquarters and the results are chilling.

In 2008/9, the police ran operations on a “Tibet candlelight vigil”, the “Stagecoach Bus Strike” and a “Palestine Peace Vigil” in Wellington, a “Bible group” outside the US embassy, the “Waterside Workers' Strike” in Auckland and a protest in Otahuhu “re lack of swimming pool”.

A list of the 84 operation orders has been released. However, access to the actual orders has so far been denied.
Peace Action Wellington condemns the action of the NZ Police in conducting operations on protests against the annual weapons conference hosted by the NZ Defence Industry Association and against legitimate political dissent. ‘Protecting these people is protecting war mongers and war profiteers from public disgust, outrage and resistance to their activities’ said Valerie Morse, Peace Action member. ‘In my experience, the police see their role as shutting down protests, and they will do whatever is necessary in order to accomplish that, including extensive surveillance, arbitrary arrest and detention of people without any cause whatsoever.' Continue reading article here


 

Emory Douglas: The Black Panther Party and Revolutionary Art

Emory Douglas first served as the art director for the Black Panther Partys newspaper, and later served as Minister of Culture until 1980. Throughout these years, Douglas iconic artwork was published in the BPP newspaper and beyond. His artwork is featured in the new book entitled Black Panther: The Revolutionary Art of Emory Douglas.

Douglas was interviewed in San Francisco by Angola 3 News in October 2009. This is the second segment of our interview to be released.

All artwork featured in this video is made by Emory Douglas. The artwork has been used by Angola 3 News with the permission of Emory Douglas, who retains the copyright on all images.

All photographs featured in this video are taken by Roz Payne, who is the editor of the 12-hour DVD release entitled "What We Want, What We Believe: The Black Panther Party Library" (AK Press, 2006). The photographs have been used by Angola 3 News with the permission of Roz Payne, who retains the copyright on all images.

Angola 3 News is an official project of the National Coalition to Free the Angola 3.

Our main website is: www.angola3news.com

Thanks to angola3news

Cops Kill Everywhere II

International Day of Action Against Murder by the State

Saturday 20/12/08, 1pm

Victorian State Gubbament

Remembering all state murders, particularly indigenous deaths in custody and in solidarity with the struggle in Greece. Bring photos of those killed, dress in old clothes if you wish to be part of the die-in

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>

International Day of Action Against Murder by the State
Saturday, December 20, 2008 : 11 am
Greek Consulate
223 Castlereagh St, Sydney


WE DON’T FORGET, WE DON’T FORGIVE: End State Murder


Solidarity With Uprising in Greece
Remember Those Killed by the State
No More Deaths in Custody
Free Lex Wotton


River of Tears: Drones cover Kev Carmody

Politricks

A powerful film about deaths in police custody in the UK, featuring the poet Benjamin Zepheniah

Cops Murder Everywhere

see also

http://www.myspace.com/mulrunji

Australia's Persistent Racism

Aboriginals in Queensland: Singing one day, bashed to death by police the next

TJ Hickey & The Redfren Riot

A critical Media Anaylsis of the Redfern Riot

Justice for TJ

15-year-old shot dead by police in Athens; 15-year-old shot dead by police in Melbourne

Steven Wallace

Maori Perceptions of the Police

Five people charged with participation in a 'organised criminal group'

click for a larger image

Source

The Crown has issued an indictment today against 18 people arrested in the police raids of October 15th 2007 in Ruatoki, Auckland, Hamilton, Whakatane, Palmerston North, Wellington and elsewhere.

Five of the 18 people have been charged with participation in a criminal gang under section 98A of the Crimes Act.

These charges are a desperate attempt by the Government to save face after the Solicitor-General found ‘insufficient evidence’ to bring charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act. The Crown seeks to characterise political activists who support Tino Rangatiratanga and dissent from the Government as criminals.

All 18 face charges under the Arms Act for possession of weapons and restricted weapons (Molotov cocktails). Although charges relating to 3 of the alleged ‘camps’ had been dismissed outright by Judge Mark Perkins due to lack of evidence following a month long depositions hearing, the Crown has also chosen to re-instate these charges.

The raids and arrests continue a legacy of the brutal invasions of Parihaka, Maungapohatu, Takaparawha and Pakaitore. This is part of a systematic attack on Maori communities. The Government’s support of the ‘war on terrorism’ in the passage of a raft of anti-terrorism laws and expanded police and Security Intelligence Service budgets confirm their agenda to control the population through surveillence and brutal repression of any genuine dissent. [ More ]

"Criminal gang" charges ludicrous (Global Peace and Justice Auckland) | www.October15thSolidarity.info | Aocafe

To Serve Who? To Protect What?

The colonial world is a world cut in two. The dividing line, the frontiers are shown by barracks and police stations. In the colonies it is the policeman and the soldier who are the official, instituted go-betweens, the spokesmen of the settler and his rule of oppression.... (Fanon)

Katchafire Frisk Me Down

Dispatches from Day 5 - Operation 8 Depositions Hearing

Outside of court the week ended with a bang. One of the kids turned six and so over lunch there was a birthday party outside courtroom 8. We had a cake, candles and party hats. The registrar (he who pronounces Tame to rhyme with 'same') muttered that there was no dignity in this court room. I'd say there was a lot of dignity in that court room - but not the sort the registrar would recognise.

As Friday was the last day of the week, and all the evidence is still suppressed, I thought I'd take some time to point out how much work goes into making it possible for all 18 defendants their whanau and supporters to come to court.

Te Tira Hou Marae has been an amazing base for the defendants. 13 of the defendants live outside of Auckland, and having accomodation, and a place to have hui has been vital. Defendants from outside Auckand have been able to come for a meal, and catch up on all the associating they've been forbidden from doing over the last ten months.

Feeding all the people who come to the marae has been done by an amazing team of cooks (and the curry for tomorrow night is already looking fantastic). Food is plentiful, thanks to all sorts of donations and fundraising efforts.

The lawyers have been doing a fantastic job. I know I wasn't the only person who was worried about how well they'd work together, but they've been really strong in court. They understand that this case is about more than just the law. One lawyer has a poster for the international day of action on his desk. Another brought a present to the birthday party.

Finally, one of the most important jobs has been looking after the children. There have been up to a dozen children at court and the marae. Looking after them at court is stressful. Volunteers have taken the older kids on expeditions around Auckland, making it that much easier on their parents. At the time of the raids the partner's of two of the defendants were pregnant. These women have now given birth to baby freedom fighters in the months since. The work of those women, and their whanau looking after babies in such a stressful time, needs special recognition.

A special thanks to everyone who has donated money or attended (and particularly organised) a fundraising event. The koha from all over the world has made this difficult time much less stressful. The court case isn't just about convictions, but about punishing the defendants, with endless appearances and oppressive bail conditions. By taking some collective responsibility for the costs of this, we are fighting back against the police (and if all of this has persuaded you to contribute you can here).

Liberated box report: The kids had been putting in some good work on Friday; the sign that was left said "Tuhoe Liberators not Terrorists".

AMCRAN launch of 3rd edition multilingual series Anti-Terrorism Laws: ASIO, the Police and You

Dear friends,

You are warmly invited to the third edition launch of the publication series Anti-Terrorism Laws: ASIO, the Police and You.

This series of publications is designed to educate the community on their rights and responsibilities under Australia's counter-terrorism laws. It is presented in four languages: English, Arabic, Bahasa Indonesia, and Urdu. The third edition covers new areas of law introduced since the first edition in 2004, including the association offence, sedition, preventative detention and control orders. This publication is essential reading, and provides a concise, simple, yet thorough coverage of the laws that all Australians should be aware of and understand.

The booklets will be distributed at no cost at the launch, and will also be available from AMCRAN's website (http://amcran.org/) in all four languages after the launch.

This project would not have been possible without the generous funding support of the Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, the UTS Law Faculty and UTS Students Association.

When: Thursday 17 July 2008
Time: 10 am – 12 pm
Where: Lansdowne Room, Bankstown Town Hall, Cnr Chapel & Rickard Rds, Bankstown

Speakers include:

Mr Peter Russo, Defence lawyer of Dr. Mohamed Haneef
Dr Zachariah Matthews, President, Australian Islamic Mission; Board Member, AMCRAN
Ms Marika Dias, Solicitor, Convenor of Anti-Terrorism Laws Working Group, Federation of Community Legal Centres (Vic) Inc.
Mr Geoff Mulherin, Director, Law and Justice Foundation
RSVP by Friday 11 July 2008 essential: amcran@amcran.org

For more information please contact Ayishah Ansari, Legal Convenor NSW, at legalconvenornsw@amcran.org.

We look forward to seeing you at the launch.

Yours sincerely,


Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network

---
AMCRAN
Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network
PO Box 3610
Bankstown NSW 2200
Tel: (02) 9708 0009
Fax: (02) 9708 0008
amcran@amcran.org | http://amcran.org

World focus with police boost

Mark Dodd | May 13, 2008

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police numbers will be boosted by an extra 500 officers over the next five years, with international operations emerging as a major budget priority for the Rudd Government.

Eight additional AFP officers will soon be sent to Afghanistan to help in a reinvigorated NATO-led coalition effort to contain a booming opium economy. They will be joining four colleagues already deployed under a $47million program over two years to strengthen efforts to bring stability and a measure of law and order to the country.

"The AFP has been providing expertise in counter-narcotics and police capacity development in Afghanistan since October last year," Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus said yesterday. "The additional members will provide high-level advice to the National Police of Afghanistan and act in advisory roles with the counter-narcotics police of Afghanistan. More than 90 per cent of the world's opium is cultivated in Afghanistan and, according to the UN, poppy production continues to increase."

The extra 500 AFP officers fulfil a key Labor election promise to increase the agency's capacity to help tackle transnational crime and terrorism -- a package of measures costed at $192million. It follows a $20million package over four years designed to address AFP recruitment and retention announced earlier by the federal Government. It is expected the additional police resources will be phased in over five years, adding a mix of base-level recruits and experienced specialists.

The AFP receives $53.7million over two years to help develop East Timor's national police force, which is riven by ethnic divisions and is struggling with the legacy of a botched UN training regime involving a host of countries with a range of different standards and culture. Eighty AFP specialist trainers will be deployed in East Timor under a program that aims to help train an estimated 2000 local police to be located outside the capital Dili.

"Australia was quick to respond to security issues in East Timor following the attempted assassinations of the President of East Timor, Jose Ramos Horta, and Prime Minister Gusmao, including the deployment of AFP personnel," Mr Debus said. "The AFP continues to play a vital role in the UN mission in East Timor and this will provide a further opportunity for the AFP to contribute to the development of policing in East Timor."

The Australian Government's support for policing in the Pacific region was also boosted by the announcement yesterday of an $80million program. With Australia's main 550-strong combat force pulling out of Iraq, the focus is now on efforts to help strengthen that country's police force. The 2008-09 budget includes a $13.7million plan to help train 30 Iraqi police officers each year in Sydney over the next three years and a further 51 to undertake specialist forensic training.

"The program will give Iraqi police access to the specialist expertise of the AFP's forensic scientists and will focuson building a crime scene analysis system for the Iraqi Police Service," Mr Debus said.

see also:
http://uriohau.blogspot.com/2008/04/afp-clamps-down-on-pacific.html

Land of the Long White Lie

The New Zealand Terror Raids

By VALERIE MORSE

On October 15 2007, the New Zealand police carried out unprecedented nation-wide raids arresting 17 indigenous rights activists and anarchists and raiding some 60 different locations. The arrests were based on surveillance and interception warrants obtained under the Terrorism Suppression Act. This was the first time that the police used this Act, a law passed immediately after 9/11 and a direct result of it.

The raids were staged on a Monday morning starting at approximately 5am. At 5:45 am, the Police knocked on my door. Then they nearly broke it down. When I opened it, 15 officers swarmed in, waving an 80-page search warrant in my face. When I said, 'this isn't signed,' the detective responded 'here, here's the signed copy.' Then they ransacked my room, pulling my plants out of their containers, removing the back of my refrigerator and collecting a raft of documents, photographs, electronic gear and clothing. Finally, they arrested me and told me that I was going to be charged with participating in a terrorist group.

The raids came as a huge shock to me, to most of the country and to the world that follow such events. New Zealand, also known as Aotearoa-the 'land of the long white cloud' in the indigenous language of the Maori people-has a reputation for amicable race relations, a progressive government and an enviable settlement process for indigenous claims against breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding treaty between Maori and the British Crown, signed in 1840 by some 500 chiefs.

What is actually happening in Aotearoa beneath the government's clever 'clean, green, 100 per cent pure' marketing campaign is not at all what they would lead you to believe.

On day one of the raids, there was a media frenzy as the police carefully leaked tantalizing nuggets of evidence including reports of napalm bombs, assassination plots against Prime Minister Helen Clark and President George W Bush, and an 'IRA-style war plan.' The 17 arrestees were brought before District Court judges in four different cities to respond to the charges. One was dealt with immediately by the courts and dismissed, the remaining 16 all went to prison that night, remanded in custody as bail was vigorously opposed by the Crown prosecution.

We were deemed a threat to 'national security.' In the cloud of terrorism hysteria and secret evidence, our lawyers would not even attempt an application for bail.

The New Zealand Government has signed up for all of Bush's post-9/11 terrorism requirements. At the same time, it imported the US Government's brutal tactics of repression, surveillance technologies and police hyper-paranoia about political activity, particularly when it comes from indigenous activists who dare to speak of aspirations of sovereignty.

Of the 17 arrested on 15 October, 12 were Maori, many from the Tuhoe iwi (tribe). Tuhoe is known for its long history of resistance to colonization. They never signed the Treaty of Waitangi. There is a story that the Crown agent was advised that he would be eaten if he attempted to come into Tuhoe land in order to get the Treaty signed. Today, Tuhoe have the one of the highest ratios of native speakers of the Maori language (called 'te reo') among tribal groups and have a strong cultural identity that is intimately linked to the land in an area that they call 'Te Urewera,' land of the mist. There are about 20,000 people who claim Tuhoe ancestry, many of whom are still living in relatively isolated communities within Te Urewera.

The raids and arrests were the culmination of an $8 million dollar, two-year long operation dubbed 'Operation Eight'. On the day of the raids, some 300 police were involved. Most had little knowledge of the investigation or the suspects; none it seems had any knowledge of the history of the Crown's scorched earth policy, murder, and land theft which prompted fierce resistance by Tuhoe more than 100 years ago.

The forces of the state have a convenient way of forgetting things that don't suit the current narrative. Such was the case on October 15. In a spectacular display of force, armed, balaclava-clad police known as the 'armed offenders squad' quite literally invaded the small Tuhoe town of Ruatoki and blockaded the entire community. On an elaborate quest for terrorists and evidence, they stopped all vehicles coming in or out of the community and photographed the drivers and occupants. In the process of conducting house raids, they severely traumatized many people, including locking a woman and five children in a shed for six hours while the man of the family was questioned, taking a woman's underwear as evidence, and boarding a local school bus.

In one South Auckland raid, the police held an entire family, including a 12 year old girl, on their knees with hands behind their heads for some 5 hours, asking the young woman if she was a terrorist. This was the pattern for raids in the Maori communities.

For the non-indigenous arrestees (referred to herein as 'pakeha' a word that means white New Zealander), the situation was starkly different. In my case, I was not even handcuffed as I was walked to the car. No white neighborhoods were blockaded, nor were white bystanders stopped and photographed as they went about their daily business that cool Monday morning in October. It was only Maori.

The institutional racism of the police and justice system came as no surprise to Maori people and particularly to Tuhoe who have been subject to its arbitrary acts for some 160 years. For pakeha throughout the country, it was a wake-up call. Unfortunately, it was less a wake-up call about racism than it was about the growing power of the state against political dissidents. I say it was unfortunate because it is clear from the nearly 10,000 pages of evidence I have now seen, that it is Maori sovereignty that they fear. It is the political force of unified indigeneity that scares the ruling class of New Zealand.

For Maori in Aotearoa New Zealand, the 'war on terrorism' and these raids are part of a long history of colonization in Aotearoa New Zealand, and they have not been forgotten.

In the 1860s, the Suppression of Rebellion Act was passed with strikingly similar language to the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. This earlier Act was used by the fledgling New Zealand State to launch a series of vicious attacks on Maori communities in order to appropriate their land for settlement. People and whole tribes were defined as 'in rebellion' in order that the State could then exercise a range of repressive and exploitative measures against them.

I was arrested, I believe, to provide a cloak for the racist nature of the operation.

By arresting some pakeha activists, the government could deflect criticism that this was an operation against Maori. I was also arrested because I am associates with the Maori accused in the case, and because as an anarchist I have caused enough problems and embarrassments for the state that they would like to put me out of their misery. In June of last year, I published a book detailing the New Zealand government's involvement in the 'war on terrorism.' In it, I suggested that both dissidents and Maori were targets of the war, along with refugees and migrants. It was not without a sense of bizarre irony and a certain grim satisfaction that I sat in my prison cell and congratulated myself on being right.

Needless to say, in a country of 4 million people, there are not six degrees of separation, but usually only one or two. There most certainly is a connection between anarchists, environmentalists, anti-war and indigenous rights activists: most of them know each other and work together regularly. One would have to exist in a state of utter delusion not to make the connections between these issues, particularly in New Zealand where the effects of the self-imposed neo-liberal structural adjustment of the 1980s is being felt more acutely everyday.

The New Zealand Parliament is Westminster-style with mixed-member proportional representation. At present, the governing Labor party maintains power through a delicate balance of negotiated agreements, some formal, some informal, with other smaller parties that give support on vital confidence and supply votes.

As with the British Labor Party, the New Zealand Labor party long ago shed any resemblance to a working-class based party and has wholeheartedly embraced neo-liberal economics. This has had major implications for Maori who in the main reject its ubiquitous commodification, particularly with regard to flora, fauna, land and intellectual property. Nevertheless, up until very recently Maori had continued to support Labor generally, and all of the Maori electorate seats in Parliament were held by the Labour Party.

In 2004, the Government passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act, which had the effect of extinguishing Maori rights to claim customary ownership of the land between the high tide and low tide marks, and to the seabed. In contravention of international law and despite condemnation by the UN, the Government pressed ahead with the law, with near unanimous support in parliament. The following year the Treasury began to include a line-item in the annual financial accounts for these newly acquired Crown assets. This grotesque confiscation was considered a declaration of war by some Maori. It ruptured the Labor Party and brought about the formation of the Maori Party. This now presents a significant threat to Labor's hold on the Maori vote, and more importantly, to their hold on power.

Politically, this is one of the primary factors behind the raids. In the lead up to the 2008 election, it is crucial that Labour cast radical Maori as a dangerous threat to the stability of New Zealand. This was a gamble by Prime Minister Helen Clark and her cabal to secure a third term through a tactic of divide and conquer. In the media Clark repeatedly stated that the raids were 'an operational matter for the police,' but behind the scenes in Wellington, every politico knows that nothing of consequence happens without her direct and explicit nod.

Another significant political factor prompting the raids is the government's relationship with the US and its other close defense partners. As a member of the exclusive five-nation UKUSA intelligence network (along with the US, UK, Canada and Australia), New Zealand's security and police are intimately tied to a distinctive post-War relationship with the US. This relationship, and the resultant organizational links, has played a significant role in New Zealand's response to US terrorism hysteria. Further, the New Zealand government has separate, internal reasons for adopting much of the new terrorism legislation.

Prior to 9/11, the Terrorism Suppression Bill was before the Select Committee and was simply intended to ratify two existing UN conventions against terrorism. After 9/11, the law was radically re-written, kept secret from the public, while the Government and the opposition rushed to appear resolute in support of the US.

Fortunately, the changes were leaked and there was significant public opposition that eventually mitigated the worst aspects of the Act. Unfortunately, there were many more Acts that followed. These Acts mirror changes to US law and include the Border Security Act, the Maritime Security Act, the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, the Identity (Citizenship and Passports) Act, the Security Intelligence Act and amendments to both the Immigration Act and the Crimes Act.

Along with these legislative changes, the state's security and surveillance services received massive funding injections and personnel increases ­ all in the name of fighting terrorism. Given this environment with all their new toys, eventually, the police and spooks had to find a terrorist. They tried desperately to pin that label on exiled Algerian politician Ahmed Zaoui who came to New Zealand at the end of 2001 on a false passport. When that failed, as it did in 2006 when the security risk certificate against him was revoked, they set to work finding others to fill the 'terrorist' role. The culture of these agencies is such that they view ex-parliamentary political activity as dangerous; they view Maori politically activity as particularly dangerous.

So the stage was set and the roles cast when some 300 police mounted the first ever 'terror raids' late last year.

The Terrorism Suppression Act was the tool to obtain extensive interception warrants for bugging cell phones and cars, but the people who were arrested were initially charged only for joint possession of firearms and restricted weapons under the Arms Act. In order for the Terrorism charges to be laid, the police first had to get the approval of the Attorney General.

In the first week following the raids, I sat in solitary confinement with no access to news or information. I was in shock. I have been arrested several times in the past for political activity, but have never been to prison. I was scared. I was also lucky because one of my dearest friends had been arrested that morning and was there with me. We had adjoining cells and could communicate by yelling over a 25 foot concrete wall in the yard outside between our cells. After the third day, I got a book to read: Kurt Vonnegut's Jailbird. It made me laugh so hard I had tears in my eyes.

When they finally moved us to the general population at the end of the first week, it felt like a glorious place - which just goes to demonstrate how quickly and easily solitary confinement breaks down your resistance and your tether on reality. It was beautiful to hear voices, to hear music, to go outside and to be able to see the hills and sky.

By the end of that first week, our lawyers managed to put forward an application for bail. We arrived at the Wellington District Court to a mass of supporters and media. Within minutes of the start of the hearing, everyone except the media was excluded from the courtroom. It was an ominous beginning to one of the most disturbing and difficult days of my life.

In the hours that followed, the Crown prosecutor painted a picture of us as a group of people who had been training to commit terrorist acts. We were accused of attending camps in the Urewera area where we used guns, Molotov cocktails and napalm. The fact that my three immediate co-accused had no convictions of any kind, and I had very minor ones, was used to prove our ill intention to get out of prison and carry out that which we had been planning. Once the terror label was used, no judge in the country, or indeed the world, would bail us. We went back to prison that Friday evening and I felt very, very dark.

On Monday 29 October, the police finally put their evidence to the Solicitor General in order that the charge of 'participating in a terrorist group' could be brought against us. That night, I was interned in my new cell with no one to talk to or to question about what might happen next. I had been moved 500 miles north to the Auckland women's correctional facility in a secretive mission worthy of bin Laden or at least his best mate.

By Wednesday, Prime Minister Helen Clark could no longer hold her tongue and waded into the debate. She arrogantly breached the sub judice standard ­ the term used for the right to a fair trial ­ commenting that those arrested 'at the very least had been training with firearms and napalm'. The media circus continued.

Throughout the country, protests, rallies, fundraising and awareness raising gigs were organized and what remains of the political left in New Zealand rallied around the arrestees. The political analysis ranged from debate about indigenous sovereignty to civil rights and surveillance. The mainstream media continued its tradition of sensationalist reporting, ill-informed conclusions and downright fabrications. The media concentration in Aotearoa New Zealand is one of the highest in the world, with nearly all the major dailies owned by two multinational corporations. Everyone was singing from the same song sheet, so to speak.

The day before I was due to have another bail hearing, after now nearly a month in jail, I had a long conversation with my lawyer. We discussed his strategy going into the hearing and the possible Crown arguments. At the end of that conversation, he said, 'Oh, there was something else I was meaning to tell youoh, that's right, the Solicitor-General is about to announce his decision. Valerie, they are going to lay the terrorism charges against you.'

I hung up the phone and I found Emily, my co-accused and dear friend. I told her that, 'we must prepare ourselves for this because it is going to happen'. I was manic, frantic, deeply disturbed and shaken. We sat for a little while before I went to my cell and tuned in National Radio. The four o'clock news immediately went to a live broadcast of the Solicitor-General's press conference. I sat on my bed rigid with fear. He announced, 'I cannot authorize the laying of charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act.' I ran out of my cell, screaming and running around the prison wing, 'they're not going to do it; they're not going to do it.' I yelled up to Emily who had retreated to her cell. I could hardly get the words out.

Her immediate response, 'for all of us?' and I thought, 'oh no, I don't know.' In my excitement I hadn't listened to his whole speech. I ran back to my cell where she joined me.

We tuned back in to hear him say that there was 'insufficient evidence' that none of us would be charged, and that the terrorism law was 'complex, incoherent and unworkable'. I was ecstatic. Moments later I got a call from the lawyer saying that the Crown was no longer opposing our bail. We would be out tomorrow.

It was surreal. I have never in my life felt the kind of joyous relief that I felt that night. I couldn't sleep. I couldn't concentrate. I just sat there in wonder at the events of the previous month.

On Friday, November 9, we were bailed from the High Court in Auckland. We are not free, however. Sixteen of us still face charges under the Arms Act. We continue to have onerous bail conditions including curfews, reporting conditions and non-association orders. They are the State's tactics for control and punishment.

As I have suggested, the evidence indicates that the raids were politically motivated by the long-standing fear of indigenous assertions of power. In this election year, it suits the Labor Government to find 'bad Maori' in order to fulfill the old colonial divide and rule strategy. They will assimilate those they can through propaganda and persuasion; those that resist will be brutalized and criminalized as they have been for more than a century. Maori political activists are under State surveillance because they are Maori.

It comes as little surprise that the United Nations has now accepted a complaint from indigenous lawyers and will investigate the New Zealand Government's conduct over the raids, although it is the first time that a complaint by a group against a state (rather than vice versa) has been investigated. While this is unlikely to have any substantive effect either on the situation for Maori or on the arrestees, it is another blow to the idealized utopia of the South Seas.

In the coming months, the case of the 'Urewera 16' will be heard in the District Court in Auckland. My great hope for this trial and for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand is that the raids will contribute to disrupting the false peace of this colonial state and radicalize people to struggle for justice and freedom.

*For more information about the Crown's invasion of Tuhoe lands, please see:

Tuhoe: A history of resistance at http://october15thsolidarity.info/node/221

UN Observer says govts are using terror

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0803/S00054.htm

Tuesday, 4 March 2008, 3:25 pm
Article: Syed Akbar Kamal

UN Observer says govts are using terror to instill fear in communities

Prof. Hans Koechler****** Transcript by
Syed Akbar Kamal

Prof. Hans Koechler paid a visit to Auckland recently to deliver lecture on ‘The Global War on Terror - Contradictions of an Imperial Strategy'. He is President of the International Progress Organisation (IPO) and a renowned international jurist, activist expert on international law, injustice, and power politics, academic and much-published progressive author:

Dr Koechler's clear perceptions on the subject assume greater relevance here now, following the terror raids, arrests, and mass intimidation of Tuhoe last October; and the subsequent Law Commission review now underway of NZ's criminal and terrorist legislation.

Since 1972, UN Secretaries-General in their statements subsequently acknowledged Professor Köchler’s contributions to international peace. In April 2000, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Professor Koechler as international observer at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (Lockerbie Trial) which to this day remains unresolved largely due to the non-compliance of the British government in releasing the supposedly secret information to the court.

Darpan-The Mirror: Dr. Hans Koechler, welcome, welcome to Aotearoa. Thank you for being willing on your holiday to spend some time sharing your knowledge with us. You have talked tonight about the global war on terror-what is it new about terror and terrorism in the current context?

Prof. Koechler: The new feature is that a kind of universal threat is now being connected to the term terrorism and fear is being instilled into the people because they are make believe that there is a threat to our western civilization even to the very survival of the western community and to the preservation of the identity that is emanating from this kind of illusive enemy which is called international terrorism. That I think is the new feature because in earlier decades, in earlier eras, terrorists acts were specified and people identified certain-the interests coming from certain specific groups but now apparently this danger is somehow general and vague and entire civilizations are presented as a threat to our own civilization.

Darpan-The Mirror: So who is promoting this and why?

Prof. Koechler: As far as I can see it is promoted by the establishment, powerful political and economic establishment, media establishment in the leading countries of the western world. On top of them first and foremost is the United States of America and in addition for instance the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Northern Island and some other Western allies.

Darpan-The Mirror: And what do they have to gain from this?

Prof. Koechler: Well, frankly speaking, it is about the global power in a situation in which there is no challenge to the Western supremacy and particularly in which there is no real threat to the security of the Western world. I mean after the demise of communists, after the collapse of the Soviet block; apparently one feels the need to create another enemy stereotype which will allow to somehow justify certain measures of control over the rest of the world. Usually a government needs an enemy; people have to be rallied around the government in defence against an enemy from outside and this threat or the other which is now supposedly threatening the west is presented as terror- or as terrorism or as the terrorists.

Darpan-The Mirror: You described it as self-defeating; why do you think it is self defeating?

Prof. Koechler: It is finally doomed to fail because it necessitates a constant a kind of perpetual mobilisation of the people and of the resources of a country. When you present the threat as universal and when there is no possibility to identify specifically certain groups from which the threat emerges, you have to engage in a total of strategy of prevention and you have to exclude even the slightest possibility of attack from whichever direction and that means you have to be prepared 24 hours seven days a week hundred percent. And for that reason somehow the …somehow the…strength or the capacities of the countries that engage in such an undertaking will be exhausted and the other reason why I think this is in the medium and long term is a self-defeating exercise.

And the other reason is this kind of strategy antagonizes entire nations and even peoples and civilizations in such a way that they will not feel any loyalty towards those countries that engage in that struggle and they may challenge the supremacy of those countries and they may be more determined in their resistance than they otherwise would be, if there would be a kind of rational relationship on the basis of the definition of mutual interest, as also could be the case.

Darpan-The Mirror: Why have politicians, political leaders, intellectual leaders in so much of the west not challenged? You gave the example of the Japanese member of the senate who had raised issues and those issues had not appeared in the mainstream media. What- Why do you think that is occurring?

Prof. Koechler: I personally feel on the basis of my own experience now over several decades having dealt with issues particularly of the Middle East of the Muslim world that most of the people in the media and in the academic community are just afraid for their own position. They do not want to somehow be marginalized or that they do not want to be sidelined which would be the case if they speak out critically against this entire strategy. So it is a kind of opportunism or the kind of fear which people are not able to overcome because very often if one really speaks out, one is confronted with quiet strong media campaigns and the careers of some people might suffer if they do speak out.

Darpan-The Mirror: But if we contrast that to the civil rights campaigns and the challenges that there were to the suppression of rights during the 1960’s, 1970’s in the West- we are now seeing a revisiting of the normalization, militarization, of suppression of fundamental rights. What’s different? Why are we seeing those voices of dissent now?

Prof. Koechler: I think that as far as Europe is concerned, then I am only an expert on these matters; in Europe as far as Europe is concerned the entire social climate if one may use that term, is different compared to the 1960’s and also our students in universities nowadays are much less outspoken and are much more obedient so to speak as far as the politically correct opinions are concerned. But maybe the situation now has to do with a kind of overall opinion control or fear that has been instilled into the people and no one dares to be or doesn’t want to be disloyal towards his community or wants to speak out against the supplementary soft state.

Darpan-The Mirror: So how would you relate this to that of Palestine? We have seen the stories of killings and maiming everyday; we have seen the depravation of basic necessities of life- of access to electricity and to water and food? How do you interpret or analyze the situation in Palestine and the responses to it within the framework of your thinking?

Prof. Koechler: As far as I understand that I have followed the developments in Palestine since 1970’s and that means it’s now more than three decades, as far as I see it, most of what you refer to now, most of the events are not adequately presented to the wider public; most of the people would just not know what is really going on, the news’ are filtered through the corporate media, if people would really be aware of the situation…people live…under which people live in for instance the Gaza strip, there would be some stronger and critical position against the policies for instance of the western countries. But as far as I see it, there is a lack of…lack of comprehensive information and the other problem as far as Palestine is concerned is that is this linkage with Islam as a threat and particularly terrorism-the linkage of Islam and terrorism.

Darpan-The Mirror: So when you are looking at the way the western states respond to the use of force to suppress resistance movements, freedom fighters, terrorists however they are defined by one side or the other. What are the factors that you think drive the decisions of states now can I put that in the local context…

Prof. Koechler: Yeah.

Darpan-The Mirror: Our government here for example had no problem with recognizing the General who lead the coup in Thailand. The military government there and the government here was perfectly happy to deal with, had no problem in dealing with Musharraf in Pakistan; Bainimarama the leader of the military coup in Fiji is ostracized, there are sanctions against anyone in the military including one who wanted to come here in January whose family members were part of the military, what are the kinds of considerations do you think that drive the differential responses of the western leaders to regimes that are actually very similar in their particular style and in the suppression of rights attached to it?

Prof. Koechler: I would use the term of “the policy of double standards”. A government applies certain principles of legality or certain criteria of the rule of law selectively according to the specific constellation of interest. And so it is no surprise to me, of course I am not aware of the specific policies of the government here, but it is of no surprise to me to see that the government applies certain principles or insists on the implementation of certain principles in one case and totally overlooks them. Of course in the neighbourhood there may be different interests…and different from which your country may have…that explains…why one insists on certain rules in this case and does not insists on certain rules in other cases. Of course, that creates a credibility problem but I do not know...frankly speaking upto the present moment I do not know of any government which really would be consistent in the application of principles and which would avoid in its foreign policy the so-called policy of double standards.

Darpan-The Mirror: The New Zealand government has also made great play out of the fact that it did not join the coalition of the willing in the invasion of Iraq but it’s there in Afghanistan; Does that sound a convincing clean hands kind of principled approach to you or do you have problems with that kind of differentiation?

Prof. Koechler: In terms of legal doctrines, I would say I would have problems with this kind of differentiation but one could say first of all the government of New Zealand made a good decision in not sending troops to Iraq may of the government that joined the coalition of the willing regret this by now and some have already withdrawn their troops. So the government here was lucky in having not fallen into that trap but as far as new principles are concerned in my view the interventions in both countries Iraq and as well as in Afghanistan are a violation of sovereignity of those countries and both interventions are not duly justified or legitimized by international law; even in the case of Afghanistan there is no authorization of the intervention by American and NATO forces in that country.

Darpan-The Mirror: So do you think International law has become so devalued that it is no longer actually defendable in many of those instances or do you think it is a recoverable concept that might still have some value if it can be removed from the grip of the Security Council?

Prof. Koechler: I don’t know. Eventually it may already be beyond repair so to speak. The big problem I see it that in a situation in a global constellation in which there is no balance of power there is absolutely no incentive for the hegemonial country to abide...to abide by the rule of law or to obey the law.

There is no incentive for instance for that country to respect Security Council resolutions, on other way because of the veto this country like for others can block any decisions by that Council at any moment. But as far as Afghanistan is concerned the situation went even that far that for instance my own country the Republic of Austria which according to its constitution is permanently neutral according to the Swiss model.

Even my country has sent forces though in a very small number but sent forces to Afghanistan. Of course people say that this is not compatible with the statutes of permanent neutrality. Can be? It never can be compatible but these things happen now and one is just reinterpreting terms according to the constellation, political constellation of interest at a given moment.

Darpan-The Mirror: So what’s your sense of what might happen in Iran? What are your fears what might happen?

Prof. Koechler: I did fear that the United States together with their ally in the Middle East plus one or two European countries might militarily intervene in Iran and that was according to my knowledge… also the plan of the United States administration two years ago...one year ago.

What I see now is the inter-actions services of that very country have expressed an opinion that is contradicting the strategy of the President of the United States. So now my hope is that the US is reconsidering its war plans against Iran and that it will not attack Iran because it will totally destabilize not only the situation in the Middle East but the situation far beyond that region.

Darpan-The Mirror: You stressed a lot on the foreign policy in ideological and the economic interests are also integral to this not only in the Middle East but in the way many economies are now becoming almost dependent on perpetual certainly many aspects of the economy are; Fiji where you are going to go tomorrow the Fiji economy is dependent on remittances; almost 90% of remittances are coming from the security workers that are operating in Iraq; you have an economy that becomes dependent on war and when people come back and bringing the militarization back into the country itself, do you see any similar kinds of militarization of economy within Europe and America that might want to keep perpetuating this process?

Prof. Koechler: As far as Europe is concerned I do not yet see that tendency firmly established. In United States it appears obvious to me that there is a kind of self-perpetuating situation and that’s the economic interests that lead to the involvement of the country into military adventures. As far as our countries in the European Union are concerned I think we are not yet reached that stage…the military industry in most of the European countries is much less strong and much less developed than it is in the United States.

Darpan-The Mirror: Just one last question…we become aware that terrorism has become a domestic issue in this country with the arrests that were in part under the Terrorism Suppression Act with most of those arrested being Maori Sovereignity activists. Do you think the global war on terror is actually having an internal dimension that legitimizes the use of state power against its own dissident internal factions as much as against the other in the global context? And how in that sense do you think we might connect the domestic realities to the international experiences?

Prof. Koechler: I am in this country only since very short time so I am not so familiar with the internal political situation however I do hope that a distinction will be made between tensions that may exist domestically and the international issues related to the so-called global war on terror. As of the present moment I do not see any connection between what is going on here between the government and the representatives of the native population of New Zealand and the war on terror. And just hope that no one will exploits this extremely emotional climate surrounding the global war on terror for internal domestic politics or for internal security measures. One thing…the one situation is to be totally kept separate from the other.

Darpan-The Mirror: Thank you very much for your time. We wish you safe travel and we look forward to having you back here again before July. Thanks!

Prof. Koechler: You are welcome!

*****

Syed Akbar Kamal is Producer/Director for nationwide current affairs programme Darpan-The Mirror on satellite feed Stratos & Triangle TV.
www.teamworkproductions.co.nz

www.teamworkproductions.co.nz

kia kaha... kia maia ... kia manawanui...

week 3 of the g20 committal hearing, to activists facing state repression everywhere...kia kaha... kia maia ... kia manawanui...

Tuhoe Hikoi Arrives at Grubbyment

beautiful to see Aboriginal, Mohawk & Maori flags flying

A diverse crowd of people from various tangata whenua iwi, and tau iwi, began gathering outside parliament ground at 10am this morning, and swelled to around 500 by midday, when the Tuhoe hikoi arrived to a boisterous welcome. Two groups joined into one for a march down Lambton Quay, stopping to cry 'shame' at various government targets. A number of Tuhoe and others, including Te Kupu from Upper Hutt Posse, addressed the crowd at a brief rally at Midland Park.

Te ihi, te wehi, te mana

The march then returned to parliament grounds where MPs from the Maori and Green Parties spoke against the Terrorism Suppression Act (TSA) and in support of the marchers demands for justice, and two of Labour's Maori MPs were shouted down by demands to know which way they voted on the TSA ammendments recently passed in parliament. The march continued up Molesworth St to National Police Headquarters, where a line of police were confronted with a powerful haka expressing the anger of the Tuhoe nation at police behaviour in the dawn raids of October, and subsequent actions. Many of the Tuhoe and supporters, both Maori and paheka, carried on to a powhiri and hakari at Pipitea Marae.

Assimilate this poaka

mean maori mean-Chur

Thanks to:
http://indymedia.org.nz/feature/display/71738/index.php

Settler Grubbyments are the terrorists

No evidence for terrorism charges

"New Zealand's top lawyer says laws put in place to protect New Zealanders from acts of terrorism are flawed.

On Thursday afternoon David Collins QC announced that no one arrested in the nationwide police raids will face terrorism charges because of insufficient evidence and messy legislation.

Even before the Solicitor-General dropped his embarrassing bomb shell, there was anger bubbling over on the steps of parliament about how the investigation has been handled.

Joining the protest Maori Party MP Hone Harawira remarked: "How dare they arrest Tame Iti. What are the chances he is a terrorist leading a terrorist organisation? This is bullshit."

Harawira didn't have to wait long for an answer.

"I have advised the Commissioner that I am unable to authorise the prosecutions that have been sought under the Terrorism Suppression Act," said Collins.

The response from friends and supporters of those arrested was swift.

"We're absolutely thrilled... It's a huge weight off the shoulders of the families, off the individuals and... of every political activist in New Zealand," said activist, John Minto.

But none of this is good enough for the supporters of those arrested. They believe the stigma of alleged terrorism will stick for a life time.

"They have been branded terrorists by the police and that's been bandied right across New Zealand through the media and that's absolutely unconscionable," says Minto."