Grubbyment was embroiled in another heated debate on terrorism last night and a Maori Party MP was accused of effectively justifying anarchy.
Hone Harawira was on his feet again during the committee stage debate on a bill that strengthens New Zealand's terrorism suppression laws.
It is strongly supported by Labour, National and New Zealand First against the opposition of the Greens and the Maori Party.
Mr Harawira said the sort of terrorism the bill referred to seemed to be the American definition.
"I don't understand terrorism as it is understood by those fuelled by the jingoistic, acid-drenched, hate-filled, anti-Islamic, death to anyone from the Middle East, vitriolic, poisonous claptrap that the United States is trying to foist upon the rest of the world.
"And when I think about terrorism in this country, I've got to ask again - what about the terror of the state? What about the terror imposed on communities?"
Mr Harawira said last month's police raids imposed terror on communities and activists around the country.
"I will not sit quietly by while the state forces terrorise my people ... I will challenge the rule of law and I will oppose the rule of law if terrorism is a vehicle being used by the state forces of this country to terrorise Maori communities."
National MP Wayne Mapp said Mr Harawira took an oath two years ago when he became an MP to uphold the laws of New Zealand. "And what does he say today? He doesn't believe in the rule of law.
"What does he believe in? The rule of anarchy, because that is what he is effectively justifying today."
Mr Mapp said Mr Harawira had a duty as an MP to uphold the rule of law. "The alternative does not bear thinking about."
National's foreign affairs spokesman, Murray McCully, said he had a simple reason for supporting the bill. "There are some very, very bad people out there in the world today.
"These are people who drive planes into buildings. These are people who put bombs in cars and drive them into nightclubs. These are people who kill in cold blood ... they don't play by any rule book."
The legislation under debate was the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill.
It creates a new offence of committing an act of terrorism, under penalty of a life sentence, allows courts to consider classified information without giving it to defendants, and gives the Prime Minister responsibility for designating groups and individuals as terrorists.
Green Party MP Keith Locke tried to amend it by tightening the definition of a terrorist act, but his proposal was voted down 109-10. Only the Maori Party backed him.
The bill completed its committee stage and has one more stage to go before it becomes law.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=252&objectid=10474445&ref=rss
Hansard Of Hone Harawira On Terror Amendment Bill
'I do not mind saying that I do not understand terrorism, as it is understood by those fuelled by the jingoistic, acid-drenched, hate-filled, anti-Islamic, death to anyone from the Middle East, vitriolic, poisonous claptrap that the United States is trying to foist upon the rest of the world.'
Wednesday, 7 November 2007, 4:58 pmSpeech: The Maori PartyHansard Of Hone Harawira On Terror Amendment BillUNEDITED COPY SUBJECT TO CORRECTIONTurn(s) 22.2 to 23.1 Tuesday, 6 November 2007 4:25 PMTERRORISM SUPPRESSION AMENDMENT BILL In CommitteeHONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau):
I just want to clarify something that was raised by the previous speaker. The Māori Party has *never ever said that it represents all Māori. In fact, we represent only intelligent Māori. That is the first thing I want to clear up, and that is not a matter of debate. At another level, when people start talking about the historical nature of terrorism and ask whether the Māori Party actually understands the historical nature of terrorism, I say that absolutely we do. An earlier speaker talked about introduced diseases.
I think of influenza, which was introduced by the whalers and sailors, wheelers and dealers, and thieves—who came from England. That disease wiped out thousands of Māori people. When I hear members talk about the murder of innocent citizens, I think of the so-called New Zealand colonial forces who murdered thousands of innocent Māori. When I think of the terror of the overtaking of a people’s land, I think of the land theft that has gone on since the time the New Zealand Government was first established in this country, and that continues to this very day. I absolutely understand the historical nature of terrorism. I understand it more so than, I assume, many other members of the House. But do I understand terrorism in the way that other members have expressed it, in terms of this bill?
The *answer is no. I do not mind saying that I do not understand terrorism, as it is understood by those fuelled by the jingoistic, acid-drenched, hate-filled, anti-Islamic, death to anyone from the Middle East, vitriolic, poisonous claptrap that the United States is trying to foist upon the rest of the world.
Dr Wayne Mapp: *al-Qaeda.
HONE HARAWIRA: The member says “al-Qaeda”. I have heard the mention of al-Qaeda in this discussion on terrorism. Is that the same al-Qaeda, and Taliban, that were funded by the United States to get the Russians out of Afghanistan?
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the bill.
HONE HARAWIRA: I am speaking to the bill in terms of organisations that are listed as terrorist organisations. One of them is al-Qaeda and another is the Taliban. I ask the question of those who would sanction that practice, and would challenge me on it, whether we are talking about the same Taliban that was funded by the United States to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan. When they are talking about al-Qaeda, and the forces in Iraq that are currently opposing the Americans—*Saddam Hussein’s people—are they the same forces that the Americans funded to fight against the *Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran back in those days? Exactly where does this terrorism come from? It seems to me that terrorism, in terms of this bill, is terrorism as it applies to the American definition, not as it applies to the terrorism that is being meted out against people who oppose that kind of American imperialism.
I come back to the meaning of terrorism in this country. My understanding of terrorism comes from a source that is far different from the American expression of terrorism. My source relies on historical fact, rather than hysterical drama, for its position. My source connects me to my indigenous brothers and sisters all over the world. When I think about terrorism in this country, I again think about the terror of the State. What about the terror imposed on those communities in my whanaunga’s electorate? What about the terror imposed on those communities throughout Rūātoki? What about the terror imposed on activists right throughout the country—Pākehā, Māori, and all sorts of people, like Jimmy O’Dea, a 72-year-old staunch activist. His house was broken into by these—
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will come back to the bill, thank you.
HONE HARAWIRA: Madam Chairperson, that is not—
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member must not refer to specific cases.
HONE HARAWIRA: That case is not before the court.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): All right, thank you. The member assures me it is not.
HONE HARAWIRA: I think about terrorism in this country and whether I will sit quietly by, as suggested by Wayne Mapp, Mr John Hayes, and others, and wait for the police to come up with a decision. I think not. I will not sit quietly by, while State forces terrorise my people. If this requires of me that I speak out against the rule of law that would impose terror on Māori communities in this country, then I will speak out. I will speak out against it in this Chamber, on television, in newspapers, and anywhere else I possibly can. I will challenge the rule of law and I will oppose the rule of law, if terrorism is a vehicle being used by the State forces of this country to terrorise Māori communities. I will support those whānau, hapū, iwi, and individuals—Pākehā, Māori it does not matter—who have been threatened—
John Hayes: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This matter has no bearing on the bill under discussion. If there are concerns about the matter, then process should be followed, which takes place outside this Chamber.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is right to a certain extent, and I am trying to keep members to speaking to the bill. However, there has been a lot of discussion about the concepts in the bill, and that discussion includes probably every speaker so far. I ask the member to come back to Part 1 and relate his comments to that part. Again, I remind all members that the Committee stage is really the nuts and bolts of the bill. That is why we are back on Part 1.
HONE HARAWIRA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to point out that following on from speakers who have talked about the calicivirus and Adolf Hitler, what I have said about terrorism in this country was probably a lot closer to this bill than what others speakers have said. My support for whānau, hapū, iwi, and individuals—be they Māori, Pākehā, or whatever who are threatened by the imposition of terror by State forces—is absolute. I will not stand by quietly and wait for the New Zealand Police to come up with its idea about what is right and what is wrong. I note that American experts on terror, who have been flown over to this country to give their view, say that our police are probably breaking the law if they hold people without bail. I am not speaking on any particular case here.I am not speaking on any particular case here; it is a generic expression in respect of a range of charges, and none in particular. If that is the measure of us sitting quietly and accepting the rule of law, then we should not—as a society, as a Committee, and as any party in this Chamber—sit quietly by.
When I hear speakers in this Chamber in respect of this bill talk about the Untied Nations and ask how we could possibly not go along with the United Nations, I think to myself: “How could we possibly not go along with the United Nations *Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?”
John Hayes: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. The member is confusing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is a commission of the United Nations, with the *Security Council, which is quite a different body.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is clearly a debating point, and the member is debating the bill.
HONE HARAWIRA: Thank you, Madam Chair. If Mr Mapp wants to talk about us honouring the call from the United Nations for this, that, and the other, then I would say to members let us not be picky about it—let us honour them all. If one of the calls from the United Nations happens to be the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, then let us honour that as well. Let us not say we will honour only certain aspects of it—those which go along with the United States’ version of what terrorism should be. Let us honour all aspects handed down to us by the United Nations, including the *Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination’s recommendation, for example, that the *Foreshore and Seabed Act be thrown out because it discriminates against Māori people here in Aotearoa. Coming back to the name of this bill, in terms of terrorism the Māori Party does support the rule of law. The Māori Party does oppose terrorism. The Māori Party will oppose terrorism in all of its forms, whether it is international terrorism or State terrorism. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I will come back to this later.
ENDS
Related
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0711/S00121.htm
