Posts by Sara Noble
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
(Thanks Stephen for the link to Jackson’s questions and to the excellent convention notes) Finn you picked the weakest part of Moana Jackson’s argument to criticise out of the context of the rest of the discussion. This is exactly the way evidence gets misconstrued!
More fully Jackson states:
“In a general sense normal activism and the democratic right to protest have increasingly been defined as "threats" with a consequently more heavy-handed Police treatment and surveillance of activists ranging from environmentalists to animal rights protestors.
“In a more specific sense Iwi were concerned that the new powers would be targeted at Maori simply because history has shown that opposition to colonisation has always been seen as a "threat" by the Crown. Operation Eight showed that that fear was justified.
“Was this racist?
“Yes.
“The Police Commissioner was correct in stating that people of "many ethnicities" were arrested. However the way they were arrested shows a marked difference in terms of race.
“For example the Maori community of Ruatoki was the only community that was locked down and blockaded in the course of the Operation. It was only in Ruatoki that innocent people were stopped, searched and harassed while going about their daily lives.
“When houses were raided in Auckland and Wellington the surrounding suburbs were not locked down, and no innocent Pakeha people were stopped going about their daily lives.
“What abuse of innocent bystanders took place?
“Some examples are now sub judice because they are subject to possible civil action against the Police. However the affidavits of people who have no reason to lie indicate that there was systematic abuse of the rights of innocent men, women and children.
“The breach of Police procedures that occurred when people were ordered out of their cars by armed officers and photographed in Ruatoki is now public knowledge. The Police simply do not have that right.
“Other abuses were more distant from public scrutiny and thus more traumatising for the people concerned, especially those which involved physical mishandling and detention.
“It is one of the tragedies of the Operation that the quasi-military focus of the anti-terrorism strategy meant the effective sidelining of the Police Iwi liaison Officers who were originally appointed because of their knowledge of Maori communities. Even the Police Commissioner’s own Advisory Group of respected Maori leaders was excluded.”
Look at the phrase “physical mishandling”. You wait til Peter Williams’ evidence comes out. Think “Crash” (the movie). Louise Wallace for one will NOT be surprised at these stories.
The fact that the Police Iwi Liaison Officers were sidelined is because Tuhoe has a good relationship with the local police who would have moderated or even dismissed the allegations. The local police have actually used Tame Iti to mediate in local problems. A police officer lost his job because he testified for Tame Iti in one of his previous hearings. Why would the local Police support Iti and Tuhoe? Because they has a strong sense of social responsibility. Tame Iti’s commitment to Maori Sovereignty might make lots of Pakeha think he is a wild radical, but his desire to protect his community and culture is actually deeply conservative. And that face art? It might look like a direct threat to authority to you, but it symbolises the long and deep lines of authority that run in his culture.
“Iwi were concerned that the new powers would be targeted at Maori simply because history has shown that opposition to colonisation has always been seen as a "threat" by the Crown. Operation Eight showed that that fear was justified.”
Spot on!
And our continued belligerent ignorance to the fact of Maori complaints and aspirations IS racist and supports the default position of racism in parliament and government agencies. I won’t repeat all the things that have already been said about the ramping up of the “terrorist” threat due to overseas pressures etc etc etc, but in this climate Of Course the Maori Sovereignty movement was going to be the scapegoat. Damn it, when are we going to grow up and learn to live with each other?
-
I’m sorry Kyle (especially given your photo of the beach sculpture, which was appreciated) but this stuff by Tracey Watkins is a pile of dog shit:
"It simply does not have enough information to either trust that the police acted within the public interest against a very real terrorist threat, or discount some of the more extreme claims that are being made about the motives of the police (and, by extension, the State)."
If it had been a “very real terrorist threat”, charges would have been brought under the TSA. Collins said it was almost impossible, NOT impossible. There is a universe of difference between “very disturbing activities” and a “real terrorist threat.”
"Secrecy has increasingly become the fallback position of government agencies. Banks of PR people stand between public service chief executives and the media, and Official Information Act requests are routinely given lip service. But there should be an outcry if the default position prevails in this instance. The stakes are too high."
In relation to evidence which is not admissible not being made public, this is not a “fallback position”. Inadmissible evidence is inadmissible because it does not meet the rules of evidence and therefore doesn’t COUNT as evidence. In this instance, because of the supposed threat of terrorism, the police were allowed to intrude into people’s privacy to a far greater degree than would usually be allowed.
Reams and reams of transcripts of private e-mails, texts and phone calls were presented in court. There is absolutely no ethical justification, let alone imperative, to make this public now. What’s more it would be illegal! What if one of those phone calls was to you and you were talking about how your mother joined weight watchers but was still scoffing doughnuts with Aunt Jane. What if dad is having an affair with Aunt Jane who is supplying the doughnuts to gain competitive advantage? We’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of pages of personal trivia hitting the media – in amongst which there must be some juicy tidbits that got the police’s pulse up, but which the SG has said cannot justify use of the TSA.
And as we keep hearing, all this surveillance info didn’t reveal any crimes that had already occurred (except relating to fire arms and a possession of cannabis charge).
No! We do not get to try these people in the court of public opinion. In that regard we have to accept the SG’s determination.
-
Hey MH, I haven't forgotten that you asked what "fair dealing with Maori" might actually involve. I wrote up my manifesto a couple of nights ago and then my server glitched and I lost it all. I'll do it again on the "this just in" thread which seems to have taken over from here. But not just now - later tonight.
-
Did you all see the Police evidence presented in the Sunday Herald today - If that was the best they could come up with they've obviously never been to a New Year's eve celebration at Whangamata.
-
Here are a couple of further points that should be stirred into the mix I think:
The SG said "almost" impossible to apply to domestic circumstances - So in fact he is saying it is possible, its just complicated and the standard is high - as it bloody well should be.
The requirements ( Paul Buchanan and the SG distilled them down to 5 coherent points fairly easily, so I really don't think it is that complicated or incoherent) seem to be: Ideology (shared political motivation) or the intention to force govt into something it wouldn't otherwise do; means - you gotta have the stuff and expertise to carry it out; a real plan - specific and coherent and WELL UNDERWAY; result will be loss of life or significant harm to people or harm to infrastructure that will result in harm to people. Frankly, I think this is a pretty good set of criteria - I certainly wouldn't want it to be less stringent. The 5th Point is that it has to be an identifiable terrorist "entity" - a set group of people who are together for the purpose. As PB said - if its one person out there alone who meet all the rest of the criteria s/he should probably be dealt with under the mental health act.
So I think the SG is either quite a-law-and-order-at-all-costs-nut, or he was really covering the Police's back.
The law was designed for the big international terrorist scenario and it should remain so (if at all).
And here is the bit that no one is saying but I think is actually self evident. It is the misuse of power of the state that creates "terrorism" (I hate that word) in the first place. Governments and politicians constantly create the chimera of threat to justify and strengthen their power: Peters - immigrants, Brash - Maori, Bush - Arabs, Greens - environmental catastrophe. It is fundamental.
Add to that economic and cultural dominance of the most powerful and keep ramping it up and you're going to pop out a few people who are disaffected enough to want to do some damage and don't feel they have a lot to loose.As PB said, the contradictions in NZ are not great enough for this to be occurring, but if the Police carry on as they have been and the Govt buys in we could be heading that way.
Finally, NM - the only person among the Urewera 17 that seems to be crazy is a Pakeha guy with so many bridges burnt behind him that everyone seems to know he is just trouble. If he had a gun - yep - I'd be scared. The ones that I know about (ie the Tuhoe lot) are not crazy and the guns are pretty much bona fide - certainly not to be used in anger. Maybe there is a feeling among some of them that they could be used in self defense if absolutely necessary but even that seems unlikely. The SG was so complementary about the cops mot shooting - but if these were such a determined, bad arse gang of terrorists, with the means intention to launch a terrorist attack, why didn't they come out guns blazing?
And by the way, you're not the Neil Morrison I know are you? You don't have to be if you don't want to (??!).
-
MB: Mostly not, and that which has is under suppression orders.
-
NM: And I am very very happy that the standard for bring charges of Terrorism is high. It should remain so.
-
Russell, I don't think Pita Sharples' was arguing that we should not talk about the details of the case. I'm sure he wants as much of it in the public domain as possible (where it can be politicised). He was criticising Collins for breaking the rules as Collins himself had stated them.
Again you skirt the central issues: Sharples' statements were part of his criticism of Collins praise for the police, which Sharples objected to, partly because the police action cut across years of negotiated Police-Maori liaison protocols and officers trained for this. Again the Maori and the Crown (agent) negotiate and agree, but when it suits them the Crown just chuck it all out and do what they want (that's my sentence, not Sharples' and yes, I'm pissed off).
Also, Sharples pointed out that the reputations of Tuhoe and Maori (let alone NZ) have been seriously damaged as a consequence of this. The examples he gave of overseas media sensationalising the Maori terrorist threat were astounding.
-
Sorry Kyle, you misunderstand my point. I imagine that some Iwi are pretty happy about the progress that has been made under some settlements, but I think it is quite possible that at some time in the future we will get to the point where we consider that we didn't go far enough under this legislation and that further actions of redress could be considered. I think it is possible that this could be spurred on by Iwi questioning the present mechanisms and calling into question their intent, process and outcomes.
Also a contract can not be legally nullified by the more powerful party using this principle, so Ngai Tahu are not at risk on this basis.
This is not something that I just made up. It is a view that is expressed by a few Pakeha legal experts in the area and by some Maori. In terms of the present context, yes it is an extreme view. It is somewhat ideologically purist which, to my mind provides a perspective check, not a guide for current action.
BJ, in terms of your relationship with banks, electricity suppliers etc look up the "Doctrine of Prime Necessity" and the Commerce Act for the legal mechanisms and precedents that are supposed to protect consumers in monopoly situations. Ask anyone with the beginnings of an understanding of contract law and they will confirm the principle. Then it comes down to the interpretation of duress etc, and I strongly disagree with your position on that. The government has Maori over a barrel in these "negotiations." In the end it is take it or leave it (and get nothing). When Maori disagree too vociferously they just legislate.
-
A lot has happened here since 2 o'clock this morning. Just quickly now because I only have 10 minutes:
There are other arguments for and against an Iwi being able to claim that they never ceded sovereignty and making claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. There are so many contradictions that of course all sides have to make pragmatic decisions and only time will tell how much redress is ultimately gained. The two biggest contradictions, to my mind, are:
That the English language version of the treaty states that Maori give sovereignty to the Crown, while the Maori version does not. So by making claims under the treaty Maori are using a mechanism set up on the assumption that the Crown is Sovereign, potentially to assert their own Sovereignty, and
That the Waitangi Tribunal itself, though the best thing we have at the moment, and doing a great job, especially in the area of retaining detailed, grass-roots history, can not really be considered as having the mandate of the Maori people. In effect, by imposing the Waitangi Tribunal on Maori as the mediator of their grievances, the Government has again breached the Treaty!
So it is a matter of doing the best with the tools you have at the time. The idea, however, that settlements set down by the government, whether Iwi sign them or not, are full and final is nonsense. For a contract to be legally binding the parties have to be equally empowered to negotiate the contract and not be under duress. ANY and EVERY time the government IMPOSES a decision on Maori it is in breach of the Treaty.
I'll tell you some of my fabulous ideas for solving all of this later... and all fingers and toes crossed that Russell's tip is right!