"The Terrorism Files"
850 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 19 20 21 22 23 … 34 Newer→ Last
-
Here's a hypothetical cat:
There is an argument for just war. It's not one I subscribe to myself, but it is a legitimate argument. In certain circumstances, it's not only not immoral but actually a moral necessity to use force. You may remember that this was one of the arguments used to justify the Iraq war. The definition of those circumstances is also why there's a highly disputed line between freedom fighters and terrorists.
As I understand it, at least some parts of the Maori sovereignty movement want an independent Maori state. It's just a distinct ethnic group wanting a country of their own. This isn't unreasonable. (It also isn't apartheid. I'd imagine there'd be immigration, though there is a precedent for an automatic right of return).
Now, also as I understand it, Tuhoe never signed the Treaty and were only included in New Zealand by force against their will, and then had some of their lands underhandedly taken off them, not to mention the Te Kooti and Rua Kenana bizzo.
Assuming for the sake of argument that there is such a thing as a just war, is this one of those cases?
-
But some people in Guantanamo haven't seen any lawyers, and they've been waiting 5 years. They have no prospect of seeing one soon. Let's keep things in perspective.
This argument; 'things are worse somewhere else', 'you'd get locked up in Zimbabwe etc.', is repeated far too often here. It simply doesn't make any sense, unless you're suggesting that we have liberties we can afford to lose.
Yes, New Zealand is a better place than most - but that's the way I like it, and the way I intend to keep it. I'm very happy that if I get arrested I have a right to see a lawyer promptly, and discuss my case. I assume most commenters here like the set of liberties we have. Taking them for granted, and challenging those who stand up for them is a great way to see them go.
-
Oh, and to those who complained of the analogies with Gitmo. This is what is known in rhetoric as hyperbole. It has a pedigree going back thousands of years.
Sadly so does attempting to control a debate by disallowing your opponents devices you use yourself, but it's not as nice.
-
And it's a strawman argument which I really shouldn't have bothered defending anyway; as pointed out earlier, the orange jumpsuits are worn in NZ prisons.
-
Gotta agree, Joe. We've been sharing sharply conflicting opinions in this thread without being abusive, but that was edging towards the line a bit. And I'm sure Finn will be happy to dial it back if you do.
Fine.
-
I’m playing catch up here – forgive the belated chit-chat, but I have appreciated the feedback (okay, mainly the supportive kind) I have had from others, so I’d like to return the favour a bit. Despite my occasionally heated ranting, I really appreciate the opportunity to knock this stuff around. I’m only half way through all the stuff youz buggers have put up in the last 14 hours but I’m going to post this now or it will get even more ridiculous:
On Anger and Recrimination:
Firstly, I think it is a mismatch between Maori and Pakeha culture, to some extent, that Maori have culturally authorised mechanisms for strong emotions to be brought into the public sphere whereas, generally speaking, Pakeha do not. We (coz I’m one of them) tend to be expected to deal with our emotional responses internally and only deliver the processed, rationalised results in to the open – and even then only if absolutely necessary. “Least said soonest mended” and all that. Court, meetings, conferences, for instance, are supposed to be silent except for the formal speakers and formal questions. The similar venue for Maori, the Marae, welcomes emotion: joy, grief, anger, shame are all considered welcome, relevant, human responses to human situations. Because these response are nevertheless mediated by Marae kawa they are kept safe and community responses to the situation can be addressed.
Pakeha attitudes to public anger, grief etc are quite different – you are likely to be seen as bad or mad, or both.
Okay, so perhaps all this distaste about the anger expressed on the Hikoi is just a little ethnocentric, not to mention some of the interpretations of other responses such as Nanaia Mahuta’s. Correct me if I’m wrong because I wasn’t there, nor have I seen specific coverage of her crying, but there are lots and lots of reasons that she might have cried other than that she was scared of the nasty, noisy protesters.
I think it is likely that she would have had feelings of grief over the terrible things that happened at Ruatoki, grief at the idea that Maori-Government/Police relations had sustained real damage, and even possibly some grief and/or shame that she, as a member of government, has presided over this – even if from a somewhat marginalised position within government.
Okay, so as a Pakeha I’d like to think other Pakeha’s could open their eyes to the possibility that there might be other interpretations of events than those from our cultural perspective.
And, as a Pakeha, I’d like to think that our culture was growing up a bit around how to handle emotional expression. 1. That anger can be valid and expressing it in ways that do not actually do harm is healthier than bottling it up; and 2. That when an “other” is expressing anger, or any strong challenging emotion, ideally one tries hard not to escalate matters by reacting defensively. The trick is to stay in our wise or adult selves and go “hmm – this person is hurting – perhaps I can understand it, perhaps I can help them process it, perhaps we can both learn from it and go forward stronger.
Instead of whining about all those scary, ungrateful Maori, grow up. Sometimes you have to take criticism on the chin.
And to respond to the springbok tour comparison – if they’d dressed up as clowns wielding sticks of French bread, they might have ended up with concussion and broken collar bones.
binary.heart – I think you did an excellent job opening up these issues.
Hey David, any particular bits of post-structuralism you hate? I’d be very interested to know. I’ll tell you my pet theory if you tell me yours. And thanks for answering Kyle – saved me doing it – again. …yeah, like left handers on average have 10 (or so) extra IQ points – TRUE.
Shep – y’know, I really didn’t know that TI was short. Yeah, I looove the Ewoks but I still think you’re being a bit mean to Chewy – and Old Ben. Actually, I think John Minto should be Obiwan (coz he’s old and none too pretty – though perhaps THAT’S being mean to Alec Guinness). But then we have the all important role of Luke Skywalker vacant (ha ha). Maybe that is the essential problem – we need someone young and pretty to lead the revolution. Time to abduct and brainwash Newsboy. Cullen=Palpatine is pure brilliance.
CMT – thank you, vile is an understatement.
Kowhai: Sorry I wasn’t here this morning to give you a bit of support. It is all very well to criticise the front of Hikoi as impolitic, but I think the point right now is the expression of hurt and anger, and the very real sense that a reasonably amicable relationship – i.e. local people and local police – has been utterly shattered. The message is, I think, that the government has a hell of a lot of work to do to repair the damage and move forward again (if it ever will). Go for it Kowhai.
Re: Labour being retrogressive, (and fascist nanny control freaks) what – seriously – is the alternative? I hate the idea of voting for them, but I’m terrified that if we don’t the Nats are back and all that stuff about dismantling the Maori seats and removing references to the Treaty will come to fruition. I guess it’s not likely, but it is possible… and all for an extra 10 bucks a week in the hand. I really really really don’t know what to do.
Kyle: I think it might be worth clarifying a couple of points – firstly, the quote wasn’t originally mine, but that’s fine, the sentiment was, but I take your point that the absolute meaning of it was inaccurate. My point is that the SG was quite clear that Terrorism charges could not laid. He said that it was ALMOST impossible to do that in domestic circumstances. He basically said the law was a problem. But it is not up to the Solicitor General to decide what the law should say. That is a political decision that requires public debate. My position is that the law should stay (if at all) very, very tight, because the idea of Terrorism is very, very serious. In fact I think it is far to emotive to be on the statues and if we need extra laws to do this job, they should come into the “conspiracy” statutes.
Bob – see profiles at the GPJC website
“I can't actually think of a more appropriate use of the Haka than during a protest at parliament by Tuhoi.” Well said, Stephen – I’m totally with you.
-
GPJC website?
-
Bfletcher etc: I know lots of activists who talk way bigger than they act. We all let off steam by talking shit and we fantasise about what we might do if we were completely without conscience or consequences. I’ve done it myself. “Give me a couple of sisters and a sharp knife and he’d be singing in a different key!” I have a protest arrest under my belt, and the anarchists’ handbook in my shelves but for a while there I wouldn’t kill a mosquito in case it was sentient.
My sister and I also planned to kill my father – down to speculating about what chemicals might induce a heart attack with out leaving a trace. We were very angry, but we knew we didn’t really intend to do it. In motorcycle clubs its called “bench racing”. My daughter and her friend (the daughter of a VERY prominent conservative politician) had a hit list of the “popular” girls at school on their school computers. She was sooo upset at the thought that someone could take it seriously – but I’m glad I intervened before some looney saw it. Imagine what might have been made of such a thing in the US?
Between the police and the media filtering the evidence, I have no faith whatsoever that the evidence we have heard is any indication of adequate means or intention to storm the local council office let alone launch any terrorist attacks.
-
http://www.civilrightsdefence.org.nz/
www.gpja.org.nz/
sorry I was being lazy, and I still can't make the stuff work to do links and quotes beautifully and my husband is threatening to give my dinner to the dog, but I know its here somewhere....
Failing the above, I know they are in here somewhere.... argghh
Maybe someone else can be more specific
[http://www.civilrightsdefence.org.nz/donate]
SEND A MESSAGE OF SUPPORT TO BE FORWARDED TO PEOPLE IN PRISON
[http://www.civilrightsdefence.org.nz/node/add/support]QUOTE
PROFILES
Emily Bailey: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0711/S00021.htm]
Valerie Morse: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0711/S00020.htm]
Ira Bailey: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0711/S00008.htm]
Omar Hamed: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0710/S00390.htm]
Rongomai Bailey: [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0710/S00389.htm] -
As far as I'm aware, occam's razor is on my side; in the absence of any actual planning, the simplest explanation for a statement that the prime minister should be killed is that it's no more of a genuine threat than all the other similar statements being made in private conversations between ordinary people all the time.
Actually, I don't think William of Ockham was of the "it doesn't count if you have your fingers crossed behind your back" theory of occam's razor. The simplest explanation for someone saying 'X', is that they mean 'X'. A more complex explanation would be that they mean '!X'. You have added an unnecessary assumption, which is "the person was not being truthful when they said that". The simpler assumption is that they are telling the truth.
Who's making that argument? I've only said the majority of these 17 should have been bailed straight away, based on what I know of the people involved and the evidence reported to date, and that bail shouldn't be denied without very good reason.
I quote:
I <b>can</b> claim that they shouldn't have been locked up for a month before the trial, though. People should not be punished for unknowns.
Anyone who is denied bail, and remains in custody, is being punished for unknowns.
Yes, New Zealand is a better place than most - but that's the way I like it, and the way I intend to keep it. I'm very happy that if I get arrested I have a right to see a lawyer promptly, and discuss my case. I assume most commenters here like the set of liberties we have. Taking them for granted, and challenging those who stand up for them is a great way to see them go.
Which is not what Finn, Russell, or I were doing. Just pointing out that while things weren't great here, to say that they're like Guantanamo, is stretching things just a tad far.
Okay, so perhaps all this distaste about the anger expressed on the Hikoi is just a little ethnocentric, not to mention some of the interpretations of other responses such as Nanaia Mahuta’s.
I agree with what you've said here Sara. But the fact that Pakeha reactions are ethnocentric, doesn't change the fact, that if Tuhoe are looking to change Pakeha perceptions of themselves, that's something they have to deal with. Any good campaign does analysis of the targets of the campaign, and where they're at. If Tuhoe want to change Pakeha perceptions of Maori, then they have to start with where Pakeha are at, not where they wish Pakeha were on the issues/perceptions.
My position is that the law should stay (if at all) very, very tight, because the idea of Terrorism is very, very serious.
I agree with the second half of this. Personally I'd much rather the terrorism law was scrapped, and any crimes that are in it that don't exist elsewhere wrapped into the Crimes Act. The one on financing terrorism is the only one that I can think of off the top of my head.
In general (and stepping away from the current issue), I don't like the idea that people could get away with committing crimes, because of administrative matters like wrong act on a warrant etc. If we simplify law, that would seem less likely.
But I don't agree that laws should be very very tight. What's the purpose of a law if it's almost impossible to convict someone with it? Would we want murder, robbery, rape to be tight laws?
Personally I'm in favour of just having the laws well written to start with, rather than badly written but impossible to apply.
-
For more on William of Ockham and his thoughts, see Ockham and Political Discourse in the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series), Takashi Shogimen, University of Otago, 2007.
Cause you gotta sell the locals.
-
Oh, and to those who complained of the analogies with Gitmo. This is what is known in rhetoric as hyperbole. It has a pedigree going back thousands of years.
Just to engage in some rhetorical hyperbole for a minute, so does rape, murder and state oppression of the working masses. I'm not sure that people having done things for a long time is any argument of merit.
Sadly so does attempting to control a debate by disallowing your opponents devices you use yourself, but it's not as nice.
If you catch me doing this then feel free to call me out specifically on it. I'm not being snarky, that's a genuine request.
And to address your hypothetical post about just war: I'm very dubious of the idea of a "just war" in the first place. The US arguments in favour of the Iraq war have been roundly discredited by events subsequent to the invasion. Far from the liberating freedom the US claimed they were bringing the country has instead plummeted into insecurity, unemployment, death, human rights violations and hatred on an even worse scale than when Saddam was in power, which is saying something.
Similarly, the argument for a "just war" against the British in Northern Ireland was more compelling than it is for Tuhoe here. There was specific and open ingrained discrimination in the governance of the country. When Bloody Sunday turned public opinion towards belief in a war there was certainly a far more compelling case for claiming the state had overreacted to their peaceful protests with violence. But again, all the troubles achieved was decades of tit-for-tat killing, death of innocent people and hatred. It was only when the populace started caring more about peace than about "just wars" that progress could again be made towards a country everybody could live in.
In New Zealand those arguments are even weaker than they were in both examples above. Quite simply, both Tuhoe are not subject to violent state oppression in the way that either Iraq or pre-troubles Northern Ireland were. And since both of those examples worked out crap anyway I don't think there's much argument that a war by Tuhoe would be positive for anybody involved. That's my argument, anyway. And it's not to say that Tuhoe don't have legitimate things to ask of New Zealand, but picking up guns is just asking for a trip down the same path of bloody history that numerous other countries have gone down in the past.
-
So somebody seems to have a problem. Some Tuhoe people are arrested, in part, because of bugged conversations about killing John Key. Then John Key gets to visit deep in Tuhoe country, outside of cellphone range, at remote Marae, greeted by Tame Iti, without a police escort, and with the written approval of the diplomatic protection squad. (Factual corrections welcome).
This looks very bad for the Police Commissioner. Either he sanctioned unjustified raids. Or he failed to protect one of the country's leading politicians.
So which is it? Or is there a third option I've missed?
-
My sister and I also planned to kill my father – down to speculating about what chemicals might induce a heart attack with out leaving a trace. We were very angry, but we knew we didn’t really intend to do it.
I'm sorry Sara, but your "harmless letting off steam" argument just doesn't fly. As many people have pointed out on this thread (I've just waded my way through it - marathon!), at least some of the 17 arrested had clearly moved beyond the "speculating" stage and into the "equipping themselves with guns and training in the bush" stage.
Idle BS about asassinations & blowing stuff up = letting off steam.
Idle BS about asassinations & blowing stuff up + buying the necessary equipment + training to use it = more than just letting off steam, and (IMO) worthy of police involvement.
-
Sorry Kyle but the relationship between statement, belief, meaning and intention is far more complex than that.
And honestly, I don't know that Tuhoe are particularly focussed on changing Jo Pakeha's perceptions. I think they want to change government's perceptions (i.e. they won't be walked over). I think Hikoi has a long tradition. The walking thing is less about getting attention or sympathy than demonstrating commitment in an honourable way. So to characterise the Hikoi as part of a campaign, in the public perception sense is again rather ethnocentric. In my moderate (not minor, not extensive) experience in dealing with Maori who are actively working on Maori issues, they are usually not to focussed on Pakeha at all. They are (usually) just trying to do the best they can for their own at the time. There is even a degree of distrust of Pakeha do-gooders because they see it as our responsibility to sort our shit out and, rather than "helping" them in a paternalistic way, to work on changing our own attitudes, structures etc . Which is what I'm trying to do here.
Anyway, what is the point of this criticism? To find yet another argument for your arsenal that Tuhoe/Maori activists are dumb arses, or to work on ideas to find a constructive way forward for all concerned?
So it comes back to the elephant: do we think that, having promised Maori a significant degree of self-government, we should find ways to achieve that? If so, how can we make the transition more constructive? If not, well I think you've missed the boat, because it is happening. The question is how much conflict and pain will be generated by the waining elite on its way down.
-
And actually I do think that the laws for charging people with robbery, rape and murder should be "tight." My meaning of the word tight in this context is: very well constructed as to the definition of the offense. So you have to know what you mean by the word you use to describe the offense. If Terrorism is qualitatively (or even quantitatively) different from crimes such as conspiracy to murder, or the eqivalent for damaging infrastructure, then we need to be very clear about what that difference is. My reading of Buchanan's article was that the law as drafted was "tight" in these terms. And so, I believe, it should remain. Semantics aside I think we actually agree that it would be better to wind it all back into the crimes act.
-
AM: No, the point is, there is no proof.
The other side is:
Survival and hunting skills camps with an ideology of self-sufficiency, self protection and tribal mana
+ Idle BS for letting off steam
= Police panic
+ Police and media misconstrued surveillance evidence
= very dangerous storm in a tea cupThe points to support this scenario have also been made repeatedly here (and by the majority I think - sometimes it feels like we're mostly just preaching to the converted).
So it comes down to underlying ideologies which way you are likely to go:
See Maori activism as justified and don't trust the police? You're going to tend to the latter.
Like the status quo and don't want to think that there might be institutional racism and human rights abuses in NZ? Line up for your ice cream and soma.
-
Malcolm, I don't know the facts/dates of what you refer to, but if you're right it's at least pretty bloody amusing.
Sara: nice post, and I second all your ka pais and kia oras to the morning's posters, especially to binary.heart, who nicely demonstrates the side of activism that is the antithesis of what I referred to last night as the anarcho-narcissist.
That's the very thoughtful side.
And it would be really nice if people of a more "mainstream" mentality at least recognised for a moment the pains others go through when they must communicate in a language/discourse that they don't particularly trust or are fundamentally at odds with.
Which kind of brings me to the only addition I'd make to Sara's post, which I think Kowhai (and possibly others) alluded to earlier, and dubmugga(?) alluded to last night:
All these claims about "Tuhoe" (that, you know, one singular thing) and what "it" was hoping to achieve with the hikoi and how "it" failed because of an apparent PR disaster.
Here's a new catchy acronym for PAS: GOYFHH. (Any ideas?)
My point: Please, at least try to recognise when you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about.
Not everything in this world is easily reducible to your astoundingly comprehensive conception of reality.
I mean, just for example cos it's on this page:
Any good campaign does analysis of the targets of the campaign, and where they're at. If Tuhoe want to change Pakeha perceptions of Maori, then they have to start with where Pakeha are at, not where they wish Pakeha were on the issues/perceptions.
Sorry, no personal attack here: but that seems to some bloodcurdlingly arrogant.
"Yes, white New Zealand, we realise that you think we're basically ungrateful savages because we cling absurdly to our barbaric culture, but we're here to assure you that we too can wear suits on Sunday and debate policy in a reasonable, restrained manner, just as you do in your parliament house. Afterwards, maybe we can take tea together and then Sara can explain poststructuralism to us so we may enter your fine university system and drop French names and feel ever so clever. Thank you for listening, and have a nice day."
And so on.
-
BTW I think:
hunting and survival camps + illegal firearms does merit police involvement - using the local Iwi liaison police to bring anyone in to line and out any silliness on the marae. I assure you, Tuhoe leadership would have sorted out any of their own and Tau Iwi who were up to that kind of shit in their rohe. -
Creon: Kia ora mate!
-
Sorry, Sara got in first.
Preaching to the converted mostly, and otherwise bashing our heads against a brick wall methinks.
But there are all sorts posting here, and the various perspectives/facts/insights do push things around a little I find.
-
Sara, I think you put it a whole lot better than I did:
And honestly, I don't know that Tuhoe are particularly focussed on changing Jo Pakeha's perceptions. I think they want to change government's perceptions (i.e. they won't be walked over). I think Hikoi has a long tradition. The walking thing is less about getting attention or sympathy than demonstrating commitment in an honourable way. So to characterise the Hikoi as part of a campaign, in the public perception sense is again rather ethnocentric. In my moderate (not minor, not extensive) experience in dealing with Maori who are actively working on Maori issues, they are usually not to focussed on Pakeha at all. They are (usually) just trying to do the best they can for their own at the time. There is even a degree of distrust of Pakeha do-gooders because they see it as our responsibility to sort our shit out and, rather than "helping" them in a paternalistic way, to work on changing our own attitudes, structures etc . Which is what I'm trying to do here.
I hope it's working. I know for one that I'm a million years from sorting my shit out. Seems worth the effort of trying though.
Can't help adding: The cynical side of me always thinks--apropos the much earlier comment about "what is rangatiratanga?"--that its appeal to lefty poststructuralist academics is precisely its beautiful intractibility.
-
Oh phooey/fui/whuhi - you got me
-
Sorry, no personal attack here: but that seems to some bloodcurdlingly arrogant.
"Yes, white New Zealand, we realise that you think we're basically ungrateful savages because we cling absurdly to our barbaric culture, but we're here to assure you that we too can wear suits on Sunday and debate policy in a reasonable, restrained manner, just as you do in your parliament house. Afterwards, maybe we can take tea together and then Sara can explain poststructuralism to us so we may enter your fine university system and drop French names and feel ever so clever. Thank you for listening, and have a nice day."
Well that wasn't what I said at all.
I said that if Tuhoe want to change Pakeha perceptions, they have to start with where Pakeha are at. That's just plain logic. That applies to all activism, a good analysis of where people - activists, 'opposition', the general public, will indicate where the pressure points are.
If how Pakeha view you, is a concern, and I suspect for a lot of Tuhoe right now, it actually is, then image is something to think about.
If that doesn't concern them, well fine. They can do what they want.
Clearly Tuhoe did think about it, because they said so. Their spokesperson with in the media giving reasons why they had people lwearing bandanas, and it had exactly to do with public perception of terrorism.
I just think they got it wrong, their message got lost and a different impression was conveyed.
But continue to talk for them if you want.
-
Nah actually I'm quite serious about the question about Rangatiratanga.
I'm planning to embark on a fairly substantial piece of research soon, and one of the things I've been considering is that, despite what? 20 years or so of The Treaty being taught reasonably seriously in schools, despite the Treaty being given direct legal standing since at least 1984, despite so many people throwing up their hands and going "Oh god I'm so sick of all this talk about the Treaty," I suspect that only a very low proportion of us actually know what the treaty means - not in absolute terms (because arguably no one does - hence the beautiful intractibility) but in terms of key issues/principles as we currently understand them.
More importantly again, I think that progress on the Treaty in statute and precedent has gone ahead of public opinion - hence all the Maori bashing politicians on both sides feel obliged to do to keep the electorate happy.
So the intention of the research would be to find out how to effectively inform the pakeha population about what the Treaty really means (because being a fluffy liberal I think that once kiwi's know something is unfair they'll want to fix it). Or if necessary to make the Treaty "sexy" as the marketing crowd would say!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.