Posts by Russell Brown
-
One thing it's easy to forget now is how comically off the pace Apple was for a while in digital music. Steve thought the killer app would be people editing their home movies.
Eventually, they had to buy SoundJam from Cassady and Greene and turn it into iTunes. You know the rest.
-
Fiji – Samoa: When two island nations play each other all hell can break loose. Great fun for the neutrals, especially with two opposing haka to start the game (I use “haka” as a generic term here).
Public Address will be in da house for that one. Me and Fiona, Ben recordari ... anyone else going?
Auckland is the best place in the whole world for this match to take place. Yay.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
So how is it justified to say that an NZ-born violent nutcase is entitled to the full benefit of the law, but a refugee (who, remember, has been conceded the right to come here based on international law) is judged by a different standard.
But that's not what the Convention says. It does not require nations to accord everyone in the world the same rights and privileges as it does its own citizens. It says:
Except where this Convention contains more favourable provisions, a Contracting State shall accord to refugees the same treatment as is accorded to aliens generally.
And aliens do not have an automatic right to enter and take up residence in New Zealand.
But UNHCR also says, in this guide:
3.4.3.3 Exclusion and “terrorism”
The question of exclusion frequently arises in the context of crimes referred to as acts of “terrorism”. In many instances, it will not be necessary to consider whether such acts give rise to exclusion: where the person alleged to have been involved in “terrorist” crimes fears legitimate prosecution rather than persecution, he or she does not meet the inclusion criteria of the refugee definition and his or her claim will be rejected on that basis (see above at 2.2.3.4). If it is established, however, that the person concerned has a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of a 1951 Convention ground, an exclusion examination is required.Cases of this nature must be handled with great care. On the one hand, it is important that persons who are undeserving of international protection do not obtain refugee status. On the other hand, the asylum claim of a person who belongs to a particular organization or who is suspected of having committed terrorist acts should be examined in a fair and efficient procedure in which the context and circumstances of the individual case are assessed against the criteria of Article 1F, including the requirement to establish whether the standard of proof under that provision (“serious reasons for considering”) is met.
The host country does not have to convict an applicant of a crime beyond reasonable doubt. It must have "serious reasons" as defined under Article 1F:
Article 1F applies if there are “serious reasons for considering” that the applicant has committed, or participated in the commission of, an excludable crime. Clear and credible information is needed to meet the “serious reasons” requirement. While it is not necessary to meet the standard of proof in criminal cases (e.g. “beyond reasonable doubt” in common law systems), the “balance of probabilities” threshold is too low. Likewise, a simple suspicion would not be a sufficient basis for a decision to exclude. The burden of proof lies, in principle, on the decision-maker. In other words, the State or UNHCR must show that there are indeed “serious reasons” for considering that the person concerned comes within the scope of Article 1F. This always requires an individualized assessment of the applicant’s conduct, including where he or she was a member of a repressive regime or a group that commits or advocates violent crimes, or if he or she took part in an armed conflict in the past. In exceptional circumstances, however, a reversal of the burden of proof may be justified.
Zaoui was not a terrorist. But he had been convicted of terrorism offenses in three countries, which was enough for several countries to reject him. The fact that the RSAA was prepared to dismiss those convictions as unsafe suggests that our system went considerably beyond the Convention in safeguarding his rights. Eventually.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
For a foreigner, a collection of scuttlebutt is enough. Sure, it was documented scuttlebutt, but they didn’t have anything that, even if proven, would have convicted Zaoui for an offence.
It was a bit more than scuttlebutt. Zaoui was tried and convicted of terrorism offences in Algeria, Belgium and France (in each case, in absentia). It really says something for the Authority that it was prepared to dismiss those convictions as unsafe.
Anyway, you're right, I think we've done our dash on this one.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
For a foreigner, a collection of scuttlebutt is enough. Sure, it was documented scuttlebutt, but they didn’t have anything that, even if proven, would have convicted Zaoui for an offence.
But that’s not the test, and I’m not aware that it’s the test in any country in the world. Not everyone gets to enter and live in New Zealand, and people who seek to enter as refugees have to meet refugee criteria as set out in the 1999 Immigration Act. And that does not include anyone:
who the Minister has reason to believe—
(i) has engaged in, or claimed responsibility for, an act of terrorism in New Zealand; or
(ii) is a member of or adheres to any organisation or group of people that has engaged in, or has claimed responsibility for, an act of terrorism in New Zealand; or
(f) who the Minister has reason to believe—
(i) has engaged in, or claimed responsibility for, an act of terrorism outside New Zealand; or
(ii) is a member of or adheres to any organisation or group of people that has engaged in, or has claimed responsibility for, an act of terrorism outside New Zealand—
and whose presence in New Zealand would, for that reason or for any other reason, constitute, in the opinion of the Minister, a threat to public safety; or
(g) who the Minister has reason to believe is likely—
(i) to engage in, or facilitate the commission of, any act of terrorism; or
(ii) to commit an offence against the Crimes Act 1961 or the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975; or
(h) who the Minister has reason to believe, in light of any international circumstances, is likely to constitute a danger to the security or public order of New Zealand; or
(i) who the Minister has reason to believe is a member of or adheres to any organisation or group of people which has criminal objectives or which has engaged in criminal activities, and whose presence in New Zealand would, for that reason or any other reason, constitute, in the opinion of the Minister, a threat to the public interest or public order.If your benchmark is that the Crown has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant has committed an offence in a distant jurisdiction, then that’s going to be practically impossible – or at least cost millions of dollars more than the refugee process currently does.
I’m also not sure I’d like New Zealand to become a bolthole for Indonesian jihadis or European neo-Nazis. I can’t see how that would be good for the country.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
As a minimum, that if a refugee is believed to be a terrorist or other danger to NZ, that they be charged, indicted and tried in open court, with a jury, for a real offence.
But the Authority is an open court. All its judgements are published in a database and subject to appeal. And I actually don’t think that juries would be fairer than the authority as it currently operates. A jury would not, for example, have conducted its own investigation the way the Authority did in Zaoui’s case.
More radically, I’d like us to close down NZSIS and GCSB and replace them with accountable groups within Police, Defence and MFAT.
Fair enough. That’s a policy.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I’d assert that if Labour were to turn themselves around and advocate truly radical policies, they might be surprised at the support they’d get.
Where would that support come from?
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Serious question: which policy are you referring to?
The jailing of Ahmed Zaoui.
A shameful episode, but not a matter of policy so much as an extended outbreak of idiocy at the SIS and Helen Clark's notorious aversion to being wrong.
Zaoui did receive a "trial", in that his application was heard and refused by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, a judicial body, on the basis of information it received. And it was a vindication of the Authority that it subsequently conducted its own investigation, which debunked the claims of the SIS.
What policy change would you propose here?
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
For reference, I primarily won’t vote Labour because of their policies:
- I don’t support locking innocent people up without trialSerious question: which policy are you referring to?
- I want the right to choose what I put in my body
- I don’t want NZ entering into undemocratic ‘free trade’ agreements
- I don’t want NZ troops sent off to colonial wars, however much they want to goIt seems fair to note that Goff has publicly opposed the redeployment of the SAS to Afganistan since 2009.
The incompetence of Goff is a side issue (and the fact Labour can’t find a decent leader is partly a consequence of their political stance)
In think there are number of reasons for Labour’s leadership problems, but I really can’t see how that’s one.
We’ve got MMP (still) and that gives us the freedom to vote for who we agree with, not be forced into a binary Labour/National choice.
Quite.
If Labour wants an enthusiastic support base on the Left, then it needs to radically rethink its whole policy structure.
So they can finally poll as well the the Greens?
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to 3410,
Can this year be the year of parties? We’ve still got 4 months to make it so.
What we really need is one of them Jamaican sound system trucks.
To be fair, we do have quite a bit of free party action coming up on Queen’s Wharf. The Turnaround late at The Cloud on Sept 16 will be the closest thing to a Norman Jay “Good Times” joint you’re likely to see all year.
The organisers seem determined to keep the actual listings a secret at the moment, so I’ve uploaded a PDF with this comment.
Edit: Bah. No I haven’t. Let me try that again.
Edit 2: It's here. Click to view or right-click to save.