Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Secondly, as the Law Society has pointed this out, it is a common police tactic to wear down opposition by constantly laying and then dropping charges and then laying new charges. This can lead to enormous legal expenses for defendants as each case has to go through depositions and hearings if not trials. The toll it takes psychologically is enormous too.
Ae marika. I've seen this happen to friends of mine, again political activists who were the subject of a police vendetta.
Remember that what was nominally anti-terrorism legislation in the UK was used to pursue Icelandic banks.
Well, by some definitions banking practices are a form of terrorism, but I'm not sure that was the lawmakers' intent!
-
This included material and equipment for an environmental documentary a former student of mine had been working on outside of NZ for years. That work was effectively sabotaged and years later now, she hasn't been able to work on it or get her irreplaceable stock returned to her.
I'm really, really, sad to hear that. I know how much time, work, effort, love and dedication she and her fellow filmmakers put into the project, literally dedicating years of their lives towards it - every film is a labour of love, but when you're doing one on a shoestring budget especially so.
It had nothing to do with "terrorism" or violence, as should be plainly obvious to anyone who knew anything about it. It did however express the desire for a different world, which is quite dangerous it seems.
-
Because they didn't get a result, George, or because of how they conducted themselves in your dealings?
Because I believe that some things are worth standing up publicly and fighting for, because they are right.
-
The Zaoui Act (Immigration Act 2009) is by far the worst legislation of this bad bunch.
I'm going to spare you italics and bold, but most of this deserves to be in highlighted.
It allows for every non-citizen in the country to be arrested, indefinitely detained, and deported all without charge, on the basis of secret evidence. All of this is with extremely limited grounds for appeal. This applies to every person who is not a citizen. Even if you have lived here for decades. Even if you've been in a relationship for decades. Non-citizens make up hundreds of thousands of residents, by my estimation.
Anyone who has ever been denied entry to any country for any reason is denied entry to New Zealand.
Immigration can spy on anyone who is not a citizen in extremely invasive ways, and have far more powers than the police.
If one is deemed to be a risk to security or otherwise undesirable, the Immigration Department can expel a refugee in ways that fundamentally violate the Refugee Convention: by allowing refoulement to persecution, allowing only torture and death as grounds for challenge expulsion. The Refugee Convention specifically gives persecution as grounds for refugee status.
Apart from that, the most egregious change relating to refugees is the scrapping of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. This body has overturned many wrongful decisions - I know refugees who are very likely only alive today because of this body. The scrapping of this body is simply barbaric.
The entire bill is littered with sections that specifically reflect particular cases that the Immigration Department lost, and does not wish to lose again.
Gordon Campbell did a much better job of talking about this bill than anyone else, and his analysis deserves to be read.
You might wonder why I'm complaining now. I fought this bill, and pleaded with Labour Party people I kept contact with to make their opposition to it public. They all did their bit in private, but they were always a minority. I don't feel like talking to them any more, because I don't respect them any more.
-
But only if you are convicted of an offence, and that has to be a qualifying offence. Otherwise the profile is destroyed.
I'm corrected. Thanks.
-
@Russell "white trash" is always used to refer to people from poor backgrounds, and that's why I have a problem with the term.
Just look at how the Cletus family is portrayed in The Simpsons - if that kind of portrayal was directed at any ethnic group, there would be outrage, and it would be taken off our screens. Discrimination against the poor is open and acceptable in New Zealand.
Similarly, very often the opprobrium directed by the talkback-set against particular ethnic groups in New Zealand isn't so much to do with the colour of their skin (although that is often a convenient marker, and not to deny the existence of real racism), as to do with the fact that they are poor.
-
Regarding the authority to take such a sample, a police officer must have "good cause" to believe an offense has been committed, and may detain the person for the purpose of taking that sample.
When taking the sample they must also provide the person with written notice saying what the offense suspected was and inform them on that statement of relevant clauses of the law.
-
Did anyone hear either of them elaborate on how "intend to charge" would be interpreted, what gaurantees there would be to destroy DNA and other surveillance evidence if charges are dropped/people are found innocent etc?
The law is actually somewhat specific.
It refers to the creation of DNA profiles. These are basically (as I understand it) little snippets of DNA that can be compared against other samples to create a match or fail against a piece of DNA evidence. Like identifying a car with only pictures of the badges and number plate, rather than a picture of the car itself. The actual sample taken will be destroyed, but the profile will remain on record indefinitely.
-
To be slightly more constructive than that last post; there are members of Parliament within the Labour Party, and even within other parties, who share concerns about these issues, but are too small a minority in their caucuses to feel they can speak out without retribution.
They are the ones who need support in order to get the courage to speak out and create a real debate on these issues.
New Zealand's strict party discipline severely limits public discourse, and we're all worse off.
-
<headdesk> <headdesk> <headdesk> <headdesk> <headdesk> <headdesk> <headdesk> <headdesk> <headdesk> CRASH <headfloor> <headfloor> <headfloor> <headfloor> <headfloor> <headfloor> <headfloor> <headfloor> <headfloor> <headfloor>