More than empty words in the Urewera
By | Nov 14, 2007
The Dominion Post dropped a bombshell today with its selective release of an affadavit used by the police to obtain warrants for the nationwide terror raids. Read all about it, as they say.
Peter Williams on National Radio this morning raised concerns about upholding the rule of law, in particular that the Dominion Post’s actions are contempt of court in light of the fact that the Solicitor General’s decision means most of this evidence is inadmissable. Certainly, we must be concerned about the ramifications of allowing the “public to judge” through the media lens, despite Ron Marks apparent enthusiasm for the idea.
However, here we are, and here is the affadavit. So what does it mean for the self-interested (again according to Ron Mark) critics of the police raids and the attempted use of the Terrorism Suppression Act?
Very few of the criticisms that I have read or have made myself fall over in the light of this affadavit.
At the outset, all have stated that if there are charges to be laid, the Crimes Act and the Firearms Act are sufficient pieces of legislation within which to make a prosecution. This is proving to be the case, as in depositions the court has agreed there are charges to answer. The extension of the powers towards a security state that is being sought today cannot be argued on the basis that there are holes in the law through which evil people are escaping prosecution.
All critics have stated that the raids were heavy-handed. Again this stands, as it is increasingly clear from the evidence today that the police were not searching for mysterious figures hidden in the Urewera, but specific individuals well-known to them, no doubt with home addresses, phone numbers, favourite cafes, and all the rest. So we are left scratching our head as to why a whole town and then unrelated individuals’ houses needed to be held hostage by the police – to ensure nobody tried to escape on horseback into the wild blue yonder, perhaps? I suggest it is still a case of testosterone and budgets gone wild in the total institution that is our nation’s violent arm of the state.
All critics have said that the insinuation that political activism is terrorist activity is mud that’ll stick, and an insidious use of the media, parliament and the police. The grab-bag of activists charged still suggests this, and the affadavit goes no way towards proving some violent revolutionary plot across activist groups. Indeed, even the selective reading we have been allowed through the filter of police and then media analysis suggests there was some unease within those involved and a range of views about aims and strategies. People were clearly speaking out against violence here, not just condoning it.
So were there more than empty words in the Urewera. I’m inclined to believe so. I shook my head this morning when I read the Dominion Post, and thought, in relation to those suspects in the affadavit, “you dumb a__es”.
But this is not to be taken as an argument for greater police powers, more intelligence, broader powers to gather communications. The powers of the police are sufficient, our intelligence agencies are as incompetent and conspiracy driven as always, and we don’t need more impositions on our lives. So perhaps the empty words are those ringing out from Wellington, and continue to require us to challenge and critique.
Users
“Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets.” Num. 11:29
Join in and add to the JUSTwiki today. Stories, reflection, news, comment. Be heard. Be just.
Hikoi of Hope: Walking On – Introduction
Submit a comment
Comments
Peter Carrell
November 15th, 2007 at 5:32 am
I find postings such as this curious. The focus, as with many other comments being made in NZ at this time, is on the police and their powers and concern that they have been given too much power and/or mis-applied their powers (e.g. by being heavy-handed where a lighter touch might have sufficed).
Should not the focus be on the willingness of dedicated and well-known political activists to at least entertain and toy with the possibility of using guns and bombs to further their aims? Is this not a serious and alarming turn of events in the history of our nation? We have well-known and tragic examples from the history of political violence (Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Iraq, Palestine Israel, etc) which demonstrate the difficulty, if not impossibility of eradicating violence from the body politic once it has entered the DNA of a nation. As a NZer committed to democratic means for fostering social change in a democratic nation, AND as a Christian committed to following Jesus the non-violent political activist, I for one am glad that we are well served by a police force dedicated to upholding the ‘rule of law’ which in a democracy is not an alien force but the will of the people expressed through the decisions of our elected representatives.
The police may have over-reacted in their handling of events: thankfully in our democracy we are both free to express that concern, and we have ways and means to review police actions. The danger at this time is that NZ may under-react to the potential for violence to enter the political arena. If the gun-toting, Molotov-throwing activists gain control, will there be freedom of speech? Will their actions be reviewable through the media and parliament? I think not!
UVGrimace
November 15th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
I am in agreement as to the “impossibility of eradicating violence from the body politic once it has entered the DNA of a nation”. However, I would think that our concern should be for the state’s DNA, rather than political activists.
It is the state in Aotearoa that has regularly and systematically used violence to crush dissent and subversion.
The 19th century saw this on a grand scale, and it has been only 10 days since we commemorated one of the most infamous incidences of state violence against hapu at Parihaka. In the 20th century, this continued: at Maungapohatu with Rua Kenana; the Dock Workers’ strike; Bastion Point; the Springbok Tour. And now in the new century, we Ruatoki and the Urewera 17.
As a Christian and an anarchist, I am concerned that we are in a new era of information control that seeks to divide and conquer people and communities. The overwhleming show of force by of the police in Ruatoki and private homes is a communication to activists about the threat of a good example and the importance of conformity.
I do not believe we live in a true democracy – more a country playing a democracy game. Nor are our elections about the will of the people – they are about spinning and guiding public opinion to ensure the growth continues, productivity and efficiency reign supreme, and the profits of the most wealthy are unaffected.
So I do not trust the media or parliament as a forum to review the events of the last few weeks. We will never get the full picture in that manner, only spin. If you really are committed to knowing what happened, why not visit Tame Iti and ask him, visit the community constable in Whakatane and ask him, and so on.
We have little to fear from activists. We have no history of activist campaigns starting from a point of violence. If there is a threat, it is our state and the political machinations of a power hungry elite.
Peter Carrell
November 15th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
There may be many inadequacies to our democracy in New Zealand but it is a great place to live compared to Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, Allende’s Chile, etc. Of these places it could be said, “… the state … regularly and systematically used violence to crush dissent and subversion.” One might even, these days, point out certain advantages to NZ compared to Fiji!
It is not true, not even distantly true that, “It is the state in Aotearoa that has regularly and systematically used violence to crush dissent and subversion.” The examples adduced by UVGrimace do not constitute evidence for that assertion. In the 19th century there were wars internal to NZ in which the forces of state crushed dissent. It is not true of the 20th century: incidents happened in which force was applied, sometimes with good reason because issues of law and order were at stake; but I can think of no movement of dissent and subversion which was ‘crushed’. Unions: they became very strong until undone by peaceful changes to the law. Anti-apartheid movement: it won – tours stopped. Maori land claims: gathering momentum, supported by mainstream court processes and significant amounts of compensation.
We live in a fantastic country well-served by its politicians, judiciary, media, police, as well as its protestors!
Jo Cameron
November 16th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Its nice that people such as Peter Carrell have such a rose-tinted view of Aotearoa New Zealand and the relationships between the state – represented by its armed enforcer the Police – and all citizens. Citing examples of overseas countries where fascist and sociopathic dictators held power and murdered millions of people, as evidence that life in New Zealand is wonderful, is as useful as comparing the All Black’s World Cup results with those of Moldova, and saying that ‘at least NZ did better than them!’.
However, the reality of life for thousands of Maori citizens of New Zealand is generational disadvantage economically, educationally, in health and political participation – directly resulting from colonisation, confiscation of lands and resources, and the suppression of indigenous language, culture and faith practices. A shameful period of our nation’s history referred to by Peter Carrell as ‘wars internal to NZ in which the forces of state crushed dissent’. DISSENT?! I think it can be argued that 19th Century Maori resistance of British colonisation and land theft is better termed ‘opposition to illegal activities being undertaken by an illegitimate power’.
The only examples in our history of the widespread use of violence and terror against New Zealand citizens are those attributable to the representatives of ‘democractically elected governments’ – policy, armed forces, native militia.
It would be irresponsible of our communities if citizens did not hold the state to account for its use of force. Furthermore, it is important to organise ourselves into groups through which the safety and rights of all members of society can be better articulated and protected, whether they be unions, environmentalists, animal rights campaigners, anti-apartheid protestors, tino rangatiratanga advocates, human rights campaigners, globalisation watchdogs, campaigners against poverty and injustice, or whoever.
‘Seek justice, encourage the oppressed’ Isaiah 1:17
Peter Carrell
November 17th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I remain unabashed in being glad that I live in NZ and not in a true dictatorship. I gather that I do have a rose-tinted view of things here because regularly newspapers report that things are so bad that an increasing number of NZers, Maori and Pakeha, are leaving to live in Australia (despite it having a worse record than us when it comes to crushing dissent). What is a little surprising is that the migration to North Korea is not larger than it is!
I do not demur when Jo Cameron offers an alternative to my strong description of the role of the state in the 19th century. And I agree with the statement, ‘It would be irresponsible of our communities if citizens did not hold the state to account for its use of force.’ I simply state again that one of the wonderful things about NZ is that we are free to do that.
But I query the statement ‘The only examples in our history of the widespread use of violence and terror against New Zealand citizens are those attributable to the representatives of ‘democractically elected governments’ – policy, armed forces, native militia.’ Once we get beyond the wars of the 19th century the word ‘widespread’ needs justification. There have been incidents in which police responded to unions in 1913 and 1951, to protestors in marches in the 1930s and in 1981, and to Maori in places such as Bastion Point. But in none of these cases were (say) homes throughout the length and breadth of Aotearoa NZ invaded by the police or thousands of suspects rounded up by the SIS, nor has there ever been a period in the 20th and 21st century of continuous years of state-led violence and terror such as Germany and Soviet Russia experienced in the 1930s. Thus I do not find the case for the use of the word ‘widespread’ justified.
Finally, in challenging my rose-tinted view of Aotearoa NZ, Jo Cameron offers a contrasting description of the situation being experienced by Maori: ‘the reality of life for thousands of Maori citizens of New Zealand is generational disadvantage economically, educationally, in health and political participation – directly resulting from colonisation, confiscation of lands and resources, and the suppression of indigenous language, culture and faith practices.’ I offer two responses to this description.
First, this reality is wisely noted as having a complex amalgam of causes. This recognition is an improvement on sweeping statements about the state’s role as an agent of violence and terror. Secondly, I understand Aotearoa NZ as a place in which an enormous amount of goodwill exists towards transforming this reality, and quite a fund of generous state-led initiatives have been undertaken towards the same end, including initiatives which devolve decision-making and resources to Maori. There are questions whether all this is ‘enough’, and there are questions whether sufficient moves towards tino rangatiratanga are involved. But they are questions which can be raised in a variety of forums without fear of arrest.
I stand by my claim that NZ is a wonderful place though I recognise that thousands of my compatriots living in Australia beg to differ, and I accept that Jo Cameron also begs to differ!
TaT Tsui
November 21st, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I support Peter Carrell. Graham Cameron will not get arrested after he has posted his comment, and UVGrimace can still propose to visit the community constable in Whakatane etc. after he claims not to trust the media, and Jo Cameron is free to argue eloquently that all right of the oppressed should be up-held. In fact they are making use of the very right protected by a government system that they do not favor, to up-hold an idea which go against the philosophy of that government system. I am interested to know how Jo Cameron can balance the right of speech of a common NZer, with the right of a group of people who, at least believe if not implement, that they can achieve their goal by gun and assassination. I am deeply impressed by those Christians they do not give lip service for forgiveness, they forgive the murderer of their spouse or own children. I would also appreciate if Cameron can maintain the same positioning of Nov 14, if our police high-handedly crashed a right activists’ clan, suspected dedicate to assassinate and blow the house of those journalists who show sympathy to any colored race.
Graham Cameron
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 am
I didn’t realise it was a vote ;-)
I’m reading a theme here that the government and its police are protecting our rights in what has gone on in the last month and a half. I would suggest that we, the people of Aotearoa, protect our own rights.
We protect them by getting involved in civil society. So Peter, Jo and I are all involved citizens asking questions, debating vigorously, not just accepting what is put before us. The executive and parliament in particular will only protect our rights to the extent that we as citizens demand it, and that can’t just be going like lambs to the polling booth.
The free radical in this is the spin of the media. TaT demonstrates the dangers by believing the headlines in lieu of evidence. We are only getting soundbites about assassination, napalm, military exercises, terrorism, and I don’t trust soundbites. We as citizens are being treated as imbeciles when the police, the SIS, the government and the media think they can just give us soundbites for dinner. I want something more substantial.
Of course there could have been an assassination plot hatched in the Urewera. If so, I’m glad it was broken up before Helen or John became martyrs of captalism. But I don’t believe it because someone in a uniform or with a title told me so. So give me something substantial, and you’ll get my substantial support.
Ant
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:43 am
On being treated like imbeciles:
I think history shows that in any institution (take the church, or the state, I really don’t mind) humans will be treated by the institution in a manner which gives away the least possible power in a manner that makes it appear the most responsible. Rhetoric about ballot boxes is a good way of diverting accountability (eg. ‘we’re accountable through the ballot box’), and is meaningless nonsense and has no bearing upon reality – except that people come to believe this deception is reality if the government do their job properly.
That’s not because a government is particularly evil in itself, nor that labour is bad and someone else is good. That’s the nature of the principalities and powers in their fallen state.
The church as an institution is also a fallen principality, living constantly in a state of partial self awareness of this (like other institutions) through worship. That’s why it’s sad that this church spends its life absorbed in administration-over-load instead of action, with the relational priority entirely around the wrong way. The church as an institution needs calling to account by the people just as the state does, and ‘waiting for Synod’ and so on is a bit like waiting for the ballot box.
So, in short, many people are happy to be treated like idiots because it doesn’t require much. But the more they become aware that things are not as they appear, that they have power, and that they might even (and this is the real kicker) have chance to exercise it (although opportunities are increasingly rare).
Lastly, we might have more accountability if government terms were longer than the piffling 3 years – which is hardly long enough to draw breath!