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!

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.

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!

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

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!

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.

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!