Best thing I’ve read all week on the Urewera Terror Raids: Stephen’s overview (part one, part two) of the complex situation. This is how he sets the tone:
I think the biggest source of confusion for me is that there are lots of different serious things in play here. Here’s my little outline:
* The Terrorism Suppression Act and its pending amendment
* Civil liberties and human rights
* Violence
* Maori sovereignty
* Race relations
* The NZ Police force
* Protest and politics
* Administration of justice
On some of these heads, eg the Terrorism Suppression Act, I feel fairly confident that I know what’s what and that I know where I personally stand. And some of the others are in play and I’m not prepared to commit until I feel I know what’s going on.
It’s a great account of all the crazy stuff caught up in this issue. Non-Kiwis won’t have heard that the Solicitor General has refused to give leave to prosecute under the Terror Suppression Act, which is good to hear, because it implies there isn’t actually a group of terrorists in this country. But bear in mind the words of the clockwork fish:
It occurs to me that the SG’s comment that the activities of the activists were worrying was based on the uncontested evidence of the police. He may have had a different view if the activists had been able to put their side of things.
Instead he pretty much said they were guilty but the cops wouldn’t get a conviction. This gives the activists no right of reply except in the media.
Via the other moose, Project Censored’s most-censored stories of 2008. Always, always worth reading, especially for the surprising fact that the FBI’s most wanted profile of Bin Laden doesn’t mention 9/11, because they don’t actually have enough evidence to link him to that. Go see.
Via mytholder, the Holy Tango of Literature, in which Francis Heaney finds anagrams of the names of poets and playwrights, and then writes in the style of the person using the anagram as a title. So, for example:
AH, MY YAK ROAM
OMAR KHAYYAM
I
Behold! I tend a Herd of woolly Yak
That wander o’er the Hills in one great Pack:
But Lo! the Yak have vanished in the Night,
And God alone knows if they shall come back.
II
Dreaming on the Hillside where I lay
I heard a soothing Voice within me say
“Fear not, my Child, if you will leave them be,
The Dawn will bring them as it brings the Day.”
III
And, as the Cock crew, Light did reach my Eyes
And silhouette my Yak against the Skies.
They lumbered down to meet me at the Lake,
Their Tails behind them, swishing at the Flies.
There is much there to enjoy.
I heard some of the Solicitor-General’s comments on the radio last night, and I interpreted his decision a bit differently.
As I recall, he said the Anti-Terrorism act itself was to blame for charges not being laid – that in its current form, it would be impossible to convict anyone using it. That (to my mind) did not mean he though the arrested were “innocent”; in fact, he seemed to say that he thought there were questions to be answered and the Police appropriately, but that the Anti-Terrorism act was not up to actually asking those questions.
So I thought the Solicitor General was less declaring the “innocence” of those arrested, and more pointing out the flaws in the current legislation.
Heya R – if this is a response to my comment “[the S-G’s decision] implies there isn’t actually a group of terrorists in this country”, I’m sticking with it. I’m not talking about “innocence”, I’m talking about “terrorists”, which is a heavily-politicised term. My tone was meant to convey sarcasm at the use of that term. I guess it failed…
And while I’m commenting, all should be aware that the S-G’s decision can be read here by the way – it’s very very short, so don’t rely on newspapers, read the original.
Just to echo Morgue’s point – before jumping to any conclusions, one way or the other, both the public and the media should make sure we’ve read the decision – http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0711/SolGenTerror.pdf (pdf file).
It’s not the ‘humiliating failure’ or round critcism of the police some people have been lauding it as. Not at all.
As much as I approve of the decision, it seems to me that it’s done very little to deal with concerns I have with the police decision making or the possible powers the police and/or government have under such terrorism legislation.
Of course, that’s just my view.
Thanks Scott, that’s the second time you’ve spotted a link I haven’t coded properly and helpfully provided it for me!
It often interests me how the media will often choose a ‘side’, and report things in a biased manner (although it no longer surprises me). Reading the link that Scott helpfully provided 🙂 , it seems as though the Solicitor General is being extremely supportive of the police actions, and lauding them rather than criticising them. Quite the opposite to what I have heard from many media reports.
I was also interested to hear the media say that the Police Commissioner “just stopped short of apologising” to the community of Ruatoki when he said he regretted that they had been affected by the raids. He never implied he was sorry about, or regretted the raids. He simply said he was sorry about any uninvolved people who felt affected by them.
It will be interesting to watch as this saga continues to unfold.
Thanks Morgue. I’m really just going through a brain dumping exercise. I was reading through my own comments on PA System and realised that I was beginning to contradict myself – all sorts of buttons are pushed by this. I’m not done yet either, but I’m taking a little break while I think about yesterday’s news.
I bumped into a friend yesterday who observed that in the absence of information, the bits we have are a sort of Rorschach test for people’s prejudices. Too true.
Hmmm… if anything the S.G. seems to be implying that the standard of evidence required to “prove that a group or entity was planning or preparing to commit a terrorist act” is too high… it is worth remembering that solicitors general tend to come from a prosecution background and might be expected to have a similar bias to police (actually, I just checked that here http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=26703 and prior to his appointment as a QC in 2000 David Collins was presumably a defence councel… so I don’t know… maybe I am just prejudiced against lawyers and cops, eh)
Thanks for encouraging me to read the actual decision:-) (I am appallingly apolitical and self-obsessedat the moment… hopefully this will pass)
Well having read the Dom Post this morning, the evidence shown is pretty damning. But it doesn’t sound like it would have been enough to convict. What you have is motive, intent and the beginning of action – but I think you would have needed to see a step up in activity to justify terrorism charges.
There was certainly something concerning happening up there and I can see how legally the police would have been required to take action. From what is there, I think they did their jobs.
My concern is that the revelation of this evidence – while definitely putting a new twist on the whole saga – could end up messing with the legal trial. I can see how it would be construed as unfair on the defendants – especially if some of them are in this just for associating with certain people who are central to the investigation.
It will be interesting to see what happens next… what has been established is that there was more than just a few prank calls and joke texts going on.