Sunday, November 04, 2007

NZ has TERRORISTS!!! - 5

From Herald last Thursday -

* Valerie Morse, 36. Three firearms charges. Name suppression lifted yesterday. Reappears today.

* Emily Felicity Tuhi-ao Bailey, 30. Seven firearms/weapons charges. Name suppression lifted yesterday. Reappears today.

* Moana Hemi Winitana, 53. Two charges. Name suppression lifted yesterday. Reappears December 3.

* Ira Mangaimihi Timothy Bailey, 28. Name suppression lifted yesterday. Was released on bail. Reappears December 3.

* Tame Iti, 55. Eleven charges. In custody until Wednesday, when he will appear in Rotorua District Court to appeal against a decision not to grant him bail.

* Jamie Beattie Lockett, 46. Remanded in custody until November 12 to find out if he will be granted electronic bail.

* Omar Hamed, 19. Three firearms charges. Remanded in custody to reappear today.

* Marama Mayrick, 24. Five charges. On bail. Reappears December 3.

* Rawari Kiyami Iti. Six charges. Remanded in custody. Reappears today.

* Rongomai Peropero Bailey, 28. Four charges. Released on bail last week and did not appear in court yesterday.

Names suppressed:

* A 32-year-old female dancer. Three charges. Released on bail and will reappear on December 3.

* A 59-year-old unemployed man. Remanded until December 3.

* A Manurewa man. Six charges. Remanded in custody until December 3.

* A man, who was released on bail until December 3. Three charges.

* A Swiss national, 23. Four charges. In custody until December 3.

* A man, who was remanded in custody and reappears December 3. Four charges.

Note that none of the charges are under the Suppression of Terrorism Act. They are all "holding charges".

Garth George has come out on Winnie the Pooh's side... can call me a racist until you're blue in the face and I don't give a damn.

I came to live, after all, in the Maori capital of New Zealand.

The fact is that it's not the Urewera raids that have set race relations in this country back 100 years, it's the reaction of the Maori (and some Pakeha) activists and their lawyers, and the dishonest and inflammatory pronouncements of such "leaders" as Pita Sharples and Hone Harawira.

Good on Mr Peters for telling it like it is.

Well, Garth, I think you (like Winnie and so many others) have really missed the point.

There is a far more reasoned discussion here -
When Tamati Kruger of Tuhoe speaks in measured tones of the importance of the Tuhoe nation as his primary allegiance, rather than that of a New Zealander, it seems many people cannot understand the message.

Worse than that, rather than try to understand what mana motuhake or rangatiratanga might actually mean for Tuhoe, critics set up fanciful straw man arguments to dismiss heartfelt pleas for Maori control over Maori resources.

Winston Peters of New Zealand First equates Tuhoe nation with the state-enforced dominance of the majority by a racial minority in South Africa. He overlooks the fact that separate nations do operate within numerous other modern democratic nations.

The Nunanvet and Nishgaa nations in Canada are two of many examples I am aware of for indigenous or First Nations exercising self-determination and autonomy through their own representative institutions in the United States and Canada.

The Sami nation in Norway have their own parliament. Even in Britain the Scottish Parliament legislates for separate rights and separate privileges for Scotland, and of course Scottish law is quite different from English common law.

It is plain nonsense to seize only on the discredited system of apartheid to peremptorily dismiss calls for Maori tribal self-determination in Aotearoa New Zealand. Why can we not see what we might learn from successful examples of indigenous peoples asserting their own autonomy in ways that include the diversity of others living in the same country?

Then an Auckland barrister, David Garrett, goes off into fanciful nonsense about the need for Tuhoe to build an international airport if there is to be secession. Has he read any of the history of Tuhoe? Does he know anything of the autonomous community of Maungapohatu led by the prophet Te Rua Kenana in the early years of the last century?

What they wanted was to be left alone to live their own lives on their own land, but would the Government allow that?

No, a police invasion under the pretext of enforcing racially discriminatory licensing laws saw the pillage of an autonomous community. If Mr Peters and Mr Garrett are so appalled by racial discrimination, what steps have they taken to ensure the Government apologises to the descendants of Te Rua Kenana for the police shooting of his son, his own imprisonment and the destruction of his vibrant modern community on the pretext of enforcing licensing laws of the time that treated Maori and Europeans so differently?

It is not as though Maori calls for autonomy are so new that we are not yet able to comprehend the possibility of positive rather than negative reactions to such calls.
Must it always be that Maori leaders write petitions, lodge claims with the Waitangi Tribunal and make pleas for the rest of us to listen, only to be rebuffed by angry knee-jerk reactions and fanciful arguments?

Surely political debate in this country needs to include reasoned discussions of what are the minimum parameters necessary for the operation of the state while embracing the rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination.


No, that is off the point also.

The very real reason for the protest - it is on my part at least - can be found here

No, I am not suggesting that Auntie Helen will be the Pacific's second Bainimarama, or Masharraf. But therein lies the danger of this kind of law.

MULTAN: Javed Hashmi, PML-N acting president, has said all political forces and people in the country will strongly oppose imposition of martial law or emergency in the country by General Musharraf in order to prolong his rule.

Talking to newsmen here Saturday, he said Pervez Musharraf wanted to convert the army into a political party, however, he will be held accountable for his misdeeds because their support to the military dictator would ruin the country.

Javed Hashmi said that General Pervez Musharraf was pressurising courts for his vested interest and to remain in power by all foul means. He said certain international powers wanted an armed confrontation between the army and the people, however, the people and all democratic forces would foil such attempts of foreign powers.

He said the judiciary was determined to decide cases in accordance with law and constitution and 160 million people as well as all political parties stood behind the judiciary. The PML-N leader said it was high time to save the army and the country from the influence of foreign powers because such situation could prove dangerous for the nation, armed forces and the country.

To a question, he said the ARD and APDM should merge together for removal of dictator, restoration of democracy and supremacy of constitution. He demanded free and fair elections for restoration of democracy and transfer of power to the elected representative. The PML-N acting chief said the masses would never accept martial law, emergency and any move aimed at confrontation with the army.

Musharraf wants to rollback N-programme, says PML-N: Saeed Ahmad Qureshi, a PML-N leader, has said after Afghanistan and Kashmir General Musharraf is now going to take u-turn on the atomic programme of the country to appease the Americans.

Talking to newsmen here, he said it was unjust that America struck a deal with the PPP which started the atomic programme but the PML-N will work hard to win the elections with people support and save atomic programme. Meanwhile, Rana Mahmoodul Hassan, ex-MNA and a leader of PML-N, said elections were near and the PML-N along with other opposition parties would start its struggle against the dictatorship. He was addressing a seminar of PML-N here in Latifabad. Rana Abdul Jabbar, Imran Liaquat, Sharif Rehmani and Rehmat Rehmani also spoke on the occasion.

PPP plans to plunder national wealth: Faisal Mukhtar: City District Nazim Faisal Mukhtar has said the PPP chalked out its programme in America to loot the country because the party leadership found the national exchequer fully filled with wealth.

Addressing a meeting in UC 34 Islampura in NA-150 constituency, he said Punjab Chief Minister Ch Pervaiz Elahi had strengthened the PML and thus created hurdles for the PPP. He hailed the decision of Syed Baradri of Islampura and Haji Ismail Shah s/o Haji Jamaldeen Tarkan, Haji Muhammad Ilyas Shah, Labour Councillor Akhtar Ghouri, Ejaz Ahmad Somro, Muhammad Sultan, Mahmood Khan and Umar Khan to join the PML.

Faisal Mukhtar said now the people had fully awakened and corrupt mafia could not cheat them once again. He said political waderas were now without crowd and there was none to serve them. He said political waderas could not serve the poor people and humanity while in political field politicians had to win the hearts of the people with love and spirit of devotion and service to humanity.

I left in a comment to Dave Justus the fragment -
If George Bush suspended the Constitution...

... the Second Amendment militias would (should) be out in force, all over the USofA.

Now the question -

Would those people be defending the Consitution, or would they be terrorists?

1 comment:

Dave Justus said...

I haven't been able to really follow the Nez Zealand terrorist story, the only place I have heard about it is here, and the way you present the snippets make it difficult for someone who doesn't already understand to follow what is going on.

I don't think George Bush suspending the constitution has any bearing on whether someone who oppossed his rule through violence would be a terrorist or not. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of a civilian population in an effort to cause fear. The 'rightness' of the cause doesn't make any difference, the tactic is wrong.

A better question is would they be traitors or freedom fighters, in the end, that would largely depend on whether they won or not.

Certainly though many people, governments included, try to blur the lines of what is terrorism. I don't think an attack on American (or even Iraqi) military or police forces in Iraq is terrorism. An attack on school kids is. The rightness of the cause could justify the former, but never the latter.