Justice, late...

It has taken roughly four and a half years.

It has left a thick trail of slime through many of the presumed foundations of NZ's justice system.

It has resulted in yet more legislation intended to limit the rights of NZers to their freedoms of expression, freedoms of thought, and presumption of innocence.

The sorry saga of the Urewera 17 has come to an end, with only four of those originally arrested in Operation 8 appearing in Court, and with only half of the firearm charges against them being proven to the satisfaction of the jury.

The "belonging to an organised criminal group" charge could not be agreed by the jury on a majority (10:1) basis leading to -

Crown prosecutor Ross Burns said the Crown will consider a retrial on the lead charge of belonging to an organised criminal group, which the jurors could not reach a decision on.

"Ordinarily the Crown would proceed to a retrial but it will have to consider it carefully in this case."

Yes, I can well imagine very careful consideration. The aroma of political urging still hangs heavily in the air.

Granny Herald, in an editorial on March 24 opines that -

It is worth recalling the words of the Solicitor-General when he decided the evidence did not support a charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act. He was critical of the act ("unnecessarily complex, incoherent and almost impossible to apply") not the police. They had "a sufficient and proper basis" for concern about what these people were doing.

The video shown at the trial has confirmed that much. If people are going to play games with real guns and explosives anywhere in New Zealand, they had better ensure they are authorised in law. The police may have an apology to make for some of their actions at Ruatoki, but not for their concern about paramilitary activities. On the evidence the public has now seen, they had to act.

Now I will agree with the sentiment, the police may well have had to act. But as the editorial has suggested there are many questions to be answered.

First in my mind is "Why did NZ's Police decide to undertake the raid on Ruatoki in a manner that would have done proud the Para's in Northern Ireland, or the US's best in Iraq?" This is not a country so large that an individual, let alone a group, can be out of sight for too long. This is not (yet) a country at war with itself.

Second, there was very obviously a major police resource sunk into the "investigation" prior to the conclusion of Operation 8. So, the question must be asked, "Why is the same resource not concentrated on resolving other well-known criminal threats within our society?" There are several, self-confessed, organised criminal groups running illegal activites that range from car theft to manufacture and/or import of illegal drugs. Yet the numbers appearing on those kind of charges are very small.

Third, the Herald (along with a lot of other people, I suspect) bewails the cost of the trial - over $2.8 million in legal aid for a start - as "the most expensive in NZ history. Less than $1 million was spent on the prosecution. I for one certainly do not begrudge the legal aid. The outcome of the prosecution is sufficient explanation.

So, those in addition to the questions asked in Herald's editorial...

The public still awaits the Police Complaints Authority's report on that operation. Many wait for that side of the story as anxiously as they have awaited the trial of those arrested that day.

Initially, charges were laid under a new Terrorism Suppression Act until the Solicitor-General ruled that the evidence, while "very disturbing", was not sufficient to establish that any of the 18 people arrested had been planning a particular terrorist act.

A sense of Justice...

...probably not intended for a moment, but I get a strong sense of appropriate justice from the exchange of 1 Israeli held by the Palestinians for the return of roughly 1000 Palestinians held in Israeli jails.

It is not just a passing, fleeting idea. It grows with thought and further threads attach.

Consider, and this is where I started, that the ratio is very roughly reflective of the number of Palestinians killed for each Israeli killed over the past 50 years.

Consider, and this was the second thread, the length of time the Palestinians have been in prison. Consider the opportunity that length of time that the Israelis have had to pursuade, condition, convince (thesaurus alternatives to "brainwash") the prisoners of the benefits of being part of Israeli society.

Consider also that if Israeli justice was right; that these prisoners are the murderers and terrorists that they claim then Palestine is deserving of having them back. I acknowledge that, as the Germans found out in France and other parts of Europe, the murderer and terrorist to an occupying force can be a hero to the oppressed.

As I said, there is a sense of appropriate justice.

As the sun sinks slowly in the west...

... one of the most shameful episodes in NZ criminal justice is quietly coming to an end.

I have no connection with those charged, other than the fact that for two years I lived in a similar community where my father was headmaster at the local school. I was 8 at the time.

That it has taken so long for the Justice system to pull its thumb from its collective arsehole is beyond belief. That it has occurred only 4 months before a General Election only adds to the solid stench of political agendae and unsettled scores.

Firearms charges against most of those arrested in the police raids on alleged military training camps in the Ureweras have been dropped.

But four of the accused, including Tame Iti, will still stand trial on charges of participating in an organised crime group and firearms charges.

The Supreme Court has ruled certain evidence inadmissable at the so-called "terror raid" trial of next year which was set to last for three months.

The groundbreaking decision over-ruled previous judgments from the High Court and Court of Appeal over whether the Crown could use evidence gathered in the covert police operation before the arrests in October 2007.

The Crown has now dropped the Operation Eight prosecution against 13 of the 17 accused, according to a statement just released by the Auckland Crown Solicitor, Simon Moore SC.

Mr Moore said the judgment of the Supreme Court is subject to suppression orders and cannot be reported.

The most immediate question has to be "Why" can this latest step not be reported?

The effect of the delay would be that those accused facing Arms Act charges alone would not be tried for a period of four and a half years from the date of their arrest," said Mr Moore.

"Further, they were remanded in custody for a period of time following their arrest, and they have been on restrictive bail conditions through much of the time since their release.

"Taking these matters into account together with findings made by the Supreme Court about the seriousness of their offending, it is the Crown decision that the continuation of proceedings would not be in the public interest."

You bet it would not, nor will it be, simply because the whole process from the day the AOS stepped onto their bus and drove to Ruatoki has been nothing less than a monumental fuck-up. I will say it. It is so bad that I can not believe for a moment that it was solely the responsibility of the Police. There has to have been another hand. There is only one that could move things in the mysterious way this has progressed.

Politics.

Which raises the next question. Why has the Jonkey been so slow in making it known to the Police and the Justice system that enough is more than enough.

The secrecy has to end. It might be justified to the time that the last remaining charges are settled.

Then the book must be opened.

What price justice?

The SST today has its front page taken (almost entirely) with the following story...

Grieving parents who lost children to repeat offenders are being stonewalled by "heartless" government departments they won the right to sue.

Lawyers, taking on Police and Corrections, say the families they represent believe they are being bullied in a "David versus Goliath" battle.

The parents of Debbie Ashton and Karl Kuchenbecker have taken action under occupational health and safety legislation, citing the failings of Police and Corrections that led to their loved ones' deaths.

Young dad Kuchenbecker, 26, was gunned down by murderer Graeme Burton in January 2007. A month earlier Ashton, 20, was killed by disqualified driver Jonathan Allan Barclay, who was in the police witness protection scheme at the time.

Both instances, Ashton and Kuchenbecker, were killed by men with prior convictions. Ashton's killer was a repeat drunk driver who had been released on parole and warned that further offences "could result in his being recalled to serve the remainder of those sentences". Kuchenbecker's killer had been paroled after serving 14 years of a murder sentence; he had two further warrants for arrest on other charges when he was paroled, neither warrant was actioned.

The civil action being taken against Police and Corrections Service is (as far as I can gather) based on the application of Health and Safety law. This could result in the Government (through Police and Corrections) paying some pretty hefty fines and copping a criminal conviction if found guilty of negligence and endangering (in this case) the public as a result.

What becomes apparent - as the article points out very clearly - is the justice in this case is clearly on the side of the money, rather than the right.

Given that as a start point, what chance does anyone imagine the Urewera 18 might have in obtaining redress for the tactics used by the Police, the manipulation of the law and in particular the Anti-Terrorism statutes, the Government's use of suppression orders to conceal (from the defendants) evidence and to abuse normal judicial process.

Bear in mind that it is now coming up four years since the raid on Ruatoki. The terrorism charges have long since been dropped on the pretext that the law is "unworkable". The remaining charges are comparatively minor firearms charges, usually dealt with in lower Courts by (in the past) a Stipendiary Magistrate at the highest.

Is there anyone who still believes in NZ justice being free of corruption, political influence, and available to all?

This one for Al,

The government under pretext of security and progress, liberated us from our land, resources, culture, dignity and future. They violated every treaty they ever made with us. I use the word “liberated” loosely and sarcastically, in the same vein that I view the use of the words “collateral damage” when they kill innocent men, women and children. They describe people defending their homelands as terrorists, savages and hostiles . . . My words reach out to the non-Indian: Look now before it is too late—see what is being done to others in your name and see what destruction you sanction when you say nothing. --Leonard Peltier, Annual Message January 2004 (Leonard Peltier is now serving 31st year as an internationally recognized Political Prisoner of the United States Government)

It raised the obvious question in my mind, "Who is Leonard Peltier?".

From Wikipedia -

Leonard Peltier (born September 12, 1944) is an American activist and member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) who was convicted and sentenced in 1977 to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the murder of two Federal Bureau of Investigation agents who were killed during a 1975 shootout on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. There is considerable debate over Peltier’s guilt and the fairness of his trial. Some supporters and organizations consider him to be a political prisoner. Amnesty International has stated that "Although he has not been adopted as a prisoner of conscience, there is concern about the fairness of the proceedings leading to his conviction and it is believed that political factors may have influenced the way the case was prosecuted."[1] Numerous lawsuits have been filed on his behalf but none have succeeded. Peltier was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Lewisburg in Pennsylvania until January, 2009, when he was moved to Canaan Federal Penitentiary in Waymart, Pennsylvania. He was sent back to Lewisburg after he was severely beaten by other inmates in Canaan.

I am not going to argue any side on this. I have read the statement made by the lead FBI investigator at Peltier's recent parole hearing (first since 1993). It does not make for pretty reading. I know nothing of the background to the case, the investigation and the Court hearing. I am going to stand aside.


The message is for Al. I certainly agree with the sentiment.

Thoughts of Murder

Over the past three weeks or so we have seen the conclusion of two, both quite bizarre in their way, and quite different, murder trials.

In the first (in chronological order) a man faced charges of murdering a man in his sixties with a banjo. Memory says that it was “forced down the victims neck”, a somewhat terrifying picture to imagine. The defence was based on “provocation” as the victim had (it was testified by the accused) made sexual advances to the accused.

The second, which concluded yesterday also used “provocation” as a defence. The victim, a very good looking young lady and intelligent economics graduate, was stabbed 120 times by her ex, an economics lecturer who had been teaching the victim over the previous several years. His defence was unsuccessful (he was found guilty of murder rather than manslaughter), and there is a considerable uproar about his use of it.

Which raises the very interesting aside that it is OK to be provoked by unwanted sexual advances from a homosexual male, but it is not OK to be provoked by a beautiful young lady.

Alright, that does misrepresent the truth somewhat. The second instance involved taking a fairly large knife with him when he went to return “unwanted gifts”, a man who is “severely narcissistic”, and a considerable element of premeditation. It is that latter factor that did not come out in the first case, and which might (I believe “could”) be a significant factor in the application of provocation as a defence. It needs to be said that in the past ten years there have been several cases (I recollect three) instances where a likely murder charge has been reduced to manslaughter because of the actions of the victim and all were the killing of homosexuals.

In 2007 the Law Commission (a NGO body comprising selected jurists) recommended the repeal of the statutory defence of provocation. That call was never acted upon by the previous government in good part because it was always in the potential for use as a defence in cases already before the Courts and gaining a just cutoff was going to be difficult.

There are several levels to this debate on murder, the legal distinction to manslaughter, and the various “defences” against murder charges (other than fact and evidence naturally). I do not know (and I suspect not) that NZ law has any provision for “justifiable homicide” – the kind of situation where a person kills another to protect a third party for example; not self-defence but one step removed. There is the question of provocation as outlined. There is the insanity defence; “not of sound mind” which has become mired in debate about the difference between personality defect (which the accused in the second instance above certainly had in bushels), mental illness such as depression, paranoia, or schizophrenia, and true insanity as the imperfect mind unable to relate to society or to morality. (I recall one expert describing an accused as “effectively unable to consciously decide to kill”, with a consequential insanity verdict and the Judge ordering indefinite detention in a secure psychiatric facility.)

There has been a similar, though not parallel, debate involving the law and charges that result from killing another with a motor vehicle. There is a progression from “careless use causing death” through to “reckless” before manslaughter can be considered. I don’t know of any instances where a vehicle has been found to be the instrument of murder; doubtless it is possible.

So, how does the law in NZ stand on the matter of killing? As I see it; confused, confusing and far too complex. It is too easily misunderstood. It is too easily misapplied. The rules are not clear. A Judge can spend hours instructing the jury on the boundaries between murder, manslaughter, the level of proof required, the application of “reasonable doubt”. I have to say that the definition of all of those elements comes from many years of precedent. Each decision that gets close to the line makes the definition just that little bit more difficult to see. It must also be said that codifying the definition in statute would be a horrendously complex undertaking without perpetuating the legal niceties of “the reasonable man”, and hence not really providing a solution to the present confusion.

There is an interesting twist in the tale at this point.

The law that governs manslaughter and resulting sentencing is sufficiently flexible that a life sentence could well result, the same penalty as is compulsory for murder. When you add to that the application of non-parole detention (the longest of which to date is 30 years) and there is little difference between the two crimes.

I think that is a good thing.

But, to the beginning...

Is the defence of provocation defendable, or should it be removed from the statute books?

And another for The Old Whig...

Also thanks to ALD comes this item which Al should enjoy.

I snuck a peek, Al, and found only one reference to Rawls on your blog; that a mention of a book that critiques Rawls.

Ever get to read that Al?

A good step in a long road -

From the Herald -

This was one of the early, and nastiest, examples of the inadequacy of the parole laws in this country. It combines with another, far less publicised societal weakness of our "treatment" of mental health patients and mental health issues.

A recent tv programme (reviewed here) gives a pretty clear picture of the problems involved for the Parole Board.

Nigel Latta uttered one the most chilling sentences anyone has heard on television for a long time.

The forensic psychologist was fronting the first in his profiles of murderers, Beyond the Darklands, at 9.30pm on TV One last night.

He looked at William Bell, who in 2001 walked into the Mt Wellington-Panmure RSA with a shotgun in a guitar case. He shot and killed one man, and used the butt of the shotgun to kill two more people and seriously injure another.

Latta made the frightening admission that psychologists are good at identifying psychopathic behaviour, "but [we] don't know enough yet about how to treat them".

It happens more often than perhaps some realise. Some cases - like the schizophrenic lad who killed his family and friends - are just plain sad. Others, like this and Graeme Burton, are symptomatic of a society where the rights of an individual appear to surpass the rights of society at large.

Now that last part I write with trembling hand, for I fully realise the implications of what it says. What powers that might be abused by partisan government if the detention of people on cause of "being a danger to the good order and well-being of society" were to be allowed. Two that come to mind are Bill Sutch who was held on and charged with (totally fabricated?) espionage charges in the 1970's and Ahmed Zaoui with his more recent immigration / terrorism challenges.

The Parole Board though is charged with just such a decision. In large part they get it right. There are times - like Bell and Burton - where they get it horribly, tragically, wrong.

Just how far their "duty of care" might extend will hopefully be answered in the coming Court proceedings. I among many will watch with interest. I among many will pay for the outcome as taxpayer.

There is no similar "central authority" that determines the continuing detention or conditional release of mental health patients. Nor do I think that there should be. For probably 99% of the people with mental disabilities, their danger to society is minimal. There are the few (other than the sociopaths like Burton and Bell) who might stand as a danger to others. They are few and far between; and we really know very little about the triggers and mechanisms that might make them dangerous.

On balance, I think that I will continue to take my chances rather than place at risk the rights and freedoms of others. There are more murderers on the road than in an asylum.

On judgement, on prejudgement and prejudice...

TF has recently posted on the subject of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I make no criticism of his statement, in fact it is interesting and to the point.

I am using it (abusing TF?) to make an much wider point.

TF outlines briefly the difference between FLDS and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and then branches into the matters of belief and difference with particular reference to Oprah Winfrey and her support of Obama. What that has to do with the FLDS escapes me, but it makes for an interesting read.

The FLDS has hit the news (again) as a result of their support for polygamy and hence TF's need to distinguish between that and the LDS as the "true" belief.

My mind turns in a different direction, turning more on the impact that a small, extreme group can have on a much wider community. There are probably so many examples that might be chosen; the Asian populations in Auckland about whom Winnie the Pooh has already been beating his electoral drum.

There is one very big example that I want to turn to - one which potentially involves some 1/3 of the global population.

As the consequence of the actions of one small group, numbering at that time no more than perhaps 100,000, the whole of the Islam belief and culture has been promoted, castigated, labelled, and criticised as "terrorists". Exclude the "Palestinians" from this as they pre-existed the actions of AlQaeda by a long way in both distance and time.

As a result of that, Islam is now degraded in the minds of much of the Western world to the status of cultural and religious pariahs irrespective of their beliefs.

That, dear friends, differs not at all from judging the LDS on the basis of the beliefs and actions of the few nutters who make up the FLDS.

A quick potted history...

...of New Zealand as I fondly recall it.

Whakahuihui Vercoe is certainly one of the leading Churchmen of recent times, irrespective of which colour. Have a read through, it is a well written and personal look at the man.

“One hundred and fifty years ago, a compact was signed, a covenant was made between two people…

“But since the signing of that treaty… our partners have marginalised us. You have not honoured the treaty…

“The language of this land is yours, the custom is yours, the media by which we tell the world who we are are yours...

“What I have come here for is to renew the ties that made us a nation in 1840. I don’t want to debate the treaty; I don’t want to renegotiate the treaty. I want the treaty to stand firmly as the unity, the means by which we are made one nation…
The treaty is what we are celebrating. It is what we are trying to establish so that my tino rangatiratanga is the same as your tino rangatiratanga.

“And so I have come to Waitangi to cry for the promises that you made and for the expectations our tupuna (had) 150 years ago… And so I conclude, as I remember the songs of our land, as I remember the history of our land, I weep here on the shores of the Bay of Islands.”

The article concludes...

Sixteen years after his 1990 Waitangi Day speech, how does he assess its value? And in the intervening years, what gains have been made? How much does he think have Maori been able to move away from the margins of New Zealand society?

There’s a tone of resignation in his reply: “My feelings about that,” he says, “are very similar to what I discovered when I took part in war. And that is, in spite of whatever you do, and whatever you say, nothing changes.”

One of life's little pleasures...

... is strolling into the store at Opo and picking up a copy of a previously unencountered magazine.

In this case it was the Derek Fox published "Mana", issue 79 featuring two most interesting articles; "Guerillas in the mist" and a feature on "Moko kauae".

The second is a detailed (a great pity that Mana does not publish on the 'net but I fully understand why not) series of interviews with modern women who carry the tradition of the chin tattoo. It is an intensely written and quite moving (for me at least) narrative.

The cover story though is Derek Fox' personal wend through the events that I outlined in my series "There are terrorists in NZ". At some 10 pages, it would take a month to transcribe (copy) all of it. The following quotes though are pivotal.

In the Ruatoki valley you will occasionally hear the word "idiot" associated with his (Tame Iti) name. But the stocky heavily moko'ed mercurial character has caught the attention of the media, government, police and public for many years. To those with little understanding or sympathy for Maori grievances or the deeply ingrained pain of Tuhoe for the trampling of its mana by Pakeha, Tame Iti's is the dangerous face of MAori radicalism.
...
Now he's facing problems of his own waiting for the next drama to unfold as he goes to court to face the firearms charges that emerged from the police swoop of 'Black Monday' October 15.
...
One of the saddest things to come out of this botched operation is the fear sown about terrorism in this country where nothing [none?] exists, and the prejudice that followed from that.

Yes, on that last point, I heard echoes of it at work, and in the clubs I belong to...

Under the heading "A threat to democracy?" Fox has this to say.

On the morning of October 15 Commission of Police Howard Broad must have felt supremely confident. He and his senior officers had unleashed the biggest armed police operation in years against people he referred to in his news conferences as participating in "terrorist training camps".
...
[His] words shocked the nation. When pressed for more information he said he couldn't say more at this stage and that people should wait for the evidence.

Fox continues and points out that the only evidence published has been carefully and selectively leaked from "confidential and secure" files. He concludes -

Terrorism of the sort we have seen around the world would be a very serious threat to our democracy. As big a threat would be the actions of a police force that didn't get its way under the law stepping outside of it to try its case in the ill-informed 'court of public opinion'. Working outside the law is what police in fascist states do.

Now any who read my thoughts on this as it happened will know that Fox is writing (somewhat more elegantly) the same vein as I was trying to follow. But he has hidden his brilliant best in the middle of another part - easily missed.

One of the interesting pieces to come out of the Solicitor-General's decision [to not proceed with the terrorism charges] that the police and politicians and media people too have highlighted is that "something was happening in Urewera and the police put a stop to it before it could". It's an interesting approach to policing. If this became the norm we could arrest all motorists - that would certainly put an end to drink driving, speeding, running red lights and so on.

Nice one that.

Arresting all accountants would prevent a whole range of crimes

Hey now, hang on just a cotton-picking there Derek. That includes me!!!

NZ has TERRORISTS!!! - 5

From Herald last Thursday -

Named

* 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...

...you 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?

NZ has TERRORISTS!! - 3

Scoop is an internet newspaper that I tap into quite frequently, and most particularly when there is news about of the more pressing and political kind.

So their slant on the "Terrorism Raids" of a fortnight back is at the least an interesting read - with the "conspiracy theory" filters turned on it can almost make sense.

Scoop has, however, done something that no other MSM outlets has yet given us. Thus far Scoop has given short bio's of two of the Urewera 17.

- Omar Hamed
- Rongomai Bailey

Well, certainly the first just has to be a terrorist. Look at his name for a starter!! And he is proud of the fact that he is half Palestinian!! Terrorist for sure!!

As for the second, well what can you say in favour of a MAori who has a European name!! Yeah, and he's an activist as well. Why else would he be a terrorist!!

OK, so let's take a look at the bio of the head cop in the investigation... Assistant Police Commissioner Jon White. Good cop!! He makes sure that these terrorists can't hide anywhere. Keeps us safe in our beds at night.

OK, that's the fun part over.

Go back and read those three bio's. Go to Wikipedia for Tame ITi's - he is well documented.

The Herald this morning has an outliner of a fourth - one Jamie Lockett. Of all those known of at the moment, including Iti, this guy is the one that scares me the most. He is (has been for some years) a serious loose cannon with no brakes... From the Herald -
>

The 46-year-old stands apart from his 15 co-accused because he does not have an underpinning philosophy.

Those who know Lockett say he is no anarchist or Maori activist: he is driven instead by a seemingly pathological dislike for police, said to have begun when an officer spat in his shoe while he was being held in custody.

It began a belligerent feud that has become so all-consuming it has left him penniless, seen him fall out with friends, and means few who know him can recall what he was like before it began.

Lockett has spent nearly all his life in Auckland's eastern suburbs, enjoying a comfortable upbringing as son of the managing director of the successful Morgan Furniture.

He was educated at Auckland Grammar before training as a mechanic, living overseas and working at the furniture company.

Not a particularly "spectacular" beginning for a man who is a serious candidate as a "terrorist". None of the expected "disadvantage" and "disenfranchise" aspects that is often promoted as most likely cause for a person becoming a terrorist. Quite the opposite in fact. And to dismiss him as "nutter" is just to simple, too glib, and dangerous.


Tame Iti, let's start with him. He is a hot-head. He does not like the government, or the police. He has been ill-used by both over the years. The people he represents have been ill-served as I have said in the previous two parts of this series. He has whakapohani'd important people, and hupe'd at them. Quite artfully too! He is the thorn in several important sides when it comes to Maori issues in general, and particularly those issues that impinge (however indirectly) on the Tuhoe people.

Iti, let us remember, occupies the same kind of space as Joe Hawke who I have mentioned previously and who was one of the organisers of the Bastion Point occupation in the 1970's. The closure of that event was another sad day in the history of Maori and government. This present government - at least as it is represented by our Police force - seems determined to repeat those mistakes.

Iti also, let us remember, is fighting the same battle that the Harawira family (led by the now rather formidable matriarch Titewhai) fought over the Raglan Golf Club. Her son, Hone, is now a member of Parliament.

So how do three such different people "qualify" as terrorists. There is much debate on just what the motive for these raids might have been. The most suasive is the connect [conspiracy warning] between the raids and the introduction to Parliament for consideration of a Bill to amend the existing, already somewhat repressive, anti-terrorism law. From Scoop's analysis -

Passed in the wake of September 11, primarily to fulfil New Zealand's obligations under international law to seek to prevent terrorism, the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 does a hell of a lot less than a lot of people seem to think.

Unlike similarly-themed laws passed in other countries it doesn't create search or arrest powers. It doesn't allow phone tapping. It doesn't allow extended periods of interrogation or lengthy periods of confinement without charge. It doesn't permit the use of secret evidence in terrorism prosecutions, or prohibit the media from discussing what's going on. Nor are there special powers to set up road blocks, or storm school buses.

In New Zealand, terrorism offences are treated the same as other offences. The same presumption of innocence, the same criminal procedure, the same suppression rules and bail laws. Applications for search or interception warrants follow the same procedure whether the offence is against the Terrorism Suppression Act, the Arms Act or the Crimes Act.

So what does it do? Mostly, it's about terrorist financing: creating consequences for people who fund terrorism, and allowing the freezing and seizing of terrorists' assets. For this purpose, it sets up a regime to designate groups and people as terrorists – so that we know whom we can't finance.

It also incorporates other obligations we have under various international conventions. To enact into NZ law obligations under the Bombings Convention (which pre-dates 9/11) it creates offences relating to terrorist bombing. Fulfilling our obligations under the Nuclear Material Convention, and the Plastic Explosives Convention, sees the creation of offences relating to the handling of unmarked plastic explosives, and the misuse or nuclear material.

The update of this law that is now before Parliament contains all of the "missing bits" -

This Bill amends the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, seeking to correct inconsistencies of that Act with New Zealand's obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council resolutions on terrorism. It contains proposals on the designation of UN listed terrorist entities, the High Court extension of designations for those entities, the freezing of terrorists' assets, the terrorist financing offences, the offences of committing a terrorist act and participating in a terrorist group. The Bill also introduces new offences involving nuclear material.

The emphasis is where the major part of the debate is centred.

The new law gives the Prime Minister (who by "tradition" has always been responsible for the SIS and GCSB) the sole and unfettered power to declare a person or a group of persons as being "terrorist". There is remaining a right of judicial review but, given the progress [conspiracy warning] of the current secret trials - and as yet the present anti-terrorism law has not been formally invoked - it is likely that the review would be in the fact of undeclared and unchallenged evidence that would never get to the eyes of the Judge let alone any of the individuals trying to express their own views on life and politics in NZ.

To show just how draconian this could become. I mentioned Joe Hawke earlier. If the terrorist law - existing and proposed - had been available to Rob Muldoon, just how long would it have taken him to invoke its provisions against Hawke? Can anyone imagine Dame Whina Cooper as a designated terrorist? OK, so she never took part in "training camps" in the Ureweras. But Hawke was certainly described by Muldoon as "activist" in a way that would equate with "terrorist" in this new day and age.

Those of us who protested against visits by LBJ in the '60's would now be somewhat more uncertain of our right to try and keep the b***** awake all night. We would need to be, given the matters being used to judge the difference between legitimate protest and "terrorist acts". "Likely to lead to public disorder and disobedience" might not appear in so many words. With Auntie Helen the first Prime Minister in a very long time if ever, to suffer the outrage of an act of sedition. It will be very interesting indeed to see if Timothy Selwyn's name crops up among the Urewera 17.

So, I can imagine that names like Nicky Hager, Timothy Selwyn, John Campbell (remember the ambush of Auntie Helen?), Winston Peters, Hone Tamahiri, Animal Action Rescue Team (no I don't agree with their beliefs, tactics or actions, but they should have the right to protest within the limits of existing criminal law), Forest and Bird Society, Greenpeace - the list could cover every aspect of NZ life and political concern - being designated as "terrorist" or "terrorist group". The impact of a designation would remain even though subsequent judicial review might find the designation to be unjustified. It might be "safe" law in the hands of known politicians but we must also look to the future, and the possibility of future abuse of the power of this law by less scrupulous politicians.

By the time they have come to power; by the time they have abused the powers this new law contains; it will be too late.

NZ has TERRORISTS!! - 2

On Friday in the Herald and again in the SST on Sunday were parallel stories with potted, and in both instances fairly sympathetic, histories of the Tuhoe people backgrounding the rather turbulent relationship between the "Children of the Mist" and GOvernments in years past.

I have mentioned before that my parents taught in the school at Te Whaiti in the more northern parts of the Ureweras. It is a time that made an indelible impression on me as an eight year old; not least being the fact that I went from being one of a majority of white children to one of a very small minority in what was essentially a "foreign" culture. To that latter end, I recall the old man's reaction when the School Inspectors gave him a right bollicking for allowing the speaking of Maori in the playgrounds, and reminding him that it was illegal for that to happen. As Headmaster that put responsibilities on him to ensure that English was the only language to be heard. The old man's response was to encourage his Assistant Teacher and some of the local Maori community to take Maori cultural activities during school time.

Now that the dust is settling after the raids there are two things to be noted -

First is the very quiet - no, the total absence of any - response from the government to either the raids or the public reaction.

The second is the apparent desire from some sections of the community to have the "terrorist" stories to be true. To that end a "informal poll" conducted by SST showed some 77% of respondants think that the police action was justified. The poll carries the normal warning that it is not statistically accurate as it is the views only of the respondants and not from a random sample of all NZers...

Just because Tame's arse is a fairly terrifying sight does not in any way make him a terrorist. Just because he was tried on charges of discharging a gun in a public place and shooting up on a poor defenseless NZ flag does not imply that he has direct intention to overthrow the rule of law let alone the government. Just because he has the mana and the power to speak truth that is very uncomfortable for the pakeha majority does not mean that they will be his next target.

I only caught this article in the Herald yesterday during a coffee stop and lunch on our way home from Opo. It is not an earth-shattering article, or even all that well written. But it does have a very dark element of truth in it...

It's peak reality du jour; the savvy among us know that nothing is as it seems. If you are intelligent enough, sophisticated enough, or cynical enough, the truth can be uncoiled from the hidden snake of evil political machinations - once you figure out how to charm that sucker out of its basket.


Seeing the political world from an Oliver Stone perspective is easy. Growing up, the Zapruder home movie of the Kennedy assassination was as much a part of my childhood as Kermit the Frog. I'm supposed to get it. But I refuse.

These fractured fairy tales stink. If you are a "sheeple", as Conspiracists would label me, it would be easy enough to laugh off some of the wilder theories with researched fact - but there's a problem.

The pungency of these conspiracy theories is spreading like weapons of mass hate. This is no fringe occurrence, it is worldwide. Today, millions of Americans think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in September 11 and that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqis.

A Scripps-Howard poll recently found a whopping 36 per cent of Americans thought it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that US Government officials either allowed the attacks or carried out the attacks themselves.

On the flip side, many in the Arab world believe a myth that 4000 Jews working in the World Trade Centre had been warned to stay home that day. A Pew Global Attitudes poll found that the number who do not believe that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks is soaring; 59 per cent of Turks and Egyptians, 65 per cent of Indonesians, 53 per cent of Jordanians, 41 per cent of Pakistanis, and even 56 per cent of British Muslims, as reported in the Washington Post.

What are we looking for when we substitute the simplest answer for some mysterious, more exciting complexity? Is this the ultimate in political sophistication or just mass denial when real answers are loaded with complicated truths that we don't want to see?

It's natural to look for meaning and explanation to give us a sense of control over something that feels bigger than we are. But today we have learned to jettison the obvious truth for the conspiracy du jour - and what do you know - it just so happens to confirm our existing beliefs. Psychologists call that "confirmation bias."

We're fostering a world where the truth can be picked out of a hat. Arabs, Jews or Americans themselves felled the Twin Towers, depending on whether you sit in Tel Aviv, Tehran, or Texas.

We are creating a new politics of hidden agenda, and the biggest irony of all is that it's smothering the simplest truths.

Sociologist Frank Furedi of the University of Kent warns that this simplistic worldview of conspiracy thinking displaces critical engagement with public life and instead replaces it with a destructive search for hidden motives, for the story behind the story as a way of avoiding larger core issues.

Isn't that what this is really all about, our inability to see the ugliness of the world as it sometimes is?

Two children continue shouting about who started the fight because neither is ready to begin the process of figuring out how to play together again.

Sometimes a tragedy is just a tragedy. Maybe it's just as simple as that - at least that's how any lone "sheeple" would see it from this grassy knoll.

What we are blindly refusing to see is how to fix it.

Now I am not certain quite how Tracey Barnett proposes "fixing it". The simplistic, instant gratification (especially for members of NRA and ex-Marines) solutions are rapidly being exhausted. Even OBL seems to be running out of ideas as to how best get his message across to an Administration that just refuses to give up. No, not because they are winning - unless the score is kept in terms of how many enemies you can make during the duration of the game. Her bio gives no indication of her political leanings, other than that she is American and President Bush "owes her" for what America has lost.

As for us NZers, how many are "sheeple" and how many are the conspiracists who try to stoke the fires of the anti-police sentiments; the worthy who believe that Auntie Helen has lost it completely and is using the Police to prop up a failed government; the lost who believe that there are a majority of Police who have motives that would end with a Police Totalitarian State - a bit like Fiji perhap; and how many fall in the ranks of the apathetic who could care less until their beer costs too much. There is a very small number who I would like to number myself among who believe that there is still a system of Justice which believe in innocence until guilt is proven.

And there I must confess to an increasing concern. In some respects it is the consequence of the Rickard affair; this interview with Ross Meurant does not help assuage the concern.

But the most pressing, the most concerning, was this news item and interview...

Tonight, for the first time anywhere, someone who attended Tame Iti's secret training camps in the Urewera's, talks about what took place.

Today, at courts in Auckland and Wellington, all evidence relating to what allegedly happened at these camps, was suppressed.

But we can talk to someone who has not been arrested and charged.

One Whakatane man attended Iti's camps until the most recent one, only two weeks ago.

He says there were two reasons for him going.

One, to train for a high paying security job in conflict zones like Iraq.

Two, to protect Tuhoe land and the people who live on it, although he was not able to explain from whom, or why.

To protect his identity, he wanted to wear a balaclava.

This is his story of what went on in those hills.

Police files - a quick reprise...

There are several entries in here over the past twelve or so months relating to the NZ Police and the rather sad saga of what quickly became known as the “Louise Nicholas Case”. Essentially her case centred upon three senior officers, one of whom was on the point of being appointed to the “top cop” position of Commissioner.

Here,
and here,
and again, and ending with this one..

The Herald has published a series of grand washup articles yesterday, now that the last of the criminal charges have been heard and decided.

Start here,
here,
then here,
and lastly, here.

As a picture of NZ’s law enforcement organisation it is both sad and bad. That a small group of men, no more than the four or five who have faced the Court, can bring a proud tradition of community and trust to a sudden and shameful end is almost tragic. Added to the findings in the Bain murder case appeal to the House of Lords, and the last of the Coroner reports in the Wallace killing and the reading gets quite depressing.

A couple weeks back we went to Taupo for a few days of r&r and very enjoyable it was too! I actually scored my first ever speeding ticket – doing 113kph in a 100 area. Not that I am proud of it you understand, just that it has a direct connect to the Police. The guy who did the deed on me was polite, and, most important of all, he was right. A lapse of concentration on my part after driving nearly four hours, and I was just dead lucky not to get pinged at over 125kph. Actually “dead” lucky is not a nice thought...

I had a comment debate with someone just a short while back during which he concluded that I must spend half my time while driving watching the speedometer to make sure that I stayed within the limit. It occurred to me the other day that it was a whole lot simpler than that to “learn” the judgement of the speed I drive at.

Some years back we had a little Nissan Sentra. Damn good little car it were too!! It had one extremely annoying fault. At 109kph there was this little bell that started going “ding-dong”. I could never find the drive or the adjustment for it. The local Nissan agent refused point-blank to touch it “... because the speedo will stop working”. You get expert at driving 108.5kph quite quickly. You get to hear the engine note, the pitch of the tyre noise on the road. Most importantly you get to not hear the “ding-dong” at 109kph. Our Honda does not have such a sophisticated instrument...

Amazing Grace...

It was not until about a month ago that I learned the provenance of the hymn; the story of the slave-ship captain who renounced that trade to become a reclusive Christian monk. That would be a tale of some fascination in itself.

The subject comes up through the film of the same name, which wife and I went see yesterday afternoon.

The connection comes from the captain who is an important part in the development of the character of Wilbur Wilberforce and the progress of the anti-slavery movement in Britain.

How historically accurate is the film? From my knowledge of the time (relatively limited) I would say that the major players are there, and that they are well portrayed by the various actors. Be sure that Cumberpatch in his role as Pitt the Younger presents a compelling portrayal of the young Turk in his prime and his death. Grffudd as Wilberforce has a large part to fill; which he does with honesty but no great distinction.

The tale of the shipboard party that was diverted (intentionally) alongside the slaver that was in dock was a story that I knew. Such a shame that the ship concerned seemed to move magically among the tightly packed docks until a sternward sequence that showed - quite clearly - the propellor wash under the rudder. The version as I heard it had the ship being towed around (as was the practice of the times) by two gigs. Again, as I heard the story, those two (oar-powered) boats were manned by men landed from the slave-ship.

I enjoyed the film. It is a great story of the power of politics. It is one of the great stories of the victory of humanity over subjugation and exploitation.

Very recommended...

This is a curious one...

A gymnasium owner in Papakura has discovered that some very kind soul has paid close to $3,000 on his behalf for an advertisement in the Yellow Pages. He has no idea who is the benefactor, but he would very much like to find out.

Ray Parker is not gay, but Auckland Yellow Pages users could mistakenly be thinking his fitness centre is for homosexuals.

The Papakura gym owner - and district councillor - is fuming after someone placed an advertisement in the 2007 Yellow Pages for "Ray Parkers (Gay Lesbian) Homosexual Fitness Centre", complete with false telephone number.

The bogus advertisement also appears in White Pages listings.

Mr Parker was alerted to the advertisement a month ago and says his friends, staff and gym members have been joking about it.

But he is concerned the ad has sleazy connotations that could deter people from signing on with the 1000-member centre.

Ray's Gym attracts about 15 new members a week, but he says the centre needs to lose only about three or four recruits a week before it fails to break even.

He is not sure if the ad is someone's idea of a joke or an attempt to harm Ray's Gym, a brand he is looking to expand after spending six years building the Papakura business.

He says he has a couple of suspects in mind, but is amazed anyone would have spent the $2700 plus GST to place the ad.

"It's a lot of money for someone who doesn't like me. If they don't like me, they sure don't like me."

Mr Parker has hired a lawyer and is negotiating with Yellow Pages Group to find the perpetrator. But whoever placed the ad requested confidentiality, which means Mr Parker has had to fight his way through the Privacy Act to glean information.

"We will take whoever it is down. He thinks he is smart, but he is a dickhead."

Yellow Pages is now a stand-alone company after splitting from Telecom. Spokeswoman Wendy Rayman said yesterday Yellow Pages had more than 200,000 business customers and such malicious advertisements were rare.

The company told Mr Parker the name of the person who placed the advertisement, but a check revealed it to be false.

Ms Rayman said Yellow Pages' "Privacy Act team" was now working with Mr Parker.

Thoughts on Social Control -

Time magazine most surely has had a very rich vein of articles on the human mind and related topics.

Whilst picking around on my "Consciousness" pieces I also came across this -

How To Change A Personality
Thursday, Jan. 18, 2007 By FRANCINE RUSSO

Deep brain stimulation, or DBS, is a treatment given to Parkinson's patients who don't respond to medication. A neurosurgeon implants a set ofelectrodes deep into the victim's brain, where they give off little jolts of electricity to disrupt the involuntary tremors and other symptoms of the disease. But according to Martha Farah, a neuroscientist at the University of Pennsylvania, at least one patient routinely chooses which electrical contact to activate depending on how she wants to feel: calm for every day, more "revved up" for a party.

Sounds innocent enough, huh! The electromagnetic equivalent of party pills...

But...

It really does get scary -

Neuroethicists are also worried that these new cognitive technologies could widen the gap between those who can afford them and those who can't, eventually creating different classes of human beings. Just as problematic as unequal access, some say, is the prospect of people being forced, implicitly or explicitly, to take mind-altering medications. Someday we may all feel pressure to take--or give our kids--focus- or memory-sharpening drugs to compete at school or work. In fact, says Richard Glen Boire, senior fellow on law and policy at the Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics in Davis, Calif., "some schools require kids--not diagnosed with ADHD by doctors--to take Ritalin to attend school."

Farah also imagines the day when we have what she calls a "neuro-correctional system" that could transform criminals into noncriminals. We already force sex offenders to take libido-dampening drugs or face denial of parole. A drug to dampen violent impulses might someday be similarly applied. That could, in theory, prevent crimes.

If you know not why I highlighted that last para, go read Huxley, "Brave New World", to find out.

And, for Dave, there is the future of your "we are doing alright society".

On parental responsibility - and that of society...

As an ancillary to my previous post there was a little gem on the news last night which quite literally had me looking for my gun.

But a little background first.

New Zealand has a gambling problem. Well, to be honest we have two gambling problems.

The first is the number of opportunities there are for gambling. When I was a kid you had the races (government controlled through the Totalisator Agency Board), the Golden Kiwi Lottery (again government controlled), and Bonus Bonds. Then someone decided we needed casinos in order to attract tourists to NZ, and to give them somewhere to spend their money. After all, every tourist wants to go to a casino don't they!! So millions were spent on building casinos, including that horrendous phallic symbol in the centre of Auckland. But that wasn't enough. So many locals wanted greater gambling opportunties, particularly for fund-raising for sporting clubs and kindergartens and the like so the Government changed the law to make pokies legal in virtually any and every public space where one or more can be squeezed...

The second is the people who gamble. A number of years back I worked as accountant in a factory with about 25 staff. Come Christmas Eve and the holiday pay (for the next three weeks) was handed out. Fifteen minutes the later the carpark was empty. The boss shook his head sadly and said "All but about three of them will have nothing of that pay left by tomorrow." Come three days later he was back at work, giving out loans to staff who had nothing to live on for the next two and a half weeks. That is not an unusual occurrence. It would be close to a universal.

So,. to the item on the news the other evening... that link will likely expire in the next week. There is nothing on the Herald - yet.

One of Auckland's "poor" areas is the suburb of Otara. It started life as a major government housing scheme. A large proportion of the population are dependants of the state.

A new "games arcade" for the kids was started up about three months ago. Last night's item on the news centred on three new "games" that had been installed recently. Set amongst the shoot-em-up, the hit-and-run, the normal games of the kids of these days were three pokie machines. They were not your casino standard, but were somewhat simplified for the kids to run. According to the reporter there were two different "games", one of which gave a monetary "win" in the form of tokens that could be exchanged for soft drinks or similar. While the camera was filming, one of the players (a kid who looked every day of about 12) won a $5 token. After getting their film, the reporters contacted the regulating agency for gambling in NZ, and the importers of the machine. At the end of the report they returned to the arcade and these machines had been removed. What spoil-sports are they!!

[WHEW!!]

Right, now to fill in a bit more of the background -

Probability one - the parents of these kids were either at work (filmed at about 4 p.m.) or they were in one of the local bars playing the pokies.

Fact one - from the programme. The regulating agency did not know of the import or availability of the "kids pokies".

Probability two - the parents neither knew nor cared where their kids were, nor how they obtained the money for their games.

Fact two - from the programme. The kids playing the machines wanted more of them because "they are easy to beat". They proceeded to show the reporters how to win from the machines.

Now, is anyone getting the feeling that there is something wrong in this picture? No, it is not that the nanny state is responsible here. Well not directly anyhow. It is not the "failure of welfare" because there is equal chance or better that both parents are in paid employment. It is not entirely the failure of the parents as they are (very probably) unaware of what their kids are doing.

But, at the same time, is it right that kids as young as 10 or 7 or even 5 should be getting "training" in the use and "benefits" of gambling machines?

More thoughts on justice and punishment...

Been a few blogs around that have indirectly (some directly) drawn attention to this article written by Theodore Dalrymple (otherwise known as Dr Anthony Daniels).

Now it is very difficult for me to argue with much of what he says. Once again it is not the "facts" that are "wrong" so much as the additional narrative that is missing.

The first and most important missing fact is that his two week stay in this country was as guest of the "Sensible Sentencing Trust".

Take the two examples that he gives as "instances" of how the NZ justice system "fails", and the sequel to the second;

The first concerned a man with 102 convictions, many for violence including rape. (I should point out that 102 convictions means many more offences, since the conviction rate is never 100 per cent of the offending rate, and is sometimes only 5 or 10 per cent of it.)

This man nevertheless became eligible for parole.

...

The second case was of a man with many previous convictions, some for violence, who abducted and murdered a young woman aged 24. He was imprisoned and applied for bail. Three times he was turned down, but a fourth judge granted him bail. He was sent to live at a certain address, where he befriended his neighbours, who did not know that he was accused of murder. Eight months later, while babysitting their children, he killed one of them.

...

Perhaps the most extraordinary twist of this terrible tale is that the parents of the murdered child then had another baby, which the social services then removed from them on the grounds that they had previously entrusted a child to the care of a murderer and were therefore irresponsible parents. The state blames its citizens for the mistakes - if that is what they are - that it makes.

You can find the gory details of two more instances if you wish on the SST page...

Those four have occurred over a period of some 15 years.

I could add another, of a 15 y-o who was convicted of drug related crimes including use of methamphetamine, who was released to the care of his family and given work experience in a local office. He went back to the office one evening, killed two and seriously injured a third with a baseball bat and made off with the day's takings. He is now the youngest person in this country to have been sentenced to life imprisonment (which given NZ sentencing law means he will be eligible for parole when he is about 30).

It would be a perfect world if we could stop all of these killings and maimings. It would be a perfect world if we did not have road traffic deaths as well.

But commentators like Dalrymple, and organisations like SST as well come to the point, really do piss me off more than just a little.

Yes, I have a problem with them, and it is very simple.

Like so many people, they take a single instance or a very small number of instances and make sweeping generalisations covering the whole population. I can not argue against the figures, they pretty much speak for themselves.

What is missing -

* A meaningful and supportable discussion of the causes of increased crime levels.

* A meaningful and supportable discussion of possible and effective measures that would reduce crime.

* A meaningful and supportable discussion of effective crime prevention.

To take the first point - why did serious crime levels start increasing so rapidly in the early 1980's? Were the causes economic? Were they connected to other social or cultural changes? Were they the result of poor education of parents 20 years earlier? There is no examination of that question by SST. There is a good chance that every one of those questions contributed, but not one more than others.

As an instance in the second case. Parliament last night rejected legislation to increase the minimum age for purchasing liquor from 18 back to 20 (it was reduced some 6 years back). I am pleased that it was rejected. Most of the 18 and older people I know are comparatively responsible. There are a small minority who are not. That is the group that society has to minimise. I can suspect that a goodly number of that minority abuse alchohol, or supply it to under-age siblings, because that is what they were given or allowed to do by their parents. Well documented instances exist - the mother grieving for her son killed in a car accident; she had given him a 40oz bottle of vodka to take to a party and he was driving.

This is very much a social problem. For Dalrymple (as just one instance) to characterise it in this fashion in a somewhat differently edited version of the same op-ed as it appeared in the Herald -

For several hours a large number of these young men careered through the streets (of Napier) in their cars with sawn-off exhausts, completely unoposed - as far as I could tell - by representatives of the law.

...

And I don't suppose that I have to elaborate on the likely future of a society that fears its own children, or at least enough of them to retreat indoors when they come out to play.

Children have parents.

A very good number of those "children" - the boy racers - are in fact driving vehicles either owned by or purchased by their parents.

A very good number of those "children" are in fact in their 20's. A few could themselves BE parents.

That excuses nothing. This is a problem that society needs deal with. It is the kid's "fault"? Or is it the parent's?

What pisses me is that a person (not the term I would like to use) like Daniels can come to a country like NZ as a guest of a group with a political agenda and can then spout off with great authority about what is wrong.

FOR F***"S SAKE WE KNOW WHAT IS WRONG!!!

How about some sensible, workable, suggestions on how it can be stopped?