Anti-terror law change 'fascist'
Alt Tv/Fleet FM Breakfast News Comment
Anti-terror law change 'fascist'
Plans to beef up anti-terror laws have been called fascist by ACT's leader as minor parties from the Left and Right joined forces to condemn the changes. In a rare show of unity on a national security issue, ACT, the Greens and the Maori Party were the only dissenters as Parliament moved toward strengthening the Terrorism Suppression Act despite calls to hold off for the outcome of last week's terror raids. Opponents say the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill threatens civil liberties because it gives the prime minister too much power to decide who is a terrorist and could be applied to legitimate direct-action protesters. Giving a politician rather than a High Court judge the ability to designate who is and who isn’t a terrorist is a power too far (ask Ahmed Zaoui) and the Greens make the strong point that there exist laws with serious sentences already without adding ‘terrorism’ to the list of charges. All of this has as its backdrop the Urewera 17 arrests of last week, interestingly Wayne Mapp voiced his party’s thoughts on the arrests last week, and they were that the Police better have the evidence stacked up to have used the word terrorism, I know that there has been much conspiracy regarding this Bill and the arrests occurring during the passage of the Bill, the problem with this conspiracy is that Labour and National already had the numbers to pass this bill by a massive majority without needing to stage trumped up terror charges. The bailing of Rongomai Bailey suggests that there are two sets of arrestees, those who were along for the activism, and those who planned ‘something’. Increasingly that ‘something’ is demanding a level of evidence from the Police that they must live up to or else loose all credibility in the eyes of the public. Meanwhile, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has attacked those protesting against last week's police raids, saying it is "total humbug" that every Maori in the country is innocent. In his first comments about the raids on activists - which occurred while he was overseas as Foreign Minister - Mr Peters called on the Maori Party and Green Party to hear all the evidence the police held before criticising them. Mr Peters would not confirm if he had been briefed by either the Security Intelligence Service or the police about the raids, but it is highly likely he has been. "The idea that every Maori is innocent, that every purpose they have is right and lawful, is absolute total humbug," Mr Peters said. "Across the population of our country there are some activities which are suspect and in the interest of this country's security and safety the police need powers and they need to be able to act. Let's see what they come up with."
Could be the only time ever Winston sounds reasonable.
posted by Bomber @ 7:06 am
14 comments
14 Comments:
Wayne Mapp voiced his party’s thoughts on the arrests last week, and they were that the Police better have the evidence stacked up to have used the word terrorism
Not a bad comment from one on the Right
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe the Police do have the evidence stacked up? Just because they are bound by principles of law and can't reveal it publicly prior to the trials does not equate to it not existing.
It certainly has been enough for Judge's to remand them in custody which they are loath to do unless they are satisfied as to the strength of the police evidence and seriousness of the allegations.
Its interesting seeing how those on the left who articulate a view that maybe we should look at the Police case more closely rather than just blindly and automatically engaging in group think and calling it a conspiracy and an attack on 'thoughts' are branded traitors and shunned. I would hardly call people like Bomber or Chris Trotter traitors to the cause or police 'stooges' and to see them vilified as such merely because they ask questions the activists don't want to answer is rather pathetic.
Anonymous said...
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe the Police do have the evidence stacked up? Just because they are bound by principles of law and can't reveal it publicly prior to the trials does not equate to it not existing.
READ THIS CAREFULLY ANON; Maybe is a maybe, if you believe the police do or whether you believe the police don't the point thats made is "the Police "BETTER HAVE THE EVIDENT STACKED UP TO HAVE USED THE WORD TERRORISM" or I guess it will look very bad for them again, In my opinion IF they have the evidence; why has no one been charged under the Terrorist act? If they don't then how will they justify the style or the way everything was handled, arrests for firearms just don't cut it
It certainly has been enough for Judge's to remand them in custody which they are loath to do unless they are satisfied as to the strength of the police evidence and seriousness of the allegations.
Serious Allegations yes I can go with that, police evidence that part I don't know as no ones been changed, nor has any evidence been revealed, The judge has suppressed his reason for denying bail, so what evidence, do you have some?
Its interesting seeing how those on the left who articulate a view that maybe we should look at the Police case more closely rather than just blindly and automatically engaging in group think and calling it a conspiracy and an attack on 'thoughts' are branded traitors and shunned. I would hardly call people like Bomber or Chris Trotter traitors to the cause or police 'stooges' and to see them vilified as such merely because they ask questions the activists don't want to answer is rather pathetic.
I find it absolutely Pathetic and naive on your part that you cant see, the point Wayne Mapp voiced and he is on the RIGHT SIDE of the fence; but not only did he say it, he "VOICED HIS PARTIES THOUGHTS" Also RIGHT SIDE; I agree we should wait for the evidence, but it will look bad if they don't have it, if they do, then whats taking so long; charge them; so we can see this evidence.
" In my opinion IF they have the evidence; why has no one been charged under the Terrorist act? If they don't then how will they justify the style or the way everything was handled, arrests for firearms just don't cut it"
Have you not been reading anything? The Police need the permission of the attorney general to charge them under the terrorism suppression act. At the moment I would imagine crown law are going over the case and considering whether or not to take it that further step or use existing legislation such as the crimes act. Its certainly not a 'minor' thing to decide nor something that should be rushed through merely because of media pressure.
But you are naive and somewhat ignorant if you think its merely a case of illegal firearms possession.
And as to the conduct as to how the arrests were carried out? Just how on earth do you expect them to arrest people they believe are hoarding firearms, bombs and plotting violence against the state. Its also interesting to note what one of the arrestee's actually had to say about the so-called heavy handedness of the Police.
"Bailey, who was bailed yesterday, said he had been "happily' asleep with his girlfriend when the early morning knock on the door by police came.
"They were quite nice," he said.
Wearing just a towel, police allowed him to get dressed in "nice clothes" and took him away without handcuffs. "
"Serious Allegations yes I can go with that, police evidence that part I don't know as no ones been changed, nor has any evidence been revealed, The judge has suppressed his reason for denying bail, so what evidence, do you have some? "
And again you seem to be failing at basic comprehension. The fact that all these hearings have led all theses Judges indicates that their is some strength and veracity behind the allegations and that the claims of the activist's supporters that they are completely innocent might not be entirely correct. Either that or the judicial system has been completely infiltrated and is now controlled by undercover Police posing as Judges.
"I find it absolutely Pathetic and naive on your part that you cant see, the point Wayne Mapp voiced and he is on the RIGHT SIDE of the fence; but not only did he say it, he "VOICED HIS PARTIES THOUGHTS" Also RIGHT SIDE; I agree we should wait for the evidence, but it will look bad if they don't have it, if they do, then whats taking so long; charge them; so we can see this evidence."
Where did I say I can't see it, please quote where I claimed that thanks. Or are you just making stuff up again?
Its funny that you say wait for the evidence when you have already made up your mind about it and are slagging off the actions of the Police. And you still don't seem to comprehend how the justice system works, the Police cannot do a trial by media as you seem to want and present their entire case to the nations media to appease people like you. What would then happen to the arrested rights to a fair trial , or does that not matter to you at all?
............ no its the fact we've got ninja cops who seem to think they are in east L.A or New York.
......... and idiots who seem to think that "maori" were about to assasinate Helen, John or George ( none of whom were in the country when the raids went down..
........its the fact that now we lock people down and are having "secret" evidence in "secret" court sessions.
.......Its the facts we now have the prime minister as lord high judge and executioner.
........ Its the fact that when the state or police get new powers they will use and abuse them ............
or does none of that matter to anony mouses ????????
"......... and idiots who seem to think that "maori" were about to assasinate Helen, John or George ( none of whom were in the country when the raids went down.."
Just because they werent in the country when the raids took place actually means nothing. They were actually scheduled to return - well Helen and John.
"........its the fact that now we lock people down and are having "secret" evidence in "secret" court sessions.
"
Didnt the defence lawyers request supression?
Your arguments dont stack up my friend. If I were you, id keep my mouth shut until everything was on the table.
............ no its the fact we've got ninja cops who seem to think they are in east L.A or New York.
How is this a fact? Just because you said it?
Anonymous said...
MANA "In my opinion IF they have the evidence; why has no one been charged under the Terrorist act? If they don't then how will they justify the style or the way everything was handled, arrests for firearms just don't cut it"
ANON Have you not been reading anything? The Police need the permission of the attorney general to charge them under the terrorism suppression act. At the moment I would imagine crown law are going over the case and considering whether or not to take it that further step or use existing legislation such as the crimes act. Its certainly not a 'minor' thing to decide nor something that should be rushed through merely because of media pressure.
I am aware of the process though and it is a valid point, yet the allegations were only from the media also direct from the Police, media would indeed added hype to it but the first notion of Terrorist or terrorist camp did come from the police
But you are naive and somewhat ignorant if you think its merely a case of illegal firearms possession.
What other charges have been laid then Anon, tell us? arms charges is all I know, so what other ones have been laid.
And as to the conduct as to how the arrests were carried out? Just how on earth do you expect them to arrest people they believe are hoarding firearms, bombs and plotting violence against the state. Its also interesting to note what one of the arrestee's actually had to say about the so-called heavy handedness of the Police.
the so called bombs was the petrol bomb, no c4 or tnt, I know old people in the north that used petrol bombs to burn off land, cut trees and gorse; this plotting is part of the hear say of terrorist act so we will wait for the evidence on that? unless you know something we all don't? oh well that just leaves the procession of firearms
"Bailey, who was bailed yesterday, said he had been "happily' asleep with his girlfriend when the early morning knock on the door by police came.
"They were quite nice," he said.
Wearing just a towel, police allowed him to get dressed in "nice clothes" and took him away without handcuffs."
That was nice, we just wish the Tame iti was treated in the same manner, but he wasn't though was he? No; how about the smashing the door down on TV that all of NZ got to see or did you miss that anon? or the Maori's that were lined up and told hold numbered card and were photographed, you miss that one to? yes most of us Maoris wish they were treated like Bailey's case but weren't.
MANA "Serious Allegations yes I can go with that, police evidence that part I don't know as no ones been changed, nor has any evidence been revealed, The judge has suppressed his reason for denying bail, so what evidence, do you have some?"
And again you seem to be failing at basic comprehension. The fact that all these hearings have led all theses Judges indicates that their is some strength and veracity behind the allegations and that the claims of the activist's supporters that they are completely innocent might not be entirely correct. Either that or the judicial system has been completely infiltrated and is now controlled by undercover Police posing as Judges.
To you maybe this fairy tale is true, if the strength of the allegation are that tight enough to remand them in custody; then charges should follow, yet near to weeks and nothing, YES I know the process; but understand this investigation has been some 22 months on. By the way i never said they were innocent either, yet I have said "show us the evidence.
MANA "I find it absolutely Pathetic and naive on your part that you cant see, the point Wayne Mapp voiced and he is on the RIGHT SIDE of the fence; but not only did he say it, he "VOICED HIS PARTIES THOUGHTS" Also RIGHT SIDE; I agree we should wait for the evidence, but it will look bad if they don't have it, if they do, then whats taking so long; charge them; so we can see this evidence."
ANON Where did I say I can't see it, please quote where I claimed that thanks. Or are you just making stuff up again?
Show me wear you said you did see it Anon, from what I recall you certainly waffled on about the Left this and that, yet missed that the comment was made by the RIGHT, to shay; I will you didn't direct say anything, just went on about the left; HERE YOU GO LOOK AT IT AGAIN: Its interesting seeing how those on the left who articulate a view that maybe we should look at the Police case more closely rather than just blindly and automatically engaging in group think and calling it a conspiracy and an attack on 'thoughts' are branded traitors and shunned. seems like you avoided the point that my comment was about the right saying this Wayne Mapp voiced his party’s thoughts on the arrests last week, and they were that the Police better have the evidence stacked up to have used the word terrorism To which I agree
Its funny that you say wait for the evidence when you have already made up your mind about it and are slagging off the actions of the Police. And you still don't seem to comprehend how the justice system works, the Police cannot do a trial by media as you seem to want and present their entire case to the nations media to appease people like you. What would then happen to the arrested rights to a fair trial , or does that not matter to you at all?
I agree with what Mapp said, thats it, I will wait for the evidence to justify police actions... I haven't accuse the police of anything, feel free to post it, if you can fine it... other wise your making it up...
"I agree with what Mapp said, thats it, I will wait for the evidence to justify police actions... I haven't accuse the police of anything, feel free to post it, if you can fine it... other wise your making it up..."
Ok sweet.
And in other threads Mana stated.
"My own opinion; is one that these police wont admit there wrong, now their looking for any possible way to charge them under the terrorist act"
"Theirs no doubt they will have to charge some if not all, just wonder how much of the evidence they put forth will be assumptions and fabricated truth, something their well now for:"
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
They are indeed statement of mine; yet I don't see myself accusing them of anything?
I maybe assuming just like anon does, maybe thats the same to anon? though it does appear you listed only part of the first quote "wheres the rest"?
Or where you just looking for something to divert attention from my original statement to this thread?
What I said above, runs along the same lines as what Wayne Mapp said; (FROM THE RIGHT) here anon read it again you will find the similarities: Wayne Mapp voiced his party’s thoughts on the arrests last week, and they were that the Police better have the evidence stacked up to have used the word terrorism.
The single most sinister aspect of this new legislation is the fact that the sole arbiter of who is or who is not a terrorist will be the Beast.
Do we really want to give that power to somebody who has worked diligently to own the cops since doone was fitted up? Someone who is trying to render illegal public political debate in the 12 month run up to an election? And somebody who has just scrapped the SFO replacing it with her own private security force.
Anybody watched the rerun of V for Vendetta recently. Complete state control of everything coming to a fragile democracy near you soon..
........ Maybe its all a cunning move on Helens part.
Use the new legislation against the nats just before the next election ........
I'm sure she's very impartial ..........
Post a Comment
<< Home