From October 15th: ‘We consider the inability of the
jury to make a decision on Count 1 in the Urewera case a victory. The
inability of the jury to make a decision on Count 1 in the Urewera case
is evidence that the crown’s story doesn’t stack up. We have always said
that this charge was laid specifically in order that the crown could
use evidence it knew was illegal in order to secure convictions on
firearms charges. It is a stitch up from start to finish’ said Valerie
Morse from the October 15th Solidarity group.
‘The Supreme Court’s decision in September last year stated
unequivocally that the evidence was illegal. It couldn’t be used against
those charged only under the Arms Act. For the five who were charged
under section 98A – Participation in an organised criminal group, the
evidence was admissible, despite it being illegal. This charge should
never have been allowed.’
‘Operation 8 was a multimillion dollar police operation designed to
harass Tuhoe and political activists. After six years, the crown has
secured a few firearms convictions based on illegal evidence. This whole
episode reveals the sad face of a racist country determined to quash
Maori aspirations for sovereignty.’
Showing posts with label october 15th solidarity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label october 15th solidarity. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Casualisation on the docks: a ship we all don't want to berth
Workers at the Ports of Auckland have been on strike this week, with
solidarity actions spreading nationally and internationally.
Wellington, Tauranga and Lyttelton workers all threatened strike action
and refused to unload 'black' cargo — cargo that had been worked on bu
un-unionised labour — before being forced to do so by the Employment
Court, which issued injunctions with the possibility of financial
consequences. Latest actions have seen up to 3,000 workers protest in
the streets of Auckland (with international affiliates present), and
Australian workers refusing to unload black cargo in Sydney.
So what is the action about? Judging the comments on 'Stuff' and other news agents, it seems the issue of casualisation is swamped by tirades against union strong-arming, the undeniable existence of a Protestant work ethic, or the strange case of workers blaming economic conditions on the Port workers, rather than capital: "Three hundred over paid, under worked, unskilled and ungreatful EMPLOYEES are going to hold New Zealand ports, businesses and public at ransom becasue during hard economic times they want more than the average Kiwi. SHAME!!"
Yet the strike, and the preceding boardroom struggle before it, is essentially about casualisation — that is to say, the imposition of capital into even more areas of our lives. In the name of 'flexibility' and 'efficiency' the Ports of Auckland want workers to be on call 24-7, working casualised hours without permanent rosters and the benefits they entail. "In plain language, the employers are seeking this: that workers will turn up on site as and when required with no guarantee of paid employment."
Now we all now when bosses talk about 'flexibility' and 'efficiency' its doublespeak for raised profits. It means an increase in unpaid labour time — that part of our labour that is beyond what is needed in terms of wages, or in terms of what we as workers produce. An increase in productivity means the bosses get more for less.
Instead, what the Port workers want — like most of us — is to have a life. A life that isn't dominated by work, as opposed to a life where in order to survive we have to sell the biggest commodity of all — our labour-power. In protesting against casualisation, port workers are opening up a struggle against whether capital has the power to impose work on even more aspects of our already work-ridden lives.
That is why this struggle is an important one. The results of this struggle sets a precedent for working conditions across New Zealand, and as international supports have pointed out, across the globe. In essence, this struggle is about hanging on to what little aspect of our lives that are not directly dominated by work. Casualisation on the docks, in what has traditionally been one of the more militant union sectors, does not end at the shore's edge.
This struggle has begun to circulate, as is evident in the solidarity actions across various ports. However at the moment, the potential for this struggle to deepen seems tied to legal forms. It will be interesting to see whether port workers will go beyond employment law and the motions of the court, motions so obviously stacked against them. For example, it took the employers a matter of hours to bring injunctions against solidarity strike action (which is already illegal under law, thanks to the Labour Party), yet the injunction taken by MUNZ has been given a processing time of 2-3 weeks.
There is no doubt about the consequences such a move would mean. The full weight of the state, as evident throughout New Zealand's history, is poised against the workers. Yet the prevailing mood, a heightened sense of something being broken, and the conditions affecting all aspects of our working lives, has the potential to create possibilities. The circulation of struggle, especially one around the further imposition of work into our lives, is something almost all workers would benefit from. Making the issue of casualisation clear, and with a perspective that questions the extension of work (indeed, work itself), could resonate widely.
http://beyondresistance.wordpress.com
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Why wharfies are striking – in their own words (+ photos)
The media have given plenty of space to Ports of Auckland management, but nobody has canvassed the opinions of those most affected by the company’s decisions, the workers. Here we get behind the news to the men, their wives and the children affected by the Ports of Auckland actions and proposals.
For the background to the dispute read the Maritime Union of New Zealand and Council of Trade Union fact sheet and the Port of Auckland’s industrial dispute updates.
The Thorton family: “They want drones when we are actually parents”
FAIR ROSTERING: From the left – Max Thorton (5), Shaun (43), Nina (4), Amy (5), Leah (37) and Ben (9). Photo: Simon Oosterman
Shaun Thorton, 43, drives a straddle at the Ports of Auckland where he has worked for 18 years. He met his wife Leah at the port where she worked before becoming a fulltime mum looking after their four kids: Ben (9), twins Max and Amy (5) and Nina (4).
“We want predictability so we can have a family life,” he says. “We only get one weekend off every third weekend meaning I work 35 weekends in the year. I’m striking for the kids.”
Leah interrupts: “and for the marriage”.
“Shaun’s work is a nightmare for me and the kids,” she says. “Dad only went to two soccer games last year and couldn’t come to the preschool Christmas party. We’ve learnt to live with it but it’s far from perfect.”
“It’s clear from the ports casualisation plan that they want drones, when we are actually parents. You can’t sustain a family as a casual and deal with the everyday stuff parents have to put up with. One of our kids has a chronic illness and another is getting progressively deaf in one ear. I should be able to count on partner to help out with hospital visits and specialist’s visits.
“Everyone complains about irresponsible teenagers going out on town and they wonder where their parents are. They are here and in other unsociable jobs. The only other option to this work is working on the minimum wage.
“It astounds me that they are trying to increase productivity by ruining our work life balance – do they want people sleeping on the job?” she says. “Can I complain to the company about not having annual leave or sick days?”
The Wallace family: “It’s not just husbands affected, it’s our families too”
FAMILY TIME: From centre left – Mark Wallace, Ashley (9), Rebecca (7) and Katrina. Photo: Simon Oosterman
Mark Wallace is a stevedore at the Ports of Auckland. He worked his way up from a casual to a permanent crane driver over 18 years. Mark and wife Katrina have two children, Ashley (9) and Rebecca (7).
“I’m trying to protect my family life,” he says. “The company wants the right to tell me at midnight, eight hours before a shift, that I don’t have the shift anymore. How can I plan a family life around that?”
“The company goes on about caring for its employees, but they treat us like shit. We’ve given them the best container rates ever. If they really cared about us, we’d be inside working. We had to strike at Christmas just to get time off with our kids.”
Katrina, is a self-employed dress-maker who works from home.
“I brought the kids down to the picket show solidarity with my husband,” she says. “But it’s not just husbands affected, it’s our families too. The company’s proposed changes would be hard for me and the kids. I couldn’t take on huge jobs because I wouldn’t know day-to-day what Mark would be doing. I wouldn’t even be able to count on him to pick up the kids from school.”
The Witehira family: “Keeping family time is more important than a pay rise”
POWER TO THE PEOPLE: Jermaine Witehira (31), Jayda (1), Karine (2), Gabrielle (5) and Destiny. Photo: Simon Oosterman
Jermaine Witehira, 31, got his first ever job at the Ports of Auckland where he has been working as a stevedore for 14 years. Jermaine and wife Destiny have three children, Gabrielle (5), Karine (2) and Jayda (1)
“I’m doing this for my family and my mates,” he says. “A 10% pay rise isn’t worth the new casual roster system – family time is more important than a pay rise.
“The company says we earn $91k a year – I‘ve never earned that in the 14 years I’ve been here. I get around $64k but I have to work 24 hours overtime and that costs my family.”
Destiny says Jermaine doesn’t see his kids because he leaves for work at 5:30am and gets back at 11:30pm.
“Being a young family is hard enough, but with his hours it feels like I’m a solo mum,” she says. “If the company gets what it wants I’ll have to put my kids in day care and get a job. The thing is that the job would probably only just cover day care costs and I’d have to find a job that worked around casual hours.”
Brandon Cherrington
FAMILY PICKET: Brandon Cherrington and his 1 1/2 year old daughter. Photo: Simon Oosterman
Brandon Cherrington, 38, has worked at the Ports of Auckland for 1½ years. He is a permanent part-timer and is only guaranteed 24 hours a week. Brandon has a 1½ year old daughter.
“This strike is all about our families,” he says. “We are here supporting the boys to keep and improve our conditions. With the company’s [proposed] new flexibility, they want us to be on call and I won’t be able to plan activities with my daughter anymore.”
Shaun Osbourne
JOB SECURITY: Casual worker Shaun Osbourne on the picket line. Photo: Simon Oosterman
Shaun Osbourne works at the Ports of Auckland. Because he is a casual employee, he hasn’t had a single guaranteed hour in the eight years he has worked there.
“My shifts are allocated the day before I go to work,’ he says. “I could get anywhere between eight and 48 hours a week which could be in the morning, afternoon or graveyard or a combination of the shifts. I won’t be crossing over. We’ve got to make sure permanent workers don’t end up like us casuals.”
Wayne Wolfe
FACTS: Wayne Wolfe has done his research. Photo: Simon Oosterman
Wayne Wolfe, 58, works as a stevedore at the Ports of Auckland. He has worked on the ports for 35 years. Wayne has three adult children and two grandchildren, including a two-week old baby. Wayne is an executive member of Local 13 of the Maritime Union.
“Many of these young fellas are casuals and have had busted up marriages because of their casualised hours,” he says. “When I first joined, conditions were brilliant and I am doing my best to leave it that way.”
Ron Bell
PICKET: Local 13 member Ron Bell (53). Photo: Simon Oosterman
Ron Bell, 53, is a stevedore at the Ports of Auckland. He will have worked on the waterfront for 31 years this coming April and has been union since he was 17. He has four daughters Jac (20), Katherine (18) and twins Samantha and Amanda (15). He is an executive member of Local 13 of the Maritime Union.
“I just want our guys to keep their jobs on decent hours and not get shat on waiting by the phone 24 hours a day,” he says. “People before us made our conditions what they are today and they should stay that way.”
Ken Ziegler
STAUNCH: Ken Ziegler standing tall. Photo: Simon Oosterman
Ken Ziegler, 49, has worked as a stevedore at the Ports of Auckland for 12 years. Ken is the main provider for his son Carlos (10). He is an executive member of Local 13 of the Maritime Union.
“It’s really simple,” he says. “The company is trying to casualise the entire workforce to keep labour costs down.”
Napo Kuru
SOLIDARITY: Casual Napo Kuru stands with permanent workers. Photo: Simon Oosterman
Napo Kuru, 27, has worked as a casual lasher at the Ports of Auckland for four years.
“I’m on $16 an hour as a casual and can get anywhere between 16 and 30 hours a week,” he says. “We have the same fight as the permanent boys. They want everyone to be cheap which will drive down everyone’s pay.”
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Operation 8: the movie
Wright and co-director Abi King-Jones have spent most of the last three years making Operation 8, a restrained, even sober survey of the October 2007 "anti-terror raids" and their aftermath, that patiently paints a disturbing picture of the use of state force to suppress political dissent.
Wright is aware that the undertaking will have attracted close official attention. He recalls driving along a remote road late one evening and noticing a car a couple of hundred metres behind.
"My cellphone rang," he says, "so I pulled over to answer it. And the other car pulled over 200m back. Then when I drove off, it continued to follow me."
The incident spurred Wright to write to the Security Intelligence Service asking what information it held about him. He shows me the short letter he received in response. Over the signature of director Warren Tucker, it declines to confirm or deny that the SIS holds anything. In doing so, the letter says, it relies on section 32 of the Privacy Act, which allows an agency to withhold information if its release could "prejudice the maintenance of the law".
"We have just taken the view that we expect there will be surveillance [of us] and we carry on. It's not a very nice feeling, but it brings you closer to the world of the people you are documenting."
The events of October 15, 2007 introduced the word "terrorist" into our domestic political discourse for the first time since 9/11 made it the century's most electrifying buzzword. More than 300 police raided 60 houses around the country, many in the Ruatoki valley in the heart of Tuhoe country.
The raids, which resulted in 18 arrests, followed more than a year of surveillance and related to an alleged paramilitary training camp deep in the forests of the Urewera ranges.
Within less than four weeks, the police case was in tatters: charges laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 were dropped after the Solicitor-General declined to prosecute them. He specifically defended the police action, but said there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charges, brought under legislation he called "complex and incoherent" and "almost impossible to apply to domestic circumstances".
The firearms charges that remain are scheduled to be heard - controversially before a judge alone, not a jury, for reasons that have themselves been suppressed - next month in Auckland.
Operation 8 - the film takes its title from the police codename for the 2007 raids - deliberately avoids using an instructive or tendentious voiceover. But it provides a pretty useful summary of a story which, its makers fear, has fallen off the public radar.
"I think a lot of people are saying 'whatever happened with that? Are they in prison?'," says King-Jones. "Other people think the whole issue was finished when the Solicitor-General made the decision. People want to know - and they need to know - what happened and why."
What's new about the film is that it gives a voice to those who have so far been voiceless. The opening shots, a helicopter-eye view of the forest, plays over the words of 12-year-old Patricia Lambert, caught in the raids on Tuhoe.
"I saw all these people in black," she says. "It was really scary."
Patricia ushers in the testimony of others in Tuhoe and elsewhere whose stories of police actions would be comical if they were not so chilling: unlocked doors kicked down; fences smashed a few metres from a wide-open gate; children and grannies in their nightwear, kneeling on wet concrete at gunpoint; officers yelling "you will be sent to Guantanamo!".
Meanwhile a gallery of talking heads including security analyst Paul Buchanan, law professor Jane Kelsey and lawyer Moana Jackson comment lucidly and disturbingly on the original actions and the conduct of the case since.
There is testimony from former cops too, including Ross Meurant, whose contribution lent the film its subtitle "Deep in the Forest", and a one-time undercover man who makes some troubling inferences from the size of a police application for a surveillance warrant.
Wright and King-Jones are aware of the charge that they sometimes appear almost to merge with their subjects. At one point, one of the more eloquent of those arrested, Valerie Morse, accosts Detective Sergeant Aaron Pascoe, the head of the operation, outside the Auckland District Court. "Do you really think I am a terrorist?", she asks.
The microphone she thrusts towards him is plugged into King's camera and I feel constrained to ask him whether he has crossed the invisible, but important, line between a documentarian and his subject.
"I think it's impossible to be totally neutral when you are making something. It's very difficult to understand what the environment is for being a political activist in NZ if you don't spend enough time finding out."
Adds King-Jones: "When you collect all this observational material, you get to know these people. It's an important part of the process because these people are in a way quite isolated because of what they have been through. You have to get over their very understandable suspicion. They are wondering 'Are you someone that can be trusted?' or 'What's your angle?', that sort of thing. You can't really separate yourself from your environment."
No one disputes that most, if not all, of the 18 have a history of activism. But the film raises concerns about the role police anti-terrorism measures can play in stifling the legitimate dissent that is the lifeblood of democracy.
Wright and King-Jones point out that what might be dubbed the "protest movement" has been sidelined since the 1970s when political dissent was commonplace.
"It's been really crushed in the last 10 or 20 years," says Wright, "and this was a further crunch."
In any case they are impatient with the notion of objectivity, a term commonly used by people who wish something had been slanted their way.
"[In the raid], 18 people were arrested, 60 houses smashed into, stuff turned totally upside down," says Wright. "The police got to present their point of view through the media and they called press conferences all the time. They have a whole full-time PR team at Police National HQ. They are very well-resourced to look after their own interests. And at the same time, you have these people who really have no voice."
So is their film a dispassionate or activist one?
"Both, really," says King-Jones. "It's about allowing the audience to hear and see something and take away from it what they want. They don't want to be banged over the head with anything. But you want to be able to take them by the hand and lead them somewhere and say: 'What do you think of that?'."
Unsurprisingly the pair are hoping for a good turnout at the screenings - and even a bit of noise. "It's an opportunity for people to take stock of where this country is going," says Wright, "and ask themselves whether we want this kind of country. Because if we don't rein it in soon we are going to be in too deep."
King-Jones: "I just hope that audiences will get a first-hand experience of the people who were targeted. If you are able to get a broader picture of where this has all come from, maybe you will go away from it being more aware of what's going on."
Operation 8: Deep In The Forest screens at the Paramount in Wellington tomorrow at 2.45pm and at Skycity Theatre in Auckland on Monday at 3pm and 8.15pm as part of the World Cinema Showcase.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Film and fundraiser for Oct.15th arrestees
REMEMBER THE STATE TERROR RAIDS OF 2007
On Monday, October 15th 2007, more than 300 police carried out dawn raids on dozens of houses all over Aotearoa / New Zealand. Police claim the raids were in response to 'concrete terrorist threats' from indigenous activists. 20 people are facing charges under the Arms Act, in a trial that could take several years.
Beyond Resistance is proud to present Tuhoe: History of Resistance, the fiery account of Tuhoe’s resistance to the NZ Governement and its volatile relationship with the Crown, in rememberence of the State Terror Raids of 2007. Presented to mark the 3rd anniversary of the raids, all proceeds from the night will go to the ongoing struggle of the arrestees and their defense fund.
"The Tuhoe people of the Urewera region have suffered since a Crown invasion and persecution from the 1860s. It is a Sunday in January of 2005 in the Ruatoki valley. A Waitangi Tribunal hearing has been called. Tuhoe are waiting to meet the visitors many are on horseback. Determined to remind the Crown of these many wrongdoings, Tuhoe have come out in force. Robert Pouwhare’s film documents and records that day.
Tame Iti elaborates "We wanted them to feel the heat and smoke, and Tuhoe outrage and disgust at the way we have been treated for 200 years, (The Crown) destroyed people's homes and burned their crops and we wanted them to feel that yesterday. We wanted to demonstrate to them what it feels like being powerless. The confiscation and subsequent colonisation have had a devastating effect on Tuhoe over the past 100 years."
Reflecting on the day Iri Akarana-Rewi of Ngapuhi says "Maori culture has lost something, it has become catalogued and contained on performance stages at kapa haka festivals, Tuhoe have taken it off the stage and used it to challenge the powers that be and here it is where it should be in all its honest intensity, in the valleys, on the roads and streets a functioning part of everyday life. My uncle once said that the struggle of people against power was the same as the struggle of remembering against forgetting. Today Tuhoe has chosen not to forget, today Tuhoe has shown us the way."
Watch the trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uBOHFOHxbE
Food, drinks and childcare will be provided, so come on down and join your local anarchists as part of our monthly film nights at the WEA! Zines, books and more will also be available on the night thanks to the lovely folks at Katipo Books.
Thursday 29th October, 6.30pm. WEA (59 Gloucester Street), Otautahi/Christchurch.
$5 entry — all proceeds to the October 15th defense fund.
Film length: 60 minutes
For more information contact:
otautahianarchists (at) gmail.com
beyondresistance.wordpress.com
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
October 15th Solidarity screenprint
Haven't designed anything in a wee while, so when I was asked to design the poster for the upcoming October 15th Solidarity Exhibition and Auction I had to dust off the inner cobwebs, so to speak. Quite happy with the result, which I will hand screenprint this week at SRA2 size (640mm x 540mm). Trying to get the third colour from overprinting the red onto black, which I haven't done in that particular combo, so we'll see how it goes! Not sure if you can make it out, but the lovely gentleman featured is our very own Police Commissioner Howard Broad.
Make sure you try and get down to the exhibition, check out the full events on offer, and show you support for the arrestees of the October 15th 2007 state terror raids.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Police State grows: the new Search and Surveillance law
From indymedia.org.nz
Many of you may have heard discussion of the Search and Surveillance bill before parliament now. The text below is an overview of the bill that appeared in the October 15th Solidarity newsletter late last year.
The Search and Surveillance Powers Bill bill is the result of a report by the law commission who spent 5 years on the subject. It includes a number of changes to police powers that affect our lives, although few of them are really new. When Police Minister Annette King tabled the bill she said: “The law has failed to keep pace with technology”, referring to things like tracking and surveillance devices. She’s right in that so far the law didn’t always specify in how far bugging was subject to warrants, or it was inconsistent - the result is a law that streamlines this, giving the police blanket powers to install bugging devices. Everything else would obviously be too difficult for the police to handle. On the other hand, the inconsistencies in the old law haven’t stopped the police from mounting over 120 electronic monitoring operations during the past four years.
Similar streamlining will happen with electronic documents. For written documents, a search warrant would be issued for one particular type of document, e.g. financial records, and the police would only be allowed to seize those. In the case of electronic documents, however, the whole disk or computer can be seized, including completely unrelated documents.
What Annette King really means is that the law has failed to keep pace with police practice. For example, the new law gives police the power to enter premises and vehicles for the purposes of installing, maintaining or removing surveillance devices. During Operation 8 (and I’m sure for a lot of other past and present operations), a number of vehicles and homes were entered and bugged - regardless of police powers. Police will now need “reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence sought is in the place to be searched”. This doesn’t sound any different from the way thousands of homes have been searched in the past.
One of the things that is actually new - and worrying - is the fact that police no longer require a warrant to install surveillance equipment in public areas, including public parts of buildings. This means if the police are interested in seeing who enters the local post office they can install cameras there without having to worry about getting a warrant.
Not that obtaining a warrant has ever been a problem for the police, and it will be even less of a problem now. In the past warrants could only be issued by judges, JPs or registrars. Now they can also be issued by “other appropriate qualified and experienced people” - including police officers. And warrants can now be obtained electronically, i.e. no signature will be required.
New are also “plain view” seizures. This refers to things that the cops can confiscate while they are officially searching for something else. This gives the police power to go on fishing expeditions, where they enter someone’s house on the grounds of looking for one thing and then seize any number of totally unrelated items, just because they look interesting to them.
In addition to all this, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is being wound up and its tasks transferred to the newly created Organised and Financial Crime Agency of the police. This is relevant with regards to examination powers. As it is now, only the SFO (and the courts) can force people to make a statement. The police currently do not have that power (although they like to act as if they do). With the police taking over from the SFO, these examination powers are also transferred to them, albeit subject to special conditions.
The new Search and Surveillance Powers Bill will also effect other legislation - over 50 acts in total will be amended as a result, including the Boxing and Wrestling Act 1981, the International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995 and the Wine Act 2003, just to pick a few examples.
The text of the Bill can be found here.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
October 15th 'Terrorism' Update
A quick update on the so-called 'terrorism' arrests over one year on. Remember that this is an ongoing and lenghty process designed to push the topic back into the fineprint of the press, and our collective memory — to forget, and in short, to ignore, the farce that is continuing to distrupt the lives those accused and their communities...
From Indymedia:
The Crown has issued an indictment today against 18 people arrested in the police raids of October 15th 2007 in Ruatoki, Auckland, Hamilton, Whakatane, Palmerston North, Wellington and elsewhere.
Five of the 18 people have been charged with participation in a criminal gang under section 98A of the Crimes Act.
These charges are a desperate attempt by the Government to save face after the Solicitor-General found 'insufficient evidence' to bring charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act. The Crown seeks to characterise political activists who support Tino Rangatiratanga and dissent from the Government as criminals.
From 'Global Peace and Justice Auckland':
The police decision to lay charges of participating in a criminal gang against five of the Urewera arrestees is ludicrous. Having failed to brand these activists as terrorists the police now want to try to brand them as criminals.
Why lay these charges more than a year after the arrests? Rather than being serious about these charges it seems to be an attempt to shift the whole case to the High Court rather than have it heard in the District Court. It seems the police will leave no stone unturned in trying to make the case look more serious than it is and in the process to salvage some credibility from the hopeless mess they have got themselves into.
In a bare-faced abuse of the legal process the police also intend to
relay charges dismissed at depositions. This is desperate stuff
indeed.
The police have been on a hiding to nothing since their dramatic
"anti-terror" raids on October 15th last year seized of two pig
hunting rifles. Their case is based on a lot of hot air and stupid
conversations. Were those charged not political activists the police
would have issued warnings for technical breaches of firearms laws
rather that attempt the Keystone Cops prosecutions.
For the police this is a "double or nothing" gamble.
Since their dramatic police conference telling the country how they
had thwarted terrorist activity the police case has unravelled
rapidly. The Solicitor General found there was insufficient evidence
to lay charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act and the police case
has rapidly unravelled since then.
The waste of public resources is already in the millions and will be
in the tens of millions before it is over.
And finally, a rather insightful comment on Indymedia:
"The point you are blindly missing ... is the states' historical reaction to any Maori movement of any consequence that dared to challenge the great farce that is crown sovereignty, movements from the Kingitanga, Titokowaru's movement, Te Kooti's movement, Te Ua's movement, Te Tohu and Te Whiti's movement, Rua Kenana's movement and now the Tuhoe Nation movement.
The states response has been the same in EVERY instance, armed forces sent in to crush the will of the people to continue the movement.
Armed forces did not enter Tuhoe land to arrest people caught up in operation 8, except for one of them, the rest did not live in the Tuhoe area yet the majority of armed forces converged on that area.
Armed forces entered the Tuhoe area currently under claim as the base area of an independant Tuhoe State, Te Urewera, as stated by Tamati Kruger in a TV1 interview following the raids. They entered that area to send a message to the people of Tuhoe as a reminder that they have more firepower and resources than Tuhoe does.
Their message was simple. They had come to show those renegade areas in Te Urewera who is boss. A clear reminder of the show of force used on Rua Kenana and the trumped up charges of sedition that followed.
They were there to break the will of the people to want independence. The rest, the charges, and now the indictments, is just a charade, an illusion if you like."
Some good links:
October 15th Solidarity
Indymedia
And I still have $10 posters for sale, which would greatly help the
defendants cause if anyone would like to buy one of me. Just get in
touch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)