Anne Tolley: see no racism, hear no racism, speak no racism

Maori women challenging racism in the early feminist movement
H/T Te Ara

Don’t act surprised. From RNZ:

"The Government is rejecting suggestions Maori are being unfairly targetted in the police or corrections systems the Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell has described as institutionally racist. 

A visiting United Nations delegation says the Government needs to investigate why a systemic bias against Maori is evident in the country's criminal justice system. 

The delegation, which reports to the UN Human Rights Council, says any bias against Maori leading to their incarceration more than other New Zealanders constitutes arbitrary detention and is illegal under international law. 

Police and Corrections Minister Anne Tolley says she has seen no evidence of institutional racism in either police or Corrections. 

"Quite the reverse in fact; there's a lot of work going on. The police are turning the tide and we're very impressed by that work and of course in Corrections the work that's going on to reduce reoffending."

It’s easy when you have the privilege of detachment – and, of course, the authority of objectivity – to deny that racism exists. But even then, Tolley’s remarks are neither a full denial nor a proper admission. Her response is bureaucratic: “the police are turning the tide and we’re very impressed by that work”.

What does that even mean? If the police “are turning the tide” is that an admission institutional racism did exist? Or is “quite the reverse” a denial that institutional racism ever existed? Does it matter? Unfortunately it does.

Tolley’s position doesn’t change the facts: Maori adults are 3.8 times more likely to be prosecuted than non-Maori and 3.9 times more likely to be convicted of an offence. Maori young people are more likely than Pakeha to be apprehended and prosecuted for committing the same offence. This is the reality of the racial hierarchy: the apprehension, prosecution and conviction gaps. But add the health, wealth, education, employment and housing gaps too.

But if Tolley denies that this is the product of institutional racism, she doesn’t have to do anything substantive about it. Her response can be bureaucratic: we are doing [insert glib policy] in hope of achieving [insert rosy outcome] for [insert folksy platitude].

Tolley’s position is profoundly ahistorical. Settler colonialism is based on the denial of indigenous systems and culture. You can’t complete the colonial project – namely to import the capitalist economy and recreate the architecture of liberal democracy - while allowing an indigenous system to co-exist.

The New Zealand experience is no different. In the 19th century Maori were invited to assimilate under the Treaty. In 20th century New Zealand Maori have been invited to integrate under the Treaty settlement process. But under neither regime were Maori offered full membership of the state. Institutional racism made assimilation and integration conditional - sovereignty had to be transferred, discrimination tolerated and wrongdoing (eventually) forgiven. 

Indulge me for a moment and imagine if we started setting some conditions like, say, extracting a genuine commitment to do something about institutional racism. But perhaps a commitment from government isn't necessary. Iwi, hapu, whanau, community groups, national organisations and individuals - of different ethnicities - are doing their best to turn the tide. In many areas, it’s working. Maori do have better access to housing and education than a century ago. But I’m suspicious of the government’s claim to be turning the tide. Here’s why: 

“You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress ... No matter how much respect, no matter how much recognition, whites show towards me, as far as I am concerned, as long as it is not shown to everyone of our people in this country, it doesn't exist for me”. – Malcolm X 

Rights come with remedies: on the Urewera raids

Police acted ‘unlawfully, unjustifiably and unreasonably”. Translating the bureaucratic-speak: the Police fucked up.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has released a critical report into Police actions during the Urewera raids. Sir David Curruthers found that, although action itself was reasonable and justified, many aspects of the raids were “unlawful, unjustified and unreasonable”. Curruthers recommends that the Police “re-engage with Tuhoe”.

Fat chance. The report is welcome – if small – vindication. The Police were in the wrong. The hurt isn’t easily mended, though. Re-engagement must happen on Tuhoe terms and a remedy must be given.

The corollary of a right is that it comes with a remedy. In the Urewera raids the Police illegally stopped, searched and detained drivers and their vehicles. Personal information was requested and collected. School buses were stopped and, according to Tuhoe, searched with children on board. The Police illegally detained women and children in their homes – in some cases for hours. The Ruatoki Valley was left humiliated, wounded and intimidated.

The vicious symbolism of setting up road blocks on the historic confiscation line was lost on no one. Militarising the Ruatoki Valley was not only unreasonable and disproportionate, it invoked the ghosts of history. The parallel to armed raids of Maungapohatu was lost on no one too.

But where to from here? The Police actions don’t appear to be criminal (in a legal sense at least, whether their actions were morally criminal is another question). A further problem is that there are several statutory bars preventing claims against the Crown or the Police in tort. The Limitation Act might also be relevant too.

However, a Bill of Rights claim is open. The victims can sue the Crown directly for public law damages. Depending on the circumstances of the claimant s18, s21, s22 and s23 could be relied on. Compensation isn’t the primary focus of public law remedies, but in this situation compensation is necessary to vindicate the rights that were breached, deter the Police and express society's disapproval. Punishment needs to happen too.

Rights must come with remedies. Here, there were clear breaches. The report acknowledges as much (if not in those words). It’s banana republic stuff. Bainimarama stuff. New Zealand has serious issues of Police (and intelligence community) competence. The Police not only regularly disregard the law, but evidence continues to suggest that they have a base disrespect for Maori. They shut down, degrade and intimidate a Maori community. A community with a deep history of Police oppression. They prosecute Maori at a rate wholly disproportionate to other ethnic groups. Don’t start on the anecdotes about Police harassment of Maori who look dodgy. The Police must be held accountable.

Post script: Full credit to Te Ururoa Flavell who has been strong on this from the day of the raids to today. His latest press release is here. I've been critical of his electorate work in the past, but not here. Good stuff. 

The Police: culture change edition

I submitted six OIAs on Monday: one to Te Puni Kokiri, one to the ministries of education, corrections and justice respectively and one to the Parole Board and the Police. I had a prompt response from every department – except the Police. Five days after the fact they haven’t even acknowledged receipt. Their record in responding to OIA requests is tragic, but not nearly as tragic as their record prosecuting young Maori.

JustSpeak has run through Police statistics that reveal Maori aged 10 to 16 years old are more likely to be prosecuted than Pakeha of the same age. JustSpeak compared apprehension rates against prosecution rates across 15 offence categories. Across most categories there are more apprehensions of Maori youth, but in every category the prosecution rate is higher.

This isn’t a surprise. Well, not for anyone living in or with extensive experience in poor communities. Racial profiling is common and race is the unspoken consideration when deciding whether to prosecute. Strictly speaking, the seriousness of the offence; the strength of evidence; the number and type of associated offences for which the person may also have been arrested on that occasion; previous offending; support networks and a handful of other considerations will be weighed.

I’ll admit that it’s difficult to pin causation here, but abductive reasoning suggests that race must be an aggravating factor in prosecuting decisions. The apprehension rate across many serious offences categories are similar, and in sexual assaults and illicit drug offences the apprehension rate is higher for Pakeha. Despite this, the prosecution rate against Maori is still higher.* So it can’t be said that Maori commit more serious offences. Even then, in the serious offence categories themselves the likelihood of being prosecuted is higher for Maori.** It could also be argued that there is usually more evidence against Maori offenders. There’s a racist assumption underlying that point. No Right Turn hits it:

“It’s difficult to see how… "evidence" would track so closely the colour of the accused's skin - unless it was the colour of the accused's skin… The former is simply a claim that "Maori are criminals”

If you come from a poor community, preferably a poor brown one, you know intuitively that race and class are an unspoken consideration. It’s difficult to avoid that conclusion when Maori are more likely to be prosecuted than non-Maori for committing the same crime. To argue otherwise is usually to argue from the premise that Maori are just more criminal. Auckland University Law lecturer Kylee Quince found that:

At least two thirds of the 737 police respondents reported hearing colleagues use racist language about Maori. Many reported a greater tendency to suspect Maori of an offence, or to stop and query Maori driving “flash” cars. Overall, the data suggested that about 25 per cent of police have negative attitudes towards Maori.

This is neither entirely unexpected nor does it constitute an international exception. In the US African Americans represent 12% of the total population of drug users, but 38% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 59% of those in state prison for a drug offense.*** In South Australia Aboriginal people make up 0.7% of the population but account for 14% of admissions to prison. The Australian Law Reform Commission cites research attributing the disparity to "differences in arrest, prosecution and sentencing practices". There's an element of racism that persists in former colonial societies.

There are different realities with the Police: one for white and one for brown; one for the rich and one for the poor. There’s an intersection between the two. There needs to be a culture change in the Police.

Post script: Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party are vocal on this issue which is encouraging.

*Although, in the drug offences category the disparity is only 2%. I don’t think that’s statistically significant.

**This isn’t new. Ministry of Justice figures in 1999 revealed prosecution rate for young Maori people aged ten-16 years at 76.2 per 1000 population, compared with 16.95 per 1000 population for non-Maori. Maori adults were 3.8 times more likely to be prosecuted than non-Maori and 3.9 times more likely to be convicted of an offence.

***See this very interesting fact sheet from the NAACP.

Towards a "Separate" Maori Justice System

Via the Police News Centre:

Iwi and Police are joining together to implement an innovative strategy aimed at reducing victimisation, offending, road fatalities and injuries among Maori. 

'The Turning of the Tide - a Whanau Ora Crime and Crash Prevention Strategy' was developed by the Police Commissioner's Maori Focus Forum, consisting of senior Iwi representatives from around the country, with help from Police. 

Police Commissioner Peter Marshall says there is an obvious need to reduce the number of Maori entering and re-entering the criminal justice system and dying on the roads. 

"Maori now comprise more than 40% of all police apprehensions, more than 50% of the prison population and more than 20% of crash fatalities, despite making up only 15% of the general population.” 

 Firstly, credit to the Police and iwi. There's a lot to like. The plan adopts the Whanau Ora approach. In other words, an inter-iwi and inter-agency approach. The plan also considers the relevant issues in the context of the extended family (which is consistent with the more literal definition of Whanau Ora).

Taking people out of their families to ‘fi x’ them and then putting them back doesn’t work, especially when the family is a gang. Sometimes, we’re our own worst enemies and let our families lead lifestyles that encourage crime. ‘Fixing’ individuals doesn’t change the family.

Reintegration is an essential part of rehabilitation, but reuniting offenders with their whanau can - in a significant number of cases - increase the risk of reoffending. The traditional risk factors include poverty, education, housing, and unemployment. However, family circumstance - read having a criminal family - is often overlooked in sentencing and parole decisions. There can be little point in releasing or reintegrating an offender whose own whanau represents an invitation to reoffend. The plan recognises this factor and aims to create "positive family relationships" to reduce the risk of reoffending among offenders in the above circumstances.

The plan also acknowledges that a culture change is necessary:

We want as many people as possible talking about why crime is wrong, who gets hurt, and what each and every one of us can do to prevent it. It’s time to stop paying lip service to tikanga and put our cultural values into action. Until we do, the people who suff er are our children, siblings, parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles.

Yes. Yes. However, the report's silent on a culture change in the Police ( it's probably outside the brief). The Salvation Army writes in their State of the Nation Report that Maori are three times more likely than non-Maori to be apprehended and "also more likely to be prosecuted by the Police for their offending". The Sallies add that "not only has this trend continued... but it may be getting worse". Kylee Quince has found that:*

Maori are 3.3 times more likely to be apprehended for a criminal offence than non-Maori. Ministry of Justice figures for 1999 report a prosecution rate for young Maori people aged ten-16 years at 76.2 per 1000 population, compared with 16.95 per 1000 population for non-Maori. Maori adults were 3.8 times more likely to be prosecuted than non-Maori and 3.9 times more likely to be convicted of an offence. Nine times as many Maori than non-Maori are remanded in custody awaiting trial.

Prosecution is a discretionary decision, but the Police will (apparently) consider the seriousness of the offence, the strength of evidence, the number and type of associated offences for which the person may also have been arrested on that occasion, previous offending and so on. The unspoken consideration is, of course, race (or race coupled with class). After all, Maori are more likely to be prosecuted than a non-Maori for committing the same crime. This indicates, to me, that race is an aggravating factor in the decision to prosecute. Consider this (also from Quince):

At least two thirds of the 737 police respondents reported hearing colleagues use racist language about Maori. Many reported a greater tendency to suspect Maori of an offence, or to stop and query Maori driving “flash” cars. Overall, the data suggested that about 25 per cent of police have negative attitudes towards Maori.**

No Maori (or should that be dark-skinned Maori with no money?) with experience in or with the Police needs an academic paper to alert them to Police racism. It's known to the point that it's intuitive among many Maori. But getting to the point: there needs to be a culture change within the Police. It is all well and good for the Turning the Tide plan to call for a culture change among Maori, but that call must be reciprocated if it's to have any legitimacy. It's a start, and an encouraging one I suppose, that the Police aim to slash the Maori prosecution rate by 25%.

I'm a cautious supporter of a Maori criminal justice system.*** The, for want of a better term, western justice system doesn't cater to Maori notions of justice. The current system enjoys a monopoly on justice, but many of the values it embodies and expresses are not universal. Judge Andrew Beacroft (Principal Judge of the Youth Court) has found that the most effective programmes for Maori take a holistic approach (incorporate tikanga, whanau and the like), enhance pride in the offenders’ taha Maori and whakapapa and are tailored to the individual. A Maori justice system would do this and more. Rangatahi Courts, Marae hearings and the Whanau Ora approach represent small scale change in that direction, but come nowhere close to challenging the hegemony of Pakeha justice.

It's not like this idea is particularly radical. The Treaty guarantees Maori tino rangatiratanga and article 34 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples holds that "Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their... juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards". In the US, the Navajo Peoples maintain their own police force, judicial system and corrections system (jurisdiction is shared with the state). Surely, if they can do it, we can.

Post Script: JustSpeak provides a position paper (Maori and the Criminal Justice System 2012) from a youth perspective. Very interesting. 

*This is a very good paper from Kylee Quince from Auckland University Law School. Quince uses to the trauma of colonisation to help explain Maori offending. 

**See G Maxwell and C Smith  Police Perceptions of Maori Victoria University of Wellington, 
Institute of Criminology, 1998, Summary and Recommendations. Note that of the 737 
police respondents, 8 per cent of the sample identified as Maori.

***The most famous and most instructive paper on point is He Whaipaanga Hou (The Maori and the Criminal Justice System) by Moana Jackson. It's the go to paper for any discussion of Maori and the criminal justice system. I say cautious because I'm more pragmatic than principled on this point. 

  

Native Affairs on the Urewera "terrorists"

If you didn’t catch Native Affairs on Monday night, drop what you’re doing and view it here. Native Affairs sets the standard for current affairs in New Zealand and on Monday night the show raised the standard – again.

In an unorthodox move, well unorthodox for the MSM, Native Affairs dedicated an entire hour to the Urewera ‘terror’ issue. The show spoke to the Urewera four – Tame Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Urs Signer and Emily Bailey – and then Greg O’Connor. A panel discussion followed with Matt McCarten, Annette Sykes, Stephen Franks and Russell Brown. The quality of discussion was excellent and Julian Wilcox further cements his place as the best television journalist in New Zealand. Although most viewers would have applauded the exclusion of O’Connor and Franks, the fact that the two were included is a testament to the Native Affairs crew and their commitment to balance.

----------

Interview with the Urewera four

The show opened with a discussion with the Urewera four. Julian asked Tame Iti, and quite rightly too, what he and the Urewera suspects were up to in the Urewera. It’s a legitimate question, but one without an adequate answer. Tame responded saying that they were “doing what Tuhoe do”. This is vague, but it suggests nothing sinister. Similar to most Tuhoe, Tame is very guarded about Tuhoe affairs. Although Tame acknowledged that he and others were engaging in “activities”, he disputed the Police interpretation and construction of those events. The activities were, it’s increasingly accepted, innocent in intention.

Emily Bailey described the activities as “wananga” which, to me at least, makes perfect sense. Bravado and silly buggers aside, what the suspects were engaging in is and was common practise in the Ureweras. Bailey also commented on the criminal group charge arguing that it was merely a tool to elevate the gun charges to something more sinister in the minds of the jury.

On the question of proof Kemara made the point that it's incumbent on those making the accusations to “make something of it”. In other words, the burden of proof falls on the Crown and those accused aren’t obligated to negate those allegations. Ultimately, and not unexpectedly, the Crown failed to prove their allegations, other than the relatively minor and strict liability firearms offences. The offences the four remaining defendants were convicted of fell well, well short of the original and outrageous terrorism allegations.

Urs Signer also made a number of insightful comments. Most interestingly for Maori, Signer labelled the terror raids and what followed another step in the colonial project. I read this as meaning it was a step to suppress tino rangatiratanga. As an aside, when will New Zealand accept that tino rangatiratanga is a legitimate and harmless political ideology? Anyway, Signer also claimed that it’s the intention of the Crown to seek a prison sentence despite a report from the probation service recommending community service.

In all, it was an outstanding interview with the four.

----------

Response from Greg O’Connor

Following the four was Police Association President Greg O’Connor. Julians asked whether or not the Police owe Tuhoe, or more specifically the Ruatoki community, an apology. O’Connor didn’t think so, instead he claimed that the Urewera four owe the community an apology. This is silly for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Urewera four were not responsible for Police actions. After all, the Urewera four did not compel the Police to act as they did, for example illegally detaining community members and boarding a school bus. The Police made that decision – the Urewera four didn’t compel them to do that. Secondly, what the Police thought the Urewera suspects were engaging in did not justify nor invite action against the Ruatoki community, merely the suspects themselves. Thirdly, and as I alluded to, the Police acted illegally. Given they will face no judicial consequences, isn’t there a moral obligation for them to apologise?

O’Connor went on to say that the claims that Police acted illegally were “allegations” and not facts. Of course he would say that, it’s his job as the union spokesperson to defend Police actions. However, why would the community lie about the Police actions? There is no reason for the community to do so. In the school bus claim, the bus driver, and the school children for that matter, had no reason to fabricate the claims that Police boarded their school bus. On the other hand, the Police have every reason to deny it.

In another erroneous call, O’Connor stated that the Police acted in accordance with the law citing that fact that the Police had obtained warrants. This, however, goes against the Supreme Courts contention that the Police acted illegally in obtaining evidence. O’Connor pressed on in an attempt to discredit the Supreme Court’s decision citing the fact that it was a split decision and contrary to the decisions of lower courts. This is hardly a convincing argument – some of the most notable judicial decisions are split and the Supreme Court’s decisions are just that, Supreme.

Towards the end of the interview O’Connor seemed to advocate a trial by media. If only New Zealanders were privy to all the evidence gathered he implied. This, as Urs Signer later pointed out, is silly as the Court, and by extension the public, in the Urewera four trial were privy to all the evidence as the Supreme Court had ruled it admissible in that case. Even in the event where all the evidence was available to the Court, the jury still could not decide on the criminal group charge. Given this, what makes O’Connor think the public would reach a different and more serious conclusion? Meaning why would the public find evidence of terrorism when the jury couldn’t even decide on a much lesser criminal group charge.

In a stupid and ill-advised move O’Connor also pulled a Don Brash and held aloft a still from the Police evidence showing some of the suspects in camo gear. It didn’t contribute anything other than to erode O’Connor’s argument. You know you’re in trouble when you need to resort to props to further your arguments.

Ultimately, O’Connor could not refute the fact that the Police allegations came to nothing but a few firearms convictions. A far, far cry from the terrorism absurdities. To be fair, I didn’t agree with anything O’Connor said, but the show was better for having his perspective and kudos for to O’Connor for fronting.

----------

Cross to Parihaka

O’Connor’s interview was followed by a cross back to Urs Signer and Emily Bailey in Parihaka for the right of reply. Both labelled O’Connor an angry man and this is how he came across. Emily closed by saying that it was the Police who did the terrorist acts.

----------

The Panel

Matt McCarten, Annette Sykes, Stephen Franks and Russell Brown joined the panel. A very good mix and all four had useful and insightful contributions.

Stephen Franks opened the discussion commenting that he was shocked with the scale of the, for want of a better term, ring. On the evidence that was supressed Franks believes that the four are terrorists, however this ignores the fact no terrorists acts were committed and in the trial of the four the jury could not even reach a decision on the lesser criminal group charge despite having access to all the evidence. Strangely Franks advocated for a trial by media too, despite his earlier comments indicating he is a man of legal principle. Franks also said the process should have been more open, but this ignores the fact that the suspects deserved to have their privacy and reputations protected until the Police could prove something. Furthermore, Franks claimed that all the evidence should have been heard, but it was in the trial of the Urewera four (as I mentioned how many times).

Matt McCarten’s comments were, as expected, excellent. Enough said there.

Annette Sykes was, true to form, fired up and made the point that the raids were used as a training ground for the SIS. This I agree with. It has been said often that the investigation, raids and so on were merely used to justify the existence of New Zealand’s anti-terror units. Annette also said the law has not been applied fairly to Maori. Again, I agree. Why are groups like the National Front still running around with guns in the South, but Maoris running around with guns in the North are targeted with force?

Russell Brown’s assessment that the Urewera suspects were just “dickheads” is a good assessment. Brown also labelled the media coverage as a mixed bag singling out the Dom Post for their poor coverage and James Ihaka from the Herald for his good coverage. The coverage was, according to Brown, fed by leaks. In this situation the initial coverage was bound to favour the sensational and bolster the Police claims. However, it was also pointed out that the defence had ample time to present their story and they did, for example through Operation 8.

----------

Conclusion

In all, the show was outstanding. Some of the best current affairs I’ve ever seen. Julian Wilcox did brilliantly steering the discussions and, in my opinion, for keeping it together when interviewing O’Connor. The panel was excellent too. The show cemented my belief that the Police allegations were unfounded and unjustified. You can watch the show here if you missed it. The show was also trending on Twitter alongside Desperate Housewives and Game of Thrones. That, I think, is pretty significant and well deserved coverage.

Lastly, just a reminder that I’m on Twitter now. You can follow me here, but don’t expect anything great, unless you want to be disappointed.   

Pig Brutality (updated)

Prominent protesters are accusing the Police of brutality. The protesters, which include John Minto and Joe Carolan, were protesting the eviction of state house tenants in Glen Innes. Apparently Minto was beaten and female protesters were handled violently with one woman entering a seizure as a result of the Police's heavy hands.  Of course, this is exactly what the Police do with protest, especially the blue nappied babies they recruit for South Auckland. They're desperate for recruits so they, more often than not, recruit brain-dead males fresh from failing to gain university entrance or any meaningful academic qualification. I've always said, you become a cop if you're too dumb to do law and too soft to join the military. For more see this from TW.com and Socialist Aotearoa.  

UPDATE: Hone Harawira will be helping lead the protest tonight.

The Urewera failure

So the Urewera verdict is in and it’s a fizzer. The case, triggered by the 2007 terror raids, has come to an anticlimactic end with the jury finding the remaining defendants guilty on some firearms charges – which were largely minor – and failing to reach a verdict on whether or not the four were part of an organised criminal group. An organised criminal group is a group of 3 or more people who have as their objective(s) obtaining material benefit from the commission of crime(s) punishable by four years or more. This charge, the supposedly serious charge, is so far removed from what the Police and the government of the day were alleging in 2007.

Casting our minds back to 2007, the Police were claiming that they foiled a paramilitary plot and hijacked plans to, among others things, assassinate the Prime Minister. Terrorism charges were laid, but the Solicitor-General decided that terrorism charges would not hold. The Police and Crown Law, however, charged ahead. Failure after failure followed and charges against the majority of the defendants proved unsustainable and, as we know, the only serious charge the Police and Crown Law had against the remaining defendants resulted in a hung jury. Whatever way you look at it, this is an epic defeat for the Crown. Thousands of man hours, millions of dollars and the might of the New Zealand Government could not bring down a bunch of pohara Maori and Pakeha activists. Tame Iti is now further entrenched in Maori mythology and rightly so.

The government and the Police owe Tuhoe an apology. Ruatoki was attacked, and I deliberately use the word attacked, as school buses were searched by armed police, kaumatua and kuia were illegally detained, men and women were man handled and mistreated all for a few firearm charges. Charges that are so remote from what the Police were alleging. It’s a sorry affair.

Finally, I think the Maori Party must be acknowledged for the work they did in the wake of the raids and what they continue to do. Pita Sharples was right, at least in respect of Tuhoe, when he said the raids set race relations back 100 years.

Breaking News: Charges dropped against "Urewera 15"

All firearms charges have been dropped against the so called "Urewera 15". This is an embarrassing back down from the Police, but the correct outcome. I am pleased and the Maori world is pleased. The decision comes after the Supreme Court ruled certain evidence inadmissible, therefore overruling previous judgments from the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Criminal charges have hung over the heads of the defendants for over four years causing massive emotional trauma including relationship breakdowns and bankruptcy. Justice has finally come for 11 members of the group, but four members, including Tame Iti, will face the minor charge of participating in a criminal group. No doubt this is in an attempt to save face, but also smash Tame Iti and co. who are no friends of the system. Hopefully, the pigs run into all the criticism they deserve for pursuing what was, from the very beginning, a wild fantasy.   

FTP?

The Police often wonder why people hate them: 

Wellington bar owners say drunk Maori will be specifically targeted during the World Cup, by a 50-year-old law that has been pulled from the archives by police and the city council.

The law allows Maori wardens to enter bars and remove drunk or violent Maori.

Many bar owners say it is a shameful, racist law and the Government now wants to take a look at it.

Firstly, this is racial profiling. Secondly, New Zealand is, supposedly, a liberal democracy. Liberal democracies do not invoke outdated and racist laws for social control. The major laws currently in use, for example the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, do the job. There is no need to drag out such a reprehensible piece of legislation. The particular part of The Maori Community Development Act, i.e. the Act the Police will invoke, is a testament to New Zealand’s ugly past. I expect every Maori MP, in fact every MP, to work to repeal this repugnant legislation. Every Maori MP is obligated to destroy the remnants of historical racism.

I struggle to understand why the Police consider it necessary to drag this law from its coffin. The current framework works well. I tend to think it’s an example of the authoritarianism that permeates the Police force. If a tool is open to them they will use it regardless of the moral implications and the consequences of its use. Make no mistake, if this law is invoked there will be consequences. We know that some activists have pondered the thought of peaceful protests during the RWC, however if this law is used those protests, assuming they occur, will quickly turn violent. Maori don’t take to persecution well, especially on a one on one basis, or on a crowd basis. Is this what the Police want? To inspire a violent uprising against historical racism and its modern application? Do the Police want to highlight what a racist swamp New Zealand is – in front of the world too?   

I expect the Maori Party to lobby the Government furiously. If they do not, or if the law is not repealed before the RWC, then the Maori Party are worthless. I expect Mana and every other Maori MP to swing in behind them as well. If not, then they are worthless too.        

Terror raids in Te Whanau a Apanui 2

In a follow up to my previous post on potential police raids in Whanau a Apanui. Tangatawhenua.com reports:

“The (police) are planning a raid on Te Whanau a Apanui. The Police are currently recruiting as many Maori within the Police Force to ‘soften’ the impact of the raid on this small Maori community.

Make no mistake this is a repeat of the brutal scare mongering tactics that were applied to the Tuhoe raids October 2007 and remeber the shambles of that operation? Taxpayers money has been spent and is still being spent on an unfounded and unjustified case that is yet to produce any hard evidence or results.

The proposed raids on Te Whanau a Apanui are a direct response to a community who are trying to stand up for their own rights. They oppose oil drilling off their coast and this is how they are being treated! Their concern is for all New Zealanders, they know if Petrobas is granted permission they are the first in a line of many who will ravage much more than the East Coast.  We need to show our support.

Our source is very reliable as they were approached by the police force to join the mission but refused as they whakapapa to Te Whanau a Apanui. This is serious.

All phones to the east coast community are tapped and people are being marked.

This is outrageous and unnecessary.”

A raid would be a naked political act. This issue is politically charged and will, inevitably, attract a political response. When Maori interests and mainstream political interests clash the police are always willing to do their duty and suppress rangatiratanga. The Tuhoe raids made it clear that fantasy forms a sufficient cause for action – concrete evidence counts for nothing when political interests are at play.

A few weeks ago I speculated that we may see a repeat of the raids in this post:  

“Without doubt the surveillance capabilities of the state have been activated. If the protests continue in to the medium term we can probably expect to see a repeat of the Urewera raids. Te Whanau a Apanui will not back down and the rhetoric will only harden. Of course Te Whanau a Apanui and Greenpeace will never turn to militancy, but the Police and SIS will construe some narrative indicating planned militant action.” 

I guess the Police just love playing James Bond. Never mind knocking on some doors in Te Whanau a Apanui and having a chat with some of the ‘suspects’. No… The police would rather get out their guns and play silly buggers. If the police suspect something untoward is going on then the sensible step is to engage with Te Whanau a Apanui on reasonable basis – i.e. face to face in a non-threatening situation. There is no reason to blow this issue to Mars. But the police just love the “us and them” storyline and the “white vs. black” dichotomy. They’re stuck “deep in the forest”.

Pass this story on. Keep it going and launch it into the mainstream consciousness. Let’s blow the lid on this thing.  

Terror raids in Te Whanau a Apanui....

Some disturbing news from Te Whanau a Apanui:

Our team have been given a heads up from an inside source that the Police are mobilising to hit Apanui with raids, like the Tuhoe ones. Maori cops have been asked to take part in an Armed Offenders operation. We… have made contact with Police personnel to say that if they have concerns they can raise it with us directly in open korero, and that raiding our people is not necessary or desirable. Whanau, we hope this is not true. We sincerely hope it is not true. However if it does come to pass we know we have nothing to hide, we have been open about our opposition and our reasons for it, and have put all of our information out in the open. Again, standing up for our mana is not a crime, and we haven't been engaged in any illegal activity. If this does eventuate whanau we stand together, as always, and we ask that people DO NOT retaliate or get agitated by the Police - do not get trapped into the game. Keep our whanau, mokopuna and kaumatua safe at all times. Video record anything you can. Stay calm, stay on the kaupapa.

I tend to think this is more than just speculation. In my opinion it is plausible, if not probable, that the Police are keeping a close tab on the tribe with a view to suppressing continued protest action. The Police will undoubtedly construe some warped narrative and, like last time, arrest a bunch of naïve Maori activists, skinny environmentalists, pacifists and small time riff raff. Another kick in the guts for Maori and another embarrassment for the police.

If you support Te Whanau a Apanui please share this. Over facebook, twitter, blogspot, wherever – just get it out there.

Justice denied

As you probably know the Court of Appeal has affirmed the findings of the High Court concerning the so called Urewera 18. 15 of the accused have been denied a jury trial. This, in my opinion, can be politely termed a judicial atrocity.

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have suppressed their reasoning, no doubt in an attempt to deflect criticism. It is absolutely unconscionable that the Court can to decide to deny a fundamental democratic right without offering the public any justification.

One of the primary functions of a jury is to act as a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of government power. Given that the Urewera 18 were the victims of arbitrary government in the first instance the Court should, in theory, act as a check against that arbitrary power. However, in reality the Court has, and I do not make this accusation lightly, colluded with the executive (the Police) in ensuring that the government comes out of this process having saved face.

This case, right from the original terror raids in 2007, has been a source of considerable embarrassment for the Police. It gradually became apparent that the Police acted on a fragile and misconstrued basis. Those arrested ranged from small-time rural crack-pots to people who call for the protection of snails to pohara Maori-rights activists. The Solicitor-General slapped down the possibility of charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act and the media revealed just how wild the basis for action was. The Police allowed their childish imagination to cloud their objective reasoning. The majority of the accused now face firearms charges as opposed to anything ‘terror” related.

I’ll conclude this post with a quote from I/S over at No Right Turn (he puts it far better than I could):

The blunt fact is that without a jury, there can be no public confidence in the outcome of a trial such as this. Only with the bullshit detector of 12 random people scrutinising the case can the rest of us believe that justice was done. But I guess a fair process we can have confidence in is just too risky for the police.

UPDATE: For the two best pieces of analysis see this posting from Pablo at Kiwipolitico and this piece from Fran O'Sullivan.