Why are these 'Iwi leaders' so keen to go into business with a company that has a record of abusing the human rights of prisoners ?
Showing posts with label NZ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NZ. Show all posts
3/4/10
Iwi Capitalists provide brownwash for prison privitisation in NZ
Why are these 'Iwi leaders' so keen to go into business with a company that has a record of abusing the human rights of prisoners ?
4/16/07
More terrorism (laws) on the way
Some thoughts on the proposed Aviation Security Bill and the Terrorism Suppression Act Amendment Bill currently in select committee.On 13 March, Minister of Transport Harry Dunyhoven introduced the Labour government’s Aviation Security Bill stating “in today’s aviation security environment we are faced with new and evolving threats to personal and national security.” On Thursday 29 March 2007, the Labour government introduced the Terrorism Suppression Act Amendment Bill again suggesting that new international developments needed to be incorporated into law.
These two proposed laws signal that once again the government is set to assault and sacrifice freedom in the name of an ever-elusive ‘security’. These two new pieces of legislation add to a long list of counter-terrorism legislation passed since September 11th, 2001 including the Terrorism Suppression Act, Border Security Act, Maritime Security Act, Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Act, the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill as well as significant amendments to six other acts in order to incorporate the provisions of the Counter-terrorism Bill (including the Crimes Amendment Act and the Security Intelligence Act).
Some of the details of the Aviation Security Bill:
•Enable the screening and searching of airport workers;
•Require that airlines deny carriage to passengers who refuse to be searched;
•Enable foreign in-flight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand and enable New Zealand to deploy in-flight security officers, should the Government decide to do so in the future;
•Provide a general regulation-making power to ensure that the law is able to respond to new aviation matters in a timely fashion.
Each of these provisions is an egregious violation of basic freedoms. The possibility of workers being harassed by overzealous security agents, the denial of a flight to someone because they simply do not want to be searched — even after passing through metal detectors and X-ray machines — and armed police on pressurised aircraft are all real.
Most disturbing, however, is the final clause which in effect, grants carte blanche to the government to make whatever regulations suit at the time without any public input or even knowledge. As an example, this could include requiring any person in New Zealand with a criminal conviction to register their flight plans with the police who could then share that information with any security-related agency internationally.
The Aviation Security Bill is just the latest chapter of the so-called ‘war on terrorism.’ This 'war' is certainly not about stopping terrorism - as the situation in Iraq or Palestine easily demonstrates - rather, it about providing the legal mechanisms to conduct widespread surveillance of the population, thereby eroding fundamental freedoms and extending state power into every facet of life.
The Terrorism Suppression Act Amendment Bill gives further power to the New Zealand state, as well as to the US-dominated United Nations Security Council. There are a number of frightening changes to this already draconian piece of legislation.
First, a bit of background about the original Act is necessary. The Act started out as the Terrorism Suppression (Bombings and Financing) Act which was intended simply to allow for the implementation of two United Nations conventions on terrorism. The Act was in the final stages of the select committee process immediately before September 11th, 2001. Immediately after 9/11, the United Nations dictated a range of counter-terrorism measures to be taken by all states (read: the US dictated a range of counter-terrorism measures to be taken by all states who wanted to stay in George W. Bush’s good books). The Act had already reached its second reading and submissions received. Nonetheless, the Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence select committee bypassed any pretence of democratic process and tacked-on significant and substantive changes in the law without the required public notice. Fortunately for us, this did not happen, although the Act as it was finally ratified in 2002 remained a serious violation of fundamental freedoms.
The further amendments to the Act should be cause for concern for all who are interested in human freedom. Several examples of changes:
Clause 6 of the ‘new act’ criminalises a ‘terrorist act’ with the potential for life imprisonment upon conviction. Originally, the Act defined a number of activities that are terrorist acts and provides a very strict definition and penalties for such crimes. The addition of a vague ‘terrorist act’ with this amendment has the potential to create an entire new body of law based strictly on someone’s motivation for a crime. As Professor Matthew Palmer, dean of the Victoria University School of Law, argued, terrorism is no different from other criminal behaviour except in its motivation. He noted that while motivation was an element to consider when sentencing a person, it should not be the basis for a new area of law. Indeed, it is possible that this clause creates a double-jeopardy of sorts insofar as one can be tried for a particular crime as well as being tried for that same crime under another ‘generalised’ section, with far more serious penalties.
The Government is also repealing the section of the Terrorism Suppression Act which provided the benefit of the doubt to people giving money to political organisations. At present, section 8(2) reads: “To avoid doubt, nothing in subsection (1) makes it an offence to provide or collect funds intending that they be used, or knowing that they are to be used, for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights.” Clause 7 of the ‘new act’ will repeal that, criminalising anyone who might inadvertently give money to a group which is on the UN’s currently unfavoured list.
Let us briefly examine the United Nations Security Council terrorist designations around which so much of this legislation is based. The UN is a political body, the Security Council is even more so. It is the place where deals are cut and agendas are served – most particularly to the five permanent members: the US, France, China, the UK and Russia. You can imagine a scenario wherein the US concedes designation of Chechen rebels as terrorists in exchange for Russia allowing the designation of Islamic Jihad similarly.
In practice, the UN is viewed as a neutral arbiter of world affairs and their designations imply that a particular terrorist group poses the same threats to all nation-states. At best, the New Zealand government is relying on a highly biased and politically motivated organisation to say who is or isn’t a security threat to New Zealand; at worst, they are equating New Zealand’s security with that of war-mongering nation-states like the US.
Further extension of state power is subtly included in minor clauses of the bill, such as Clause 26 which amends section 47A. With the passage of this Bill, any customs officer can seize and detain any of your property, without a warrant, if he suspects that it is owned or controlled by a terrorist entity. Along with the new Aviation Security Act, the powers extended to both the Aviation Security Service and the Customs Service will be tantamount to a secret police force with the power to search, detain and interrogate at will.
Details of both proposed acts are available on the parliamentary webpage: the aviation security bill is listed under the transport select committee, the terrorism suppression act amendment bill is listed under the foreign affairs, defence and trade select committee. To be properly understood, the latter needs to be read in conjunction with the principle (original) act in order to see what is being changed. The original act can be read on the legislation.govt.nz webpage, just follow the links under ‘T’ to the act.
More counter-terrorism legislation will have little or no effect in stopping terrorism. It will certainly have the effect of frustrating, enraging, harassing and inconveniencing lots of people. It will also be one more way in which the state can stick its proverbial nose, along with its surveillance cameras and scanners into your life.This work is in the public domain
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/72866/index.php
4/9/07
Poverty produces 'the bash'
The Press | Monday, 2 April 2007
By JOHN MINTO
A friend of mine was out shopping and gave his toddler son a slap on the backside for some misdemeanour.
A middle-aged woman nearby was indignant and told him to pick on someone his own size.
That was 20 years ago and even then using violence against kids aroused strong feelings, as it does today.
Most of us see raising children and associated discipline as a personal issue – not for the community or Government to interfere with. That's fair enough up to a point.
In earlier times it was a community issue. There is an old African saying that it takes a village to raise a child. This is true for close communities where children are exposed to a wide variety of adult inputs. But it has little meaning in the shift to isolated families separated into individual houses and disconnected from extended family.
Instead, we base our parenting skills on what happened to us and what we see other parents do around us. But it's easy to overlook three things.
Firstly, that most times when kids are hit it's on the spur of the moment when a parent is angry. And if it's not done in the heat of the moment then it becomes the ritualised violence of straps and canes that dominated the schooldays of my generation.
The second is that kids from low-income families are much more likely to suffer violence than kids elsewhere. Having taught for 10 years at schools in low-income communities I can attest to this. Getting ``the bash'' is a regular feature of many kid's lives.
This should surprise no-one. This is where our most stressed parents are. This is where families live day to day on earnings from low quality, low-paid jobs. This is where the gaps between family income and family needs are large. This is the coalface of family struggle.
Thirdly, we don't own our children like we own a fridge, a house or a dog. As parents we have authority over them and responsibility to look after them. But they are separate, vulnerable individuals and if we abuse either role the community must act.
On the issue of violence against children we are surely united on one thing. We need to move from near the top of the list of countries whose children are in danger from parental violence.
The danger is psychological and physical from the kind of thrashings which parents have used Section 59 of the Crimes Act to justify.
This provision has been used to successfully defend parents who have beaten their children with canes and leather belts.
It's bizarre to think we will be prosecuted if we beat a dog with a riding crop but we have a defence if we do it to a child.
This defence must go as Sue Bradford's bill proposes.
What about spelling out in the law the kinds of smacking and injury to children that are acceptable? Surely discussion along these lines is just a little bit sickening. We don't do it for animals so why do it for children? And what's more we would miss the opportunity to send a powerful message to the community that violence against children is as unacceptable as it is against adults.
A clear message, unencumbered by fine print, is what we need to begin a sea-change in attitudes towards children.
None of this will stop tired, stressed parents at the end of a hard day from hitting their kids. Neither will it criminalise them for doing so.
What it will do is remove Section 59 as a defence for parents prosecuted for thrashing and beating their kids. Isn't this what we want?
We have the fiercest debates in New Zealand over social policy issues. Perhaps it's because we feel that so much of the rest of our lives is outside our control.
And so, at the same time as we argue passionately over whether parents should hit their kids, it is disturbing that we express so little commitment to relieve the poverty which grinds down parents and families and is at the root of the frustration and stress which contributes so heavily to abuse of children.
The most important longer- term solution to child abuse will be to tackle economic change head-on.
Elements of those who call themselves Christian would do well to remember that Jesus Christ is reported as having taken violent action only once, not against children but against money lenders.
Now there's a clear example of Christianity in action. We need more of it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4013920a1861.html4/5/07
Lawyers call for abolition of sedition laws
Timothy Selwyn was charged with sedition for putting an axe through the PM's electorate office window. Photo / Kenny Rodger
The Law Commission has formally called on Parliament to abolish laws which prohibit rebellion against the state or the inciting of lawlessness.
Commission President Sir Geoffrey Palmer said the archaic offence of sedition was too wide and unclear and had been used to muzzle unpopular political speech.
Last year the commission asked for comment on its view that sedition laws should be repealed following police reviving the dormant law.
The review followed Timothy Selwyn being found guilty of sedition after he put an axe through Prime Minister Helen Clark's electorate office window and in a pamphlet called on others to commit similar acts in response to the foreshore legislation.
The Court of Appeal yesterday rejected an appeal for the conviction saying it was sound in law.
The man was also jailed for unrelated charges of benefit fraud, but the case provoked concern about the use of sedition laws.
More recently a barman in Dunedin was charged with sedition after he published a promotional pamphlet offering students the chance to win a petrol-soaked couch and swap a litre of petrol for a litre of beer.
Sir Geoffrey said today after hearing submissions the commission had decided it was "high time" sedition laws were removed from the statutes.
The Commission's report, Reforming the Law of Sedition, tabled in Parliament today recommends the seditious offences set out in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961 be repealed and not replaced.
"Where behaviour that would be covered by the existing sedition provisions needs to be punished, it can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law," Sir Geoffrey said.
"By abolishing sedition, we will better protect the values of democracy and free speech."
Sedition is a historic law intended to protect the Crown from attempts to undermine its authority. In New Zealand law it also stands as an offence of inciting lawlessness and disorder.
The commission said in its report to Parliament that offences such as incitement to break laws, conspiracy and treason remained in statute and charges of sedition invaded the democratic value of free speech for no adequate public reason.
- NZPA
A statement from Tim in prison…
“The Court of Appeal has not properly understood the context of the statement and has effectively ruled that there is no freedom of speech in regard to communicating with the media.”
“The Court’s decision is an abomination to justice, an assault on the press, a muzzle on dissent and a green light to police excess and as such I will fight it to the last millimeter.”
“It cannot stand. I am bitterly disappointed and aghast at the ruling”.
Tim Selwyn
http://www.tumeke.blogspot.com/
4/4/07
Rich steadily getting richer
5:00AM Wednesday April 04, 2007
By Simon Collins
More than half of New Zealand's total net worth is now owned by the richest 10 per cent of the population.
A new survey by Statistics NZ shows that the distribution of wealth has become even more unequal in 2003-04 than in the previous survey in 2001, when the richest 10 per cent owned only 48 per cent of the country's total wealth. They now own 52 per cent.
The richest half of the country owned 93 per cent of the wealth in 2001, and now owns 95 per cent. So the share of the poorest half has dropped from 7 per cent to 5 per cent.
But the two surveys cannot be compared directly. The 2001 survey, a one-off exercise for the Retirement Commission, was based on "economic units" where a couple counted as one unit, whereas the latest survey is the first part of a long-term sampling to be repeated up to 2010 and is based on individuals.
The new survey includes details which the previous one did not, revealing that the richest 1 per cent of individuals own 16 per cent of the country's wealth, and the richest 5 per cent own 38 per cent of the total.
The median net worth rises with age. The 15 to 24 age group was worth $2400, the 25 to 34 group $31,000, the 35 to 44 group $82,400, the 45 to 54 group $142,900 and the 55 to 64 group had $170,000.
The median drops back in the 65-plus retirement age bracket to $149,500. Overall the median individual is worth just $69,800.
More than half of all the 6.5 per cent of people with negative net worth are aged 15 to 24. This is probably because of student loans.
As in 2001, the latest survey shows that Europeans have by far the highest median net worth ($86,900), followed by Asians ($21,000), others ($19,000), Maori ($18,000) and Pacific people ($6700).
The manager of Statistics NZ's standard of living unit, Andrea Blackburn, told a social policy conference in Wellington yesterday that about 40 per cent of New Zealanders' net wealth was held in residential property. Data on other assets were not yet available.
She said New Zealand's skewed distribution of wealth was similar to Canada's, but still not as unequal as in the United States.
"It's typical of developed countries," she said.
Eat the rich I say, poverty has become a dirty word in the Maori & PI communities, all of Maori establishment just wish that us p addicted criminal dole bludging baby killers would just go away...to prisons in our own tribal areas run by the local kupapa trust board of course. What follows is a conversation my cousin and I had after the fallout of the Kahui twins:
Tuiki wrote:
http://spanblather.blogspot.com/2006/06/excuse-for-racism.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=0006090B-DFFB-14A0-944583027AF1010F
"If you tremble of indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine."
Che Guevara
| Kia ora whanau |
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=0003A763-84EF-14B4-B35283027AF1010F
The goal of current welfare reform in Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States is to reconstitute the poor--not to eradicate poverty as a social/economic phenomenon, but to alter what are constructed as negative personality characteristics. Thus the focus of welfare reform is on the reformation of individuals rather than structures. It is only by creating counter-discourses that challenge socio-economic systems that perpetuate (and even depend on) poverty that we can hope to avoid the annihilative othering inherent in neo-liberal welfare reform
New Zealand: tragic deaths of baby twins used to foment anti-welfare
campaign
By John Braddock
15 July 2006
The tragic deaths in New Zealand last month of 11-week old Maori twins
is being used to justify a wide-ranging campaign by the media, police
and political establishment against the most oppressed and
impoverished layers of the country's Maori population.
We should be critically looking at programs introduced in other
'western countries' to cattle heard and dog tag the poor & black.
The stigmas of "welfare" and of single motherhood intersect; hostility
to the poor and hostility to deviant family forms reinforce each
other. The resentment undercuts political support for the program, and
benefits fall farther and farther behind inflation. The resulting
immiseration makes poor single mothers even more needy and less
politically attractive. The economic downturn of the last decade has
deepened both the poverty and the resentment, and created the
impression that we are experiencing a new, unprecedented, and
primarily minority social problem. Thus, Black single mothers'
inferior status in the welfare state has intensified their political
and economic marginalization, making them even less worthy of
citizenship rights. By casting their need for public assistance as
"dependency," welfare reform rhetoric suggests that these women lack
the independence required to be citizens, entitled to dignified
government support.
Dorothy E. Roberts,
excerpted from
Welfare and the Problem of Black Citizenship ,
105 Yale Law Journal 1563 -1602, 1576-1584 (April, 1996)
http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/04needs/welfare01d.htm
Overseers of the Poor:Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of
Privacy. 277 p. 5-1/2 x 8-1/2 2001 Series: (CSLS) Chicago Series in
Law and Society
This powerful book lets us in on the conversations of low-income
mothers from Appalachian Ohio as they talk about the welfare
bureaucracy and its remarkably advanced surveillance system. In their
struggle to care for their families, these women are monitored and
assessed through a vast network of supercomputers, caseworkers, fraud
control agents, and even grocers and neighbors.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14594.ctl
Strip away the bureaucratic language of fraud control, regulatory
enforcement, consent forms, and the like, and we see a simple pattern
in which a government agency is using broadly targeted and online
surveillance in an effort to force a dependent population to live at
an intolerable level of poverty
http://www.epic.org/privacy/poverty/#intro
3/31/07
U.S. Policy Toward South Pacific Island Nations
Glyn Davies, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Statement Before the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global
Environment House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC
March 15, 2007
Chairman Faleomavaega, Ranking Member Manzullo, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear today to testify on U.S. policy towards the nations of the South Pacific. As far as we can tell, this is the first hearing held by this Subcommittee devoted primarily to the South Pacific since 2002, and I welcome the opportunity to address our policy towards these nations. Mr. Chairman, I also welcome and appreciate your deep interest in these countries, and your recent travel to Fiji, Tonga and Samoa.
The United States has a tradition of strong ties with the 14 countries of the South Pacific, from historical and cultural links with Australia, New Zealand and the islands that go back over two centuries; to our trusteeship relations and now Compacts of Free Association with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau; to the diplomatic relations we established with South Pacific nations as they became independent between 1962 and 1980.
We believe it is crucial to keep this vast, strategic region and its mostly small, sometimes struggling states firmly on our side. Growing political, environmental and economic challenges, compounded by longer-term transnational threats, menace some of the fragile island societies. We are seeking to expand our engagement and reverse any perception that the U.S. has withdrawn from the Pacific.
The Year of the Pacific
It is true that the nations of the Pacific have not always received either adequate diplomatic attention or development assistance. Budget constraints and policy priorities during the 1990s often limited our diplomatic representation and the aid we could offer.
The State Department has taken the lead in this effort. We are stepping up our diplomatic presence in the region by creating and staffing two positions at our Embassy in Suva with responsibility for the Pacific region. One position is a regional environmental, science, and health officer who is working on issues like climate change, fisheries, and HIV/AIDS. The other is a regional public diplomacy officer to share information about American policies and values throughout the South Pacific and build “people-to-people” contacts through exchanges such as the International Visitor Leadership Program, U.S. Speaker program, and other initiatives.
We are also regularizing our high-level contacts with Pacific Island leaders. The Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs participates in the annual Pacific Island Forum (PIF) Post-Forum Dialogue. Last year, Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill participated in a special PIF session in which he met with Pacific heads of government to discuss a range of regional and global issues. In the wake of that meeting, Assistant Secretary Hill became the senior-most Washington official to visit Vanuatu since independence in 1980.
The Department’s Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Ambassador Nicholas Burns, has hosted a group meeting with Pacific Ambassadors during the UN General Assembly the last two years, providing an excellent opportunity to show these nations our interest in their concerns. We intend to institutionalize this meeting and turn it into an annual event undertaken by successive administrations.
We also have a long history of cooperation in the area of fisheries and marine resource conservation through the South Pacific Tuna Treaty with the member states of the Forum Fisheries Agency, our participation in the South Pacific Regional Environmental Program and more recently, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.
The Pacific Island Conference of Leaders
I am also pleased to report that on May 7 and 8 the East-West Center, in collaboration with the Department of State, will host the triennial Pacific Island Conference of Leaders (PICL) in Washington D.C. We will invite the heads of government of 23 Pacific states and territories, including U.S. territories. We expect Governor Lingle of Hawaii, a vital force in promoting our role in the Pacific, will also participate.
The conference will include sessions involving senior officials from the Departments of State, Defense, and from USTR. We are also inviting representatives of like-minded donor nations for parallel consultations. I understand the East-West Center is also in contact with you, Chairman Faleomavaegea, and members of Hawaii’s Congressional delegation about including a program on Capitol Hill, which we strongly support. The two days of meetings will conclude with the annual Pacific Night celebration. We would welcome participation in these events from any interested Members of Congress and their staff.
This will be the first time State and the East-West Center have co-hosted a PICL and the first time the meeting will take place in Washington. We believe it will create a unique opportunity for leaders from around the Pacific to exchange views and learn more about the policy-making process in Washington. We hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will help us make 2007 "The Year of the Pacific."
Later in the year, we see the President’s trip to the Sydney APEC Summit in September as another milestone for the Year of the Pacific. We are hoping the President’s trip will focus further attention on the Pacific and raise the profile of the U.S. role in the region.
U.S. Assistance to the South Pacific
In FY 2006, United States assistance to the Pacific Islands totaled almost $190 million. Of this amount, about $150 million was comprised of grants from the United States to the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau under the Compacts of Free Association administered by the Department of the Interior. The remaining $34 million is devoted to the rest of the Pacific Islands through such programs as the Peace Corps, military assistance (International Military Education and Training and Foreign Military Financing), counter-terrorism, and child health. We also provide, via an Economic Assistance Agreement associated with the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, another $18 million annually to the South Pacific Parties to the Treaty for economic development purposes.
Separately (and thus not included in the above figure), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is also working with Vanuatu on an assistance compact totaling over $65 million. We continue to work with MCC to develop programs tailored to the needs of smaller nations, including island states. We are also working with DOD to ensure that citizens of the Freely Associated States and other Pacific countries benefit from the increased demand for labor as our military relocates troops and facilities from Japan to Guam.
Recent Instability in the Pacific
But as we seek to strengthen our partnership in the region, recent events in the South Pacific, such as the military coup in Fiji and riots in the Solomon Islands and Tonga, have demonstrated both the challenges it faces and the importance of strong U.S. engagement.
We have paid a great deal of attention in recent months to the situation in Fiji. In the period leading up to the coup last December, we worked with a number of other countries and international organizations, including Australia, New Zealand, the EU, PIF, and UN, to try to preserve democracy in Fiji and persuade the Fiji military to refrain from taking action against the lawfully elected government. In the wake of this illegal coup, we continue to call for an immediate return to democracy and the rule of law, and we have worked with these same partners to promote this goal.
For our part, we have imposed a series of measures in response to the coup. Some, like a cut off of roughly $2.8 million in primarily military assistance, were mandated by Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act; while others, such as restrictions on visas for military and interim government leaders and a suspension of lethal military equipment sales, were taken on policy grounds. In all cases, we have sought to ensure that our sanctions affect the military and interim government and not average Fijians. For that reason, the Administration has made use of its notwithstanding authority to allow certain assistance programs in Fiji to continue, such as those addressing environmental concerns or women’s rights.
Unfortunately, the Fiji military and its supporters appear committed to consolidating their hold on power. As noted in our just-released human rights report and numerous public statements, we are gravely concerned about the military’s ongoing campaign of intimidation and human rights abuses against those who speak out bravely against the coup. At least two people have died as a result of beatings administered by the military, and many more who have criticized the military's actions have been subject to other forms of abuse.
We will continue to press for an end to these human rights violations and a return to democracy as quickly as possible, in coordination with the many other countries and international organizations that share the same goal. Foreign ministers of the PIF member countries will meet tomorrow, March 16, in Vanuatu, and we are hopeful they will provide a clear and unified message to Fiji on the need for a near-term roadmap for returning the country to democratic rule. We support the PIF process.
In Tonga, with the passing of the King and last year's riots in Nuku'alofa, we are working with our friends to help the Tongan people make the transition to democracy. Tonga recently redeployed troops to support the Coalition in Iraq, and we are looking for ways to provide them with additional assistance. Support for democracy will be the primary goal of my visit next month to both Fiji and Tonga.
Last month I visited the Solomon Islands, where I met with the Prime Minister, Governor-General, and a host of other senior officials. Just last week I met with Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Oti during his visit to Washington. My message on behalf of the U.S. government was very clear: we strongly support the efforts of Australia, New Zealand and other countries in the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) as they work to promote stability, rule of law, and economic development.
Papua New Guinea, Samoa and American Samoa
Papua New Guinea (PNG) should really be considered on its own – its population and resources dwarf those of other countries in the South Pacific. But while rich in human and natural resources, it continues to struggle with problems of civil unrest, corruption, poverty, and deforestation. PNG's future is of keen concern to us and prompted my visit to the country last month as well. While PNG has maintained its democratic system since independence in 1975, we remain concerned that a weak central government is unable to establish law and order, even in the capital. The resulting unrest and uncertainty is a continued barrier to foreign investment and development. PNG has a parliamentary election later this year, and we will work with the government and our regional partners to promote a free and fair democratic process and outcome. We are considering, for example, how we might dispatch U.S. observers to monitor the elections.
We are also very pleased that we have established remote visa processing in Samoa to facilitate the travel of Samoans to the United States. Mr. Chairman, both Ambassador McCormick and I appreciate your personal involvement in this issue and your participation in the inauguration of this program in Apia last December. We continue to examine the process as it operated last December. We have undertaken various changes to make it work even more smoothly, and we look forward to further improving these visa services. We have already filled the available appointments for the second series of visa interviews, to take place March 19-23.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you have also raised concerns over the delay in accrediting the Samoan Consul General resident in American Samoa. My understanding from our Office of Foreign Missions is that it is waiting for the Government of American Samoa to provide documentation that the Consul General was admitted to American Samoa in A-1 (diplomatic) visa status and is being allowed to remain for the duration of his status. Once the State Department receives this confirmation, accreditation can proceed.
Influence of China and Taiwan
Throughout the region, we remain concerned that competition between China and Taiwan for recognition by Pacific Island states is undermining good governance. To the extent that the PRC and Taiwan engage in "checkbook diplomacy" to gain favor with Pacific leaders, the political process in those countries will be distorted. We are pressing China, Taiwan, and all donors to use foreign assistance in a manner that enhances transparency and promotes good governance, and we are pleased at signs of progress.
Australia and New Zealand
The bedrock of our relations in the region remains, of course, our treaty alliance with Australia. We simply have no more steadfast partner in the region and in the world today. We work together on a wide range of policy initiatives throughout the world. We coordinate our analyses of the situation in the Pacific and ensure that our policies remain close and generally do not conflict. We cooperated closely on our responses to the coup in Fiji and to civil unrest in the Solomons and Tonga, as well as on longer-term discussions of how to stabilize democracy and promote prosperity in the region. Australia devotes massive resources to the South Pacific, in terms both of assistance funding and peacekeeping troops. Our tactics are not always the same, but we share the same broad objectives in the region.
While the focus on my presentation is the South Pacific, I do want to acknowledge our close partnership with Australia around the world Australia has been a key ally in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with Australian troops serving bravely in both conflicts. Australia is also a supporter of our efforts to denuclearize the Korean peninsula, counter terrorist threats, and expand democracy throughout the Pacific, East Asia and the world.
Our other key partner in the South Pacific is New Zealand, which remains an important and close friend of the United States. Our two countries share many of the same values and interests around the globe. New Zealand has combat troops in Afghanistan and peacekeeping forces in the Solomon Islands and East Timor. Clearly, New Zealand is dedicated to promoting peace and stability where it can. New Zealand also provides significant assistance to the South Pacific. As a key partner, we coordinate closely with New Zealand on the Pacific, where our goals often coincide.
While New Zealand’s anti-nuclear legislation precludes a military alliance, our bilateral relationship is excellent. Both countries recognize each others' policy position and have decided not to let this difference define the entire relationship.
We have close economic ties with New Zealand and are the country's second-largest trading partner after Australia. New Zealand continues to seek a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States. While we may consider an FTA with New Zealand in the future, we are currently working through our Trade and Investment Framework Agreement to further deepen our economic relationship.
As you know, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark comes to Washington next week for what we expect to be a very successful working visit. She will meet the President, Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates, and a number of other Executive Branch and Congressional leaders. Prime Minister Clark has made clear her personal commitment to improving relations with the United States – a commitment we share. In addition to our common efforts in the South Pacific, we are seeking greater cooperation with New Zealand in a number of areas in which it can offer significant contributions, including nonproliferation, counterterrorism, humanitarian and disaster relief, and peacekeeping. We expect Prime Minister Clark’s visit will help further these goals.
In conclusion, let me reiterate that the countries of the Pacific remain important to the United States. While there is always room for improvement, we continue to seek available opportunities to increase our engagement with the leaders and citizens of the Pacific Islands and respond to their concerns. America's involvement in the Pacific remains crucial to our national security, as we are, and will remain, a Pacific power. Thank you. I would be happy to answer your questions.
3/27/07
Police taser innocent Auckland teenager
Yesterday at 2pm a fight involving several people broke out in West
Auckland. According to eye witnesses a youth intervened to try and
stop the fighting. The youth was then hit with a car. Police arrived
on the scene and guess who they decided to take on? Police swarmed
around the peace making young man and then tasered him, even though he
had four cops on him and was on the ground. This was all despite the
fact bystanders were yelling out “it wasn't him!â€. However some other
witnesses claim the young man was involved with the fight. The Police
claimed he was kicking them to resist arrest. However, from the facts
that have come out so far it seems a bit of a disproportionate use of
force to have tasered him. It's hard to know what exactly happened and
I doubt we will find out the truth. If it wasn’t for one bystander
taking cellphone footage and speaking out to the media it is likely
this incident would have gone under the radar screen â€" like so many
others.
Last year Campaign Against the Taser Trial (CATT) and other concerned
citizens pointed out that this type of thing (well from one set of
witnesses' point view) would happen. That the Police would abuse their
new weapon and the threshold for taser use would get lower and lower.
Campaign Against the Taser Trial
Police taser innocent Auckland teenager
The Police said tasers were just for violent criminals and would only
be used in situations where they would most likely otherwise use a
firearm. In this incident the taser use seems very suspicious. People
have good reasons to be suspicious of the Police because they act as
if they are the law onto themselves.
Police can often commit violence with impunity because if someone
claims there has been Police wrong doing other Policemen and women
investigate the incidents. Police usually don't want to stop one of
their own. This is why the the recent Police rape trials took so long
to happen because when the survivors had gone to the Police at the
time of the incident their claims were rubbished. There needs to be an
independent Police Complaints Authority that can investigate all
allegations of Police brutality. I believe it also needs to have the
ability to lay criminal charges against the Police. The Police would
be less likely to use unneccessary violence if they knew they would be
likely to face legal sanction.
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/72781/index.php
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Home/Video/Display/tabid/266/articleID/23749
Auckland. According to eye witnesses a youth intervened to try and
stop the fighting. The youth was then hit with a car. Police arrived
on the scene and guess who they decided to take on? Police swarmed
around the peace making young man and then tasered him, even though he
had four cops on him and was on the ground. This was all despite the
fact bystanders were yelling out “it wasn't him!â€. However some other
witnesses claim the young man was involved with the fight. The Police
claimed he was kicking them to resist arrest. However, from the facts
that have come out so far it seems a bit of a disproportionate use of
force to have tasered him. It's hard to know what exactly happened and
I doubt we will find out the truth. If it wasn’t for one bystander
taking cellphone footage and speaking out to the media it is likely
this incident would have gone under the radar screen â€" like so many
others.
Last year Campaign Against the Taser Trial (CATT) and other concerned
citizens pointed out that this type of thing (well from one set of
witnesses' point view) would happen. That the Police would abuse their
new weapon and the threshold for taser use would get lower and lower.
Campaign Against the Taser Trial
Police taser innocent Auckland teenager
The Police said tasers were just for violent criminals and would only
be used in situations where they would most likely otherwise use a
firearm. In this incident the taser use seems very suspicious. People
have good reasons to be suspicious of the Police because they act as
if they are the law onto themselves.
Police can often commit violence with impunity because if someone
claims there has been Police wrong doing other Policemen and women
investigate the incidents. Police usually don't want to stop one of
their own. This is why the the recent Police rape trials took so long
to happen because when the survivors had gone to the Police at the
time of the incident their claims were rubbished. There needs to be an
independent Police Complaints Authority that can investigate all
allegations of Police brutality. I believe it also needs to have the
ability to lay criminal charges against the Police. The Police would
be less likely to use unneccessary violence if they knew they would be
likely to face legal sanction.
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/72781/index.php
http://www.tv3.co.nz/Home/Video/Display/tabid/266/articleID/23749
Girls accept compensation for wrongful imprisonment
Cushla Fuataha, Lucy Akatere and Tania
Kavi were jailed for a crime they did not
commit
Girls accept compensation for wrongful imprisonment
11.40am Tuesday October 10, 2006
Three young girls jailed for a crime they did not commit have accepted an offer of compensation from the government. Tania Vini, Lucy Akatere and McCushla Fuataha have accepted compensation ranging between $162,000 and $176,000 each after a long battle for an increase on the initial amount offered.
Ms Vini will receive $176,621.36, Ms Akatere will receive $162,830.36, and Ms Fuataha will receive $165,330, Justice Minister Mark Burton said today.
The trio, then teenagers, were convicted in August 1999 for the aggravated robbery of a 16-year-old girl in Mt Roskill.
They served eight months in prison and were unable to finish school after being convicted of the gang attack and robbery of the teenage girl in Three Kings in August 1999.
They were acquitted in 2001, when the witness admitted she had lied, and the three were proven to have been nowhere near the scene.
After they were acquitted the government recommended compensation of $135,000 for Ms Vini and Ms Akatere and $137,500 for Ms Fuataha and a Government statement confirming their innocence. Later that month the Cabinet policy committee agreed to make an ex gratia payment in terms of the recommendation, on condition that the girls take no further legal action against the Crown. The trio turned down the offer.
- NZHERALD STAFF
_________________
Nau te rakau, naku te rakau, ka mate te hoariri
"Patience is a virtue of a revolution."
Tuiki said:
Go to this site and listen to the girls on the radio: http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/624561/mnr-20061011-0707-Payout_Not_Enough_Claim_Lawyers-wmbr.asx
The money won't even buy them a house in Auckland. Yet this was an improvement on what they were offered earlier, which as their lawyer, Gary Gotlieb, said, would've been gobbled up in legal fees and costs (etc).
Backwards and forwards for packing boxes from the supermarket, I was busting for the loo, (I was moving out of Mt Roskill at the time) when the 3 Kings toilets area were cordoned off by the cops. Obviously they'd had their "culprits" and that was all they needed (bugger checking out the facts eh?) Prior to this, we'd had burglaries and I had a home invasion by girls roughly fitting their description.
Anyway, one of the girls was in her school uniform getting ready to go to class, when the cops knocked on the door and arrested her. She protested her innocence as did the others but never got to finish her education, (suspended from school because of the charges) so being Polynesian, without school quals, doesn't help get jobs. She says she's hoping to use the money for her children's future schooling, maybe to get the education she was denied.
If Tania Vini's father hadn't pushed it and Gotlieb hadn't seen the sincerity of the father and got the PI got involved, none of this would've come to light. Thank goodness she had a father's support, or they'd have been stuck in prison for the full sentence! Cops stuffed up those girls future.
Humiliated, these poor kids had had to strip naked in front of screws and made to use the toilet with mirrors in the toiltes and screws watching them. Imagine that for polynesian girls to go through.
I don't know if the complainant will be done for her filing false statement or perjury. We haven't been privy to what has happened with that girl. Who knows, maybe she's a psychiatric case?
Anyway the chief cop went to the wrongfully accused later, to formally apologise for the police not having done their job properly.
Quote:
Wrongly jailed women 'mistreated because young and brown', say lawyers [+audio] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10405371
Wednesday October 11, 2006
Lawyers claim three wrongly jailed women did not get higher compensation because of their age, race and social background.
Yesterday it was announced that Lucy Akatere, Tania Vini and McCushla Fuataha are to get payments ranging between $162,000 and $176,00.
Their lawyer Gary Gotlieb has said the compensation is not enough and he believed the girls had been "mucked around" because they were young and Polynesian.
Another lawyer, Peter Williams QC, who is also president of the Howard League for penal reform, said today there was "no doubt the colour of their skin" was a factor and if the women were people of high status their compensation would have been far greater.
Mr Williams told National Radio this morning: "I think there is a prejudice against people in what you may call the lower economic strata, I also think there is a prejudice against Maori people -- I think there is also a prejudice in this country against anyone who is a minority group."
The women each served seven months in prison after being falsely convicted of the aggravated robbery of a 16-year-old girl in an Auckland shopping mall in August 1999, before being cleared in 2001.
Mr Williams said an additional payment should be made because the amount was "very shabby".
Three previous legal opinions said the women should get at least $250,000 each and considering the length of time the payouts had taken with no interest the payout was inadequate, he said. However, he wasn't surprised by the outcome.
The women had been in prison as girls and suffered degradation and humiliation of imprisonment.
"I won't go into detail but some of it apparently was pretty awful, they'll have nightmares for the rest of their lives and this paltry sum that's been paid out is really very insignificant," he said.
'No evidence'
However, Justice Minister Mark Burton said there was no evidence of racism and the final figure was determined by an independent QC.
Mr Burton said independently appointed QC Kristy McDonald had looked at all facts of the case in 2003, made a recommendation that the Government accepted, and the offer was made. Subsequent court action caused the ongoing delays.
Ms Vini and Ms Fuataha were 14 at the time of their imprisonment and Ms Akatere was 15.
In October 2001 the Court of Appeal quashed the trio's convictions, offering them the court's sympathy saying they had been "let down by the system".
The women in 2003 rejected offers of between $135,000 and $137,500 in compensation, but decided to stop fighting for a higher figure in March.
The final payouts of $176,600 for Ms Vini, $162,800 for Ms Akatere and $165,330 for Ms Fuataha included pecuniary losses.
Mr Burton said the claims of racism were "generalistic" and a fair process was followed.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10405371
_________________
"If you tremble of indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine."
Che Guevara
Kia Ora Tuiki
Yeah this has been a sorry saga indeed. Many of us here would know of many instances of police witnesses lying for the police so that the police can gain convictions....as to a percentage fitted up by the cops, I wouldnt hazard a guess.
The parents of the girls are awesome for standing by their daughters. They were 14 & 15 when this happened. I would agree with the comment from their lawyers about embedded institutional racism within the pakeha judical system.
Quote:
Their lawyer Gary Gotlieb has said the compensation is not enough and he believed the girls had been "mucked around" because they were young and Polynesian.
Another lawyer, Peter Williams QC, who is also president of the Howard League for penal reform, said today there was "no doubt the colour of their skin" was a factor and if the women were people of high status their compensation would have been far greater.
Mr Williams told National Radio this morning: "I think there is a prejudice against people in what you may call the lower economic strata, I also think there is a prejudice against Maori people -- I think there is also a prejudice in this country against anyone who is a minority group."
This is a country that is still in settler denial. Every institution that hides behind so called 'democracry' in NZ is just a front for fuckn white supremacy...Racist Land theiving, Genocidal Colonising bastards
_________________
Nau te rakau, naku te rakau, ka mate te hoariri
"Patience is a virtue of a revolution."
The worst thing about this kind of racism, is that Maori and civil libertarian lawyers who work with "offenders" know the police culture is racist and sexist. Civil Libertarians will tell you about the cops who spot Maori /Pacficans on the main Auckland city street (Queen St) will turn around to persue and 'question' those Polyesians.
The difference between the racism of the South and the discrimination here is that it is no longer as blatant as it was, when we took to the roads in the Land March of '75.
Even so, 30 years ago, a seafaring uncle (his mum a pom and father a rangatira) wasn't black enough for the black pubs in Apartheid Sth Africa. He also got kicked out of the whites pub for being coloured. He wasn't white enough. However he said Sth Africa was better than NZ, in that respect, simply because the racism was in his face, readily identifiable, unlike the more masked (hypocritical as you say) discrimination here!
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1998/maori-perceptions-of-police/maori-perceptions-of-police.pdf
"White supremists' as Uriohau says...
Tiuki wrote:
Civil Libertarians and lawyers such as Peter Williams know it's only too true, your korero ehoa. I saw Peter at the gas station on Tues but was too distracted to go over and say hello. He was once my father's lawyer and I liked his arguments this week on John Campbell's Crime & Punishment series on TV3 http://tv3.co.nz/News/tabid/67/articleID/14122/Default.aspx as well as his recent comments about the racism against the 3 Polynesian girls, wrongfully jailed for a crime they never did.
Aye cuzz
I watched these last night. All bar Peter are apologists for the system. Ron Mark goes down like "cold cup of sick'" and just writes off those of us at the bottom of the heap who are subject racist cops & their racist judical system. Is his mention of a "three strikes" policy part of his and that hukery mole helens solution to "youth crime". Im sure our Aocaf members from the US could tell us about the impact of that(policy) in non pakeha communities.
The other wahine advocated "intervention" (surveillence)from pregnancy. No korero at all about giving tautoko and empowering mothers and familes, no talk at all about useless (mainstream) schools where for years & years our tamariki have fallen out the other end. No talk at all about how generational welfare dependancy was created when Roger Doglas and the Slave labour party "restructured the economy". No talk at all about the ongoing genocide (cultural or otherwise).
You right Tuiki Peter for years has defended many Maori on "criminal" charges. His knowledge and experience of how Police and the judical system exercise their powers against Maori & PI is informed by his long advocacy on their behalf and his long time calls to reform the Pakeha Prison system.
The time has come though for whanau to speak directley about their suffering and living under endemic racism, and for us to stand up for our rights and Independence as Maori.
_________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
MELISSA FYFE
February 7, 2010...
THE state government is poised to award a multimillion-dollar prison contract to a private company whose human rights record has been called into question.
The Sunday Age can reveal that private prison contractor G4S Australia & New Zealand is the preferred tenderer to take over the Melbourne Custody Centre, a city-based facility that each year processes 11,000 people through cells under the Magistrates Court.
The private security firm was last year named in a damning West Australian Coroner's report, which found it had contributed to the ''wholly unnecessary and avoidable death'' of a 46-year-old Aboriginal man in its custody in January 2008.
The company's record in Victoria is also marked by a coroner's finding last year that it contributed to the 2005 death of Ian Westcott, who died of an asthma attack in the G4S-run Port Phillip prison. A note found near his body read: ''Asthma attack. Buzzed for help. No response.''
In 2000, a coroner found the company had failed to provide a safe environment at Port Phillip when four men hanged themselves in 1997.
A 2006 report by the Victorian Ombudsman and the Office of Police Integrity found inadequacies in the way prisoners were transported, with insufficient attention paid to their conditions, including ''basic amenities for long trips''.
Charandev Singh, a spokesman for the Centre for the Human Rights of Imprisoned People, said the decision to give G4S preferred tenderer status was shocking.
''The company's lethal record, combined with the circumstances of the horrific death of [the Aboriginal elder], appears to have been totally negated by the Brumby government and Victoria Police in their intention to award a further lucrative contract to this company.''
The Melbourne Custody Centre tender is a sensitive issue for the state government, which was last year criticised by prisoner advocates for renewing G4S's prisoner transport contract despite the WA Coroner's finding.
The two companies shortlisted for the Melbourne Custody Centre - G4S and GEO Group Australia - both have blemished records in the eyes of human rights advocates.
GEO Group Australia is the existing contractor and has been criticised by the Ombudsman several times for using excessive force on prisoners - most recently in August 2008.
GEO, which has run the 30-cell facility for almost 11 years, was recently dropped from the shortlist when the government named G4S as preferred tenderer.
Both firms are subsidiaries of multinational outfits specialising in security systems and correctional and detention facilities.
The contract for management of the custody centre - which serves the court system but also operates as a holding facility for drug and alcohol-affected people - is yet to be signed with G4S, but is believed to be with Corrections Minister Bob Cameron.
A G4s spokesman said he could not comment while the tender was still going. A spokesman for Mr Cameron said he was also unable to comment.
Source: http://www.theage.com.au/n