[nativestudies-l] A PRIMER ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF MAORI TERRORISM

[jkauanui at wesleyan.edu]

Kia ora,

Below is Moana Jackson's Primer on the allegations of terrorism made last
week, a printable formatted copy is available at
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/mj231007.pdf

Jackson is the Founder and Director of Nga Kaiwhakamarama I Nga Ture
(the Maori Legal Service), and was also a judge on the Hawai`i
International People's Tribunal in 1993. He is a true stalwart for Maori
sovereignty and decolonization.

Please forward to your networks. Mahalo, Kehaulani


``````````````````````````````````
BACK IN THE MISTS OF FEAR

A PRIMER ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF TERRORISM MADE DURING THE WEEK 15-19 OCTOBER,
2007

B Moana Jackson.

“I weep for what has just happened at Maungapohatu in Tuhoe. The Police raid
seems to be about punishing Kenana for questioning the Crown and will only
take us back in the mists of fear and doubt…I wonder if we will ever stop
worrying when it might happen again”. - Karaitiana Rarere, Ngäti
Kahungunu, 1916.

ABSTRACT:

The events that have unfolded since the recent “anti-terrorist” Operation
Eight in Tuhoe and elsewhere have left many whänau and communities
confused,
hurt and traumatised.

Politicians have urged people to withhold comment or criticism until the
judicial process has been played out but the flaws in the process to date
plus the very real hurt that has been caused, particularly in the Mäori
community, calls for some clarification.

Indeed the fact that the Crown and other agencies such as the Police
Association have continually made self-serving and often inaccurate
comment has increased the confusion and made the need for clarity even
more pressing.

This Primer therefore attempts to address the concerns of many people, Mäori
and Päkehä, and to clarify some of the major issues involved. It accepts the
need to be vigilant against the prospect of genuine harm to the community
but questions the veracity and motives for labelling Mäori and other
activists with the fear-laden term “terrorist”.

THE QUESTIONS:

Is there a law about terrorism in New Zealand?

Yes.

After the attacks of 9/11 the government followed United Nations
resolutions
and passed the Terrorism Suppression Act, 2002.

Amendments which expand some of the definitions of terrorist organisations
are due in Parliament this month.

Are “terrorists” defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act?

Yes.

Under Section 22 of the Act the Prime Minister may name or designate certain
individuals or organisations as a terrorist entity.

What does a person or group have to do to be on the list?

The Act defines terrorist activity as terrorising a population, bombing, and
other acts of violence.

Are there any Mäori or other people in New Zealand on that list at the
moment?

No.

What kind of people are on the list?

The list mainly consists of groups such as Al Quaeda and similar
organisations or people like Sulaiman Jassem Sulaiman Abo Ghaith, a
spokesperson for Al Quaeda.

How did Operation Eight become an “anti-terrorist action” then?

The Crown chose to call it an anti-terrorist operation in initial press
releases and politicians and most sections of the media then uncritically
did the same.

Did the Police actually use any of the procedures under the terrorism
legislation?

No.

Under the legislation Police must get approval from the Attorney General
to lay any terrorism charges and a logical three step process would appear
to have been in order – Gather the appropriate “terrorist” evidence to
warrant charges being laid. Present that evidence to the Attorney General.
Charge people accordingly. What happened instead?

Almost the opposite.

Most search warrants were granted under the Summary Offences Act and most
arrests were made under the Firearms Act.

People are now being held in custody while cases are prepared for the
Attorney General.

Such an approach raises serious legal and ethical issues including whether
detention is being used merely so that the authorities can “fish” for
proof
of terrorism. It also smacks of holding for an undisclosed or dishonest
cause which has raised some comparisons with Guantanamo Bay.

Are breaches of the Firearms Act normally labelled as “terrorist” actions?

No.

People are charged nearly every day with breaches of the Firearms Act but
for the first time ever the Crown chose to label these particular arrests
with the term “terrorist”.

Why did the Authorities label them as terrorist?

The Police maintain that the Operation has uncovered a series of camps in
Tuhoe over the last eighteen months which amount to “credible
intelligence” of terrorist activity.

The Police also announced that they needed to enter the Ruatoki Valley fully
armed because intelligence on potential terrorists had warned of possible
resistance, although the claim does appear to contradict another statement
that they decided to launch the raid on Monday morning after participants
at a weekend camp had left for home.

Some media have been critical of the process and the limited evidence
disclosed to date but others have betrayed the historic bias of their
reporting on Mäori issues. Indeed their willingness to accept the term
“Mäori terrorist” is similar to the ease with which they label Mäori as
the majority of child abusers when the evidence actually proves otherwise.

The willingness of many politicians to also characterise the raids as
“anti-terrorist” is a regrettable act of fear-mongering and many Mäori
sympathise with the comedian Mike King’s comment that low poll ratings
prompted the need to “bash some more Mäori”.

What are some of the concerns raised by the operation?

The arrests raise fundamental human rights issues because they seem to
equate activism with terrorism and thus have the potential to inhibit a
basic democratic right.

The briefing given by the Security Intelligence Service to the Leader of the
Opposition also rekindles an earlier concern that the expanded definition of
“threat to national security” in the SIS Amendment Act could become a
mandate to limit political dissent.

The fact that most of those arrested are Mäori and the nature of the
incursion into Tuhoe raises particular concerns.

It was only in Tuhoe that the Police chose to blockade and lock down an
entire community. Although only four arrests were made, Ruatoki was in
fact subjected to a quasi-military dawn raid that did not occur anywhere
else.

As the mother of one young Tuhoe family stated, her inability to leave the
area and the appearance of the black-garbed officers “was like being
terrorised when we were innocent”.

The result has been a particular trauma and suspicion which now has the very
real potential to damage broader race relations.

The blurring in official accounts of what transpired is also of concern
because it can be seen as a minimising of the hurt done to innocent
parties. For example the denial by officials that armed officers boarded a
vehicle carrying Tuhoe children dismisses the evidence of the whänau and
driver involved and thus belittles the extent of the trauma.

The experience and perception of injustice is consequently increased among
the people concerned and adds to the historical burden of grievance.

Are there historical parallels?

Yes.

Mäori see symmetries between the Terrorism Suppression Act and the 1863
Suppression of Rebellion Act. The targeting of mainly Mäori as
“terrorists’
in fact mirrors the earlier legislative labelling of those Iwi who
resisted the land confiscations as “rebels”.

Tuhoe see particular parallels with the fatal Police raid on Maungapohatu in
1916. The unthinking or deliberately provocative setting up of the latest
Police roadblock on the confiscation line simply added to the grievance
and the sense of colonising déjà vu.

Indeed there is a sad resonance in the submission made in the Urewera claim
before the Waitangi Tribunal that even though Tuhoe never signed the
Treaty of Waitangi they have always known that any questioning of the
Crown would be met with a “harsh and prejudicial whim...that has
characterised them as treasonous enemies”.

Where to now?

The court process will unfold and claims may also be laid with such bodies
as the Human Rights Commission and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples.

The possible human rights abuses may also be linked to the Crown’s failure
to support the Declaration on Indigenous Rights and to encourage
international opposition to the government’s lobbying for a seat on the UN
Human Rights Council.

Conclusion –

Regardless of whether any substantive evidence of terrorism is uncovered the
operation has created division and unnecessary upset for hundreds of
ordinary people.

As Tariana Turia has noted, many commentators also worry whether the
operation is merely a softening up exercise for even more hard-line
security measures and greater infringement of human rights. That is
untenable in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, and unacceptable in terms of
good relationships between Mäori and others.

Vigilance and genuine security should never be at the expense of human
rights, and concerns about any Mäori activity should never be used to
justify the overt use of colonising power.

Sir James Henare once said that Mäori have come too far not to go further,
and there is no justice in forcing our people back into the old mists of
fear and doubt.

Peace Movement Aotearoa (PMA)
the national networking peace organisation
PO Box 9314, Wellington 6141, Aotearoa New Zealand
Tel +64 4 382 8129, fax 382 8173 email [pma at xtra.co.nz]
PMA website - [http://www.converge.org.nz/pma]
Not in Our Name - [http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/nionnz.htm]