GLOBALPEACE AUCKLAND
Private Bag 68905, Newton,Auckland. www.gpja.org.nz
18 October 2007
Media Release:
Anti-Terror Bill Should Be Withdrawn Pending The Outcome Of This Week's Police Action
Parliament is due to debate its latest piece of anti-terrorism legislation today when the Terrorism Suppression
Amendment Bill is reported back from a select committee. This is the latest in a string of legislative changes which
suppress democratic freedoms under the guise of fighting terrorism.
With the near hysteria created this week by police raids and arrests in a so-called "anti-terror" crackdown, GPJA is
calling on the government to abandon today's debate. It is very unhealthy in a democracy for this parliamentary debate
to take place in the highly charged atmosphere created by police action this week.
We are asking that the bill be withdrawn from parliamentary consideration until it can be debated in a calmer atmosphere
once the outcome of the police actions are known.
The changes proposed in the bill hit at the very heart of democratic freedom and the right to dissent.
Meanwhile the select committee has made no significant changes to the most odious aspects of the bill.
So what are the latest changes and why are they dangerous?
Change 1:
Under the proposed law the definition of a terrorist changes to someone who, for political reasons, causes "serious
disruption to an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life..."
Effect: There are many examples of protest activity and civil disobedience from past events such as the 1981 Springbok tour
which could now be classified as terrorist. (A better definition would be the UN definition of "criminal acts, including
those against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with
the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public...")
Change 2:
Under this legislation New Zealand would automatically adopt the UN list of terrorists and terrorist organisations. It
is the US which dominates the compilation of these lists.
Effect: New Zealanders working to support liberation struggles, democracy and human rights overseas would now face the prospect
of being charged with supporting terrorist organisations. Under the new proposal it would have been illegal to provide
support for the African National Congress in the fight against apartheid or for campaigns to have Nelson Mandela
released from jail. It could easily also be used against New Zealanders supporting Palestinian groups such as Hamas
despite Hamas being democratically elected to power in the occupied territory of Palestine. (Previous legislation
allowed support and assistance to organisations provided it was "for the purpose of advocating democratic government or
the protection of human rights". This wording is to be removed)
Change 3:
New Zealand would give up its right to make its own independent assessments of terrorists and terrorist designations.
Effect:
Without the ability to make our own independent assessments we become captive to shonky, prejudiced, politically
motivated overseas assessments such as those relating to Ahmed Zaoui. (Previously New Zealand adopted UN designations
"in the absence of evidence to the contrary". This safeguard would be removed)
Change 4:
The courts are removed from considering designations of terrorist or terrorist organisations. (At the moment if the
Prime Minister designates a terrorist organisation then this is reviewable by the High court after three years)
Effect: Independent scrutiny of cases will no longer be available. The PM will be judge and jury. The US wants this because
governments are then more open to international pressure. At least with the courts there is the semblance of independent
scrutiny.
This assumption of power by politicians over court processes is demonstrated most clearly by the US with its treatment
of Guantanemo Bay detainees and the CIA's "rendition" programme whereby suspected terrorists have been clandestinely
transferred around the world for torture. In both cases the courts have been sidelined. It would be a disgrace for New
Zealand to follow.
John Minto
Spokesperson