Written By: - Date published: 12:04 pm, December 21st, 2008 - 51 comments
Categories: activism, police -
Tags: mark eden, matt mccarten, oosterman, rob gilchrist, unite
There is a slowly emerging twist in police spy scandal. The question of incitement and provocation from an agent of the police. Bearing in mind that it is an obvious escalation of paying people embedded deep in any activist organisation, it is something that an agent’s handlers should have been aware of and taken steps to prevent. However it appears that they may have been encouraging it.
Anthony Hubbard and Nicky Hager have a story “Activist considers court action against police informer” in the Sunday Star-Times.
Oosterman, pepper-sprayed by police during a 2005 anti-GE protest at the Forest Research Institute in Rotorua, was awarded $5000 damages after the judge decided the police had made unreasonable use of the pepper spray.
Oosterman said Gilchrist had also given exaggerated evidence and had provoked the security guards and police during the protest.
Gilchrist, who was the protest group’s liaison officer with the police even though he was working as a police informer at the time, had been “totally confrontational” during the protest. He was “pushing security guards around… he created a situation of tension” which in turn led to the pepper spraying.
When the case came to court
Oosterman said Gilchrist had agreed to appear as a witness for him in a case in July this year, but had turned up at court wearing a T-shirt with a gun on it.
The shirt had the words “This is my Glock, her name is Susan, there are many like her, but she is mine,” Oosterman told the Star-Times.
What the hell? Was he trying to deliberately piss off the judge? So not only was he ‘rarking’ up the protest to the point of confrontation, you’d have to ask if he was trying to pervert the course of justice. Since he also sent his affidavit to his police handlers, maybe he was also asked to try to destroy Oostermans case against the police. Perhaps commissioner Broad would care to comment on this?
Matt McCarten is also alleging incitement in the Herald On Sunday in “Spying on lawful organisations should set alarm bells ringing”
Gilchrist started collecting information on our union three years ago. At that time we were running our SupersizeMyPay campaign, set up to abolish youth wages and raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour.
This is a pretty normal type of campaign for unions, especially in the groups that Unite represents.
Are our spies seriously suggesting minimum wage workers and school kids working in fast-food restaurants were part of a budding al Qaeda network? My staff recall that Gilchrist inveigled his way into the union by boasting to impressionable teenagers on our picket lines how radical he was and how they needed to take more direct action to win their claims.
This is what I’ve also heard from a number of activists that have worked with Rob. He was directly involved in escalating protests. For instance from the origional SST story
At protests, Gilchrist was often the one taunting police, says Mark Eden of Wellington Animal Rights Network, who regarded Gilchrist as a friend. ‘If it didn’t involve adrenalin and confrontation, he wasn’t interested,’ Eden told the Star-Times.
‘He was always interested in who was keen on illegal actions and would often make it known that he was keen to be involved in anything illegal or undercover. On a few occasions he would take people out for a drive and sit outside a factory farm or an animal laboratory and encourage them to talk about planning a break-in or other illegal activity.
‘He would be really pushy and persistent about planning illegal activities and then would suddenly lose interest, claiming it was too difficult or that he was busy. He was always keen on planning dodgy stuff, but on the occasions when we did break the law [for instance, an open rescue of battery hens] he would always have an excuse and pull out at the last minute.’
In hindsight Eden believes Gilchrist was inciting people to talk about illegal stuff and then ‘reporting it to police to make us sound dodgy’.
The question has to be asked; how far were his handlers in the police involved in promoting this type of incitement to breaking the law? Who exactly are the real ‘criminals’? Activists or police?
[update: the boys in blue have asked me to take down the police crest we had on the post. Good to see they've got the big stuff covered. SP]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Oh Iprent – now stop pushing the “dont blame me (or us)” line.
Its just codswallop to say that the government cant interfere in the police. If they want to of course they can. Its simple politics to say “we cant interfere” because all that does is divert attention and blame away from ministers offices. Whose getting in the neck over this gilchrest thing ? – none other than Broad. It SHOULD be Annette King (I think – or was it another) and Cullen and Clark. Agreed Broad is a fool, but responsibility lies at the top.
If we didnt have such stupid bloody employment laws the police would be much better. ie: if you tell lies or you steal or similar action – then you are out – no golden handshakes, no procedural appeals. If they didnt have to waste time on so much paper work theyd be on the streets twice as mush as they are. If they didnt pander to the PC brigade so much wed be better off – such things as automatically charging people for false complaints which they dont do at the moment – most domestics and gender trouble. But they spend inumberable hours on these timewasters. And Im convinced they are on the take from some big retailers where the police are effectively the security agents and the legal advisors for them – at the taxpayers expense.
A government that really is in the business of leadership will tell the police their prioritories and will dismiss them for not fulfilling the job – after all its the government we vote for – not the bloody police. To say that within the labour party annoyance with the polioce is high is just stupid – the annoyance shouod be with the gutless leadership – and Im sure you know that.
Yes – a government can tell the police the governments priorities. However, if and how the police choose to implement those into policy is the choice of the police.
The most a government can do is to allocate specific money for new or increased programmes and it can be checked that the money is going into those purposes.
However that was how the SIG money was allocated in 2004. Some police managed to interpret the intent of looking for and protecting from terrorist groups as a license to spy and harass activist groups, unions and political parties.
mike: I’m afraid that you are just addicted to wishful thinking.If you don’t know how parts of the state structures work, then go and do some research. For instance you might want to look at the Bazley recommendations.
mike,
Actually the Police aren’t covered by the normal employment laws. The recent Police Act Review was designed to address some of the problems with the laws that did cover police employment (and the consequent issues with disciplinary and dismissal processes). It resulted in the new Policing Act 2008.
Whether the new act is good enough is yet to be seen, but at the time the Minister said that it was part of addressing the issues that lead to the (ridiculous) delays in ridding us of Clint Rickards. I should note that the Minister said it more politely than that
lprent,
I beg to differ
If a government agency were to say to the Minister “I know you said that was a priority, but we didn’t really think it was so we did this completely different thing with the money instead” there would be consequences. Depending on how different the different thing was there might be a breach of the Public Finance Act. Whether it was unlawful or not the CE and any relevant minions may well be out of their jobs very very quickly.
Public agencies don’t get to pick and choose which policies to implement, nor do they get to implement them in ways that are nonsensical or contrary to the original intent.
Redlogix
All these now totally outraged parties and individuals were the same ones eagerly reciting illegally taped private conversations at the Nats conference and illegally stolen emails from Don Brash.
Consider the scope an ordinary citizen, compared with the resources and powers we entrust to the Police. One merely has the opportunity to persuade; the other to harrass, intimidate and interview, together with statutory powers to arrest, charge and prosecute.
Spot the difference?
Well, not really.
It’s a bit like being slightly pregnant – either you are or you’re not.
Iprent – have you ever heard that saying “go outside the box” ( I know – we all get tired of those hackneyed sayings – BUT the Govt and its agencies dont HAVE TO work in the same old ways that have resulted in the current hopeless police,.The Bazley report is interesting but it assumes that the Govt and the Police HAVE TO work under the same old guidelines that we know dont work too well.
The only approach is to take a whole new approach. Yes, Govt cant be involved in details, but there needs to be an understanding – ” Heres the guidline Mr Commissioner and if you dont fulfill the objectives then youre otu – along with your admin team and there will be no ifs or buts”. Govt can change the law to remove any “essential service” from any and all employment laws, human rights legislations, etc.
The deal would simply be ‘do the job and you stay and you get very well paid, but dont do it and you will have a new direction in life’
Simple!
I know all the libs and the PCers etc would be horrified, but as disrespect for police and authority rises there really isnt an alternate – unless you want slowl, but surely increasing social decay.
What makes you think that the police association will support this?
The problem with the police is that they don’t always walk the the talk. They’re heading there slowly. But being delayed by a pile of misogynist fossils from the past and an archaic management structure.
The police RELY on the trust of the public. We are one of the least policed countries in the world. It is pretty easy for them to lose that trust – just do what you’re suggesting.
At present the police are part of society and get the trust and respect from it. The structure you’re describing is one that will tend to bring to the fore the absolute worst that the police can recruit. It’d be a case of the bad and most brutal driving out the good.
Actually to me it sounds like you’re after Smiths Dream aka Sleeping Dogs. I’d join the resistance as soon as I saw a system like that set up – it is a military structure. If you ever did anything on military history and martial law systems, you’d know that it is very likely to have exactly the opposite effect to the one that you’re after.
At least under the present system I’m interested in helping the police change themselves. Under your rule structure I’m more likely to regard them as an occupying force that needs a prune (along with whatever government set up the police state).
Oh that is sooooo cute. I guess that the police didn’t like the association. Must be a bit sensitive.
It’s a bit worrying that Labour had its eye off the ball to this extent over the anti-terrorism laws it passed. The problems that have emerged with the Police, with the Rob Gilchrist fiasco, are problems that were warned about by opponents of the anti-terrorism laws at the time. It’s regrettable that those warnings were clearly ignored and we now reap the consequences.
Geoff is perfectly correct. As a confirmed 911 sceptic I was totally unconvinced about this unnecessary aggragation to Police powers when they were passed.
The effect of the various Patriot Acts and Dept of Homeland Security in the USA has been madly unproductive, with 100′s of thousands of ordinary Americans languishing on ‘no-fly’ lists, their tourism industry hammered because most sane people will fly the wrong way around the world to avoid a US transit lounge, much less visit the place, and disturbing evidence of American law enforcement agencies increasingly using SWOT teams and Stazi tactics in wholly inappropriate situations.
I wonder if some of the posters here, better connected to Labour than I, could confirm my suspicion that these anti-terrorism laws were passed in NZ, mainly because the Americans pretty much insisted that we had to in order to remain on their list of respectable, ‘friendly’ allies?
RL: confirm my suspicion that these anti-terrorism laws were passed in NZ, mainly because the Americans pretty much insisted that we had to in order to remain on their list of respectable, ‘friendly’ allies?
The UN, not the US. The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was passed to give effect to the UN Anti-Terrorism Resolution, Bombing Convention and Financing Convention.
http://gpacts.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/public/text/2002/se/034se3.html
L
We’re passing laws at the direct behest of the UN?
‘scuse me, I’m off to corner the market in tinfoil
Lew: That was my understanding as well. There were a slew of various conventions that we’d signed up for, and we needed to pass legislation to support them.
Rex: No, because we willingly signed our name to those resolutions and conventions, and needed to give them the weight of NZ law. And other measures, as Lynn says, but the TSA only ticks those three boxes.
Implementation is another matter – UN resolutions are fairly broad in scope, and there are plenty of different ways to tick the boxes. I’m not too happy with the TSA, but it could have been much worse.
L
I thought that only part of the Terrorism Suppression Act was needed to comply with that UN resolution. A whole truckload of other bits were squished in for “other purposes”.
Anita: Yeah, that’s part of what I mean by implementation being another matter.
L