Disconnect in Urewera case

Written By: - Date published: 9:21 am, February 16th, 2012 - 128 comments
Categories: law and "order" - Tags:

If the evidence against the Urewera 4 is so strong and what they were planning to do so serious, how come they’ve only been charged with a handful of minor offences? And how come the others had the charges dropped? Where are the treason and conspiracy charges? After 4 years of delays, lies, secrecy, and official fuck-ups, do we trust the cops’ evidence?

128 comments on “Disconnect in Urewera case ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. grumpy 1
    16 February 2012 at 9:44 am

    Let’s just wait and see eh? Looks pretty kosher from the police so far and remember…..these charges were laid under Labour.

    Thanks to Wikileaks, we can now see the original police affadaivit and, like you, I’m wondering why the original charges were dropped……………..

    • insider 1.1
      16 February 2012 at 11:29 am

      If you read teh Suppression of Terrorism Act it is clear that it only applies to groups that actually carry out offences or that are designated as illegal groups. Neither apply so there was no offence. It’s surprising it was ever considered as the act to bring charges under.

    • Matthew Whitehead 1.2
      17 February 2012 at 11:59 am

      That the charges were laid under Labour isn’t really any reassurance. In some respects Labour are just as bad on civil rights as National, and this is just further proof.

  2. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 2
    16 February 2012 at 9:58 am

    do we trust the cops’ evidence?

    You could watch the video evidence and read the text messages and believe your own eyes.

    • QoT 2.1
      16 February 2012 at 7:30 pm

      Yeah, watch the videos! Videos are completely objective evidence and their interpretation isn’t subject to our own biases or anything.

      I’m sure the police videos are clearly different from any that could have bee made, say, of these little outings, which wouldn’t in any way involve people wearing balaclavas, handling firearms and running around like muppets.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel 2.1.1
        16 February 2012 at 8:05 pm

        Did the people in your link express a desire to kill people of acertain race QoT?

        • QoT 2.1.1.1
          16 February 2012 at 8:18 pm

          So … the difference between being a gun-obsessed tool playing wargames and a Serious Threat To The Nation terrorist is entirely dependent on whether you make race-based statements?

          Or … terrorism requires a race-based analysis of power? Or the legality of firearms possession is rooted in the political opinions of the firearm owner?

          Or … you’re desperately trying to avoid my actual point, which is that whether a person judges a video of some people going bush in balaclavas as “threatening” is really entirely based on their own prejudices?

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel 2.1.1.1.1
            16 February 2012 at 9:28 pm

            You run around with guns like an idiot.

            You run around with guns like an idiot and threaten to kill people of a particular race.

            Who is more dangerous?

            • QoT 2.1.1.1.1.1
              16 February 2012 at 9:31 pm

              Your daughter starts going out with a Mormon.

              Your daughter starts going out with a Mormon redhead.

              Which is more concerning?

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel …
                16 February 2012 at 9:45 pm

                It’s the Mormons threatening to kill me I’d be worried about.

                But continue to ignore that if it doesn’t suit your argument that this is about prejudice (instead of killing people).

                • QoT …
                  16 February 2012 at 9:54 pm

                  I’m not the one ignoring anything, Gorm. You’re the one trying to make the argument that people doing XYZ on video is objective evidence of Evil Scary Brown Terrorists. You’re the one refusing to understand that XYZ could equally involve businessmen on a “team-building” power trip, or heck, any number of angry teenagers throughout history – and it is only your own bias (largely based on hurt fee-fees ’cause the mean brown people said bad things about whitey) that sustains that argument.

                  But please, cry again about how THEY SAID KILL WHITEY!!!! I’ll be over here watching Ice T have a serious, credible acting career despite saying we should kill cops.

                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel …
                    16 February 2012 at 9:59 pm

                    People declare an intention to kill people. And run around blowing things up. I have to say I still do not understand why you think this is a good thing.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      17 February 2012 at 12:03 pm

                      She hasn’t said that it’s a good thing. She just correctly points out that it’s not an illegal thing and that the remaining charges are-trumped up and full of police state bias.

                    • insider …
                      17 February 2012 at 2:09 pm

                      hardly trumped up. You seem to forget this went all the way to the Supreme court which thought the charges serious and case strong enough to allow it to go to trial, despite ‘unlawful’ evidence.

                    • lprent []
                      17 February 2012 at 2:55 pm

                      That judgement on admissibility of the polices unlawfully gained video and other surveillance was ONLY done on the basis of just the potential sentences that they were charged with.

                      It has nothing to do with the validity of the police case. That was because the supreme court didn’t look at that.

                      Effectively the supreme court said that using a very large sledgehammer to open a walnut wasn’t proportional to the desired result – you’d get a squashed walnut. But using one to open a box might leave something of the contents (without the justices looking at the contents) at the end of it.

                      So after more than 4 years, the court in Auckland gets to decide if the contents justified the sledgehammer.

                      I think that they’ll find very little of substance in the police case, and a whole lot of paranoid puffing by some fuckwit police at otahuhu station.

                    • felix …
                      17 February 2012 at 2:23 pm

                      Don’t mean to nit-pick, but you seem to have accidentally used some punctuation in a nonsensical way around the word ‘unlawful’.

                      Just saying.

                    • insider …
                      17 February 2012 at 2:37 pm

                      If you mean the inverted commas, it was nothing more than meaning it was unlawfully gathered but now is ‘lawful’ or acceptable due to the SC decision.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  16 February 2012 at 10:10 pm

                  QoT’s not one for letting obvious principles get in the way of misapplying pet critical theories.

              • felix …
                16 February 2012 at 10:17 pm

                That’s easy.

  3. vidiot 3
    16 February 2012 at 10:09 am

    One does wonder wtf they were doing, it does look rather suss. The 4 that is, not the police.

    Looks a lot like militia training – were they hoping to get some contracts in the gulf or africa ?

    • muzza 3.1
      16 February 2012 at 10:15 am

      Yeah must have been really dangerous territory!

      Would you like a side of LIES with that Mr Key!

      http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1320238/1447560

    • aerobubble 3.2
      16 February 2012 at 10:22 am

      I would hope that Police, hearing of any military camps, would investigate. But we should remember that many re-enacting, or anti-terrorism training, would be indistinguishable from a real terrorist training camp. So the question then becomes do such events, and ‘education’ in this techniques, to produce the correct re-enactment or anti-terrorism security training have all the correct health and safety sign off. Police are obviously the last point of call when the legislator are too lazy to use bureaucracy to govern practices that are on the edge. We see how lazy parliament is when in comes to Crafers, or asset sales, even the now googification of welfare, National continues the practice of leaky governance practice. Legislation that is created by avoiding the consequences and detrimental outcomes to dictate to us all either more government or less government depend on when National remember their neo-liberal religion or not.

      • grumpy 3.2.1
        16 February 2012 at 10:30 am

        This is not an issue of Left or Right wing, one would hope that any police force would investigate this type of stuff.

        Would Zetetic’s opinion be the same if it was Right Wing nutters involved – I doubt it.

        • muzza 3.2.1.1
          16 February 2012 at 10:35 am

          Is that the best you can do grumpy?

          Come on mate, chime in!

          You started well, its not about left or right, its about government telling lies, lots of them, and on every topic they possibly could, while finding new topics to lie about…

          Put the boot into the lot of them, thats what they are for. Polticians, and political parties, are for us to get mad with t, when they implement the agenda set my people, we never get to see!

          • aerobubble 3.2.1.1.1
            16 February 2012 at 11:32 am

            It is a left right issue in so far as National will not be drawn into any kind of debate about better governance, or deal to obvious consequences of its do nothinh approaches, or its disregard of basic civil liberties when National does oppressively intervene.

            The left at least has the Greens who will offer up principled debate, and contextualize the consequences for the voters.

            National are a intellectually corrupt party. As Crafer illustrates, Key can understand instantly the courts decision will not effect the outcomes, but cannot understand that free trade remedies have to be also meet a threshold that the court case now has undermined. Seems Key wishfully wants the law to work for him and never conceives it ever going against him, or the consequences of courts by being contentious making his other claims hollow.

            Key is either a very stupid man, or never had to deal with the results of his decisions (as a shirt-term speculator who took positions and moved on quickly), or both.

            Key can do the PR necessary for a PM but he’s not got the stones needed to be PM.

        • squirrel 3.2.1.2
          16 February 2012 at 11:05 am

          Folk associated with the National Front in Christchurch regularly engage in paramilitary training with live weapons wearing camo gear. Two TV shows have covered it including one with Matthew Ridge – The good life?

          • grumpy 3.2.1.2.1
            16 February 2012 at 7:38 pm

            Well, if they had the guns illegally and went around urging killing of “blacks”, then the same should happen to them.

        • Jenny 3.2.1.3
          16 February 2012 at 7:59 pm

          This is not an issue of Left or Right wing, one would hope that any police force would investigate this type of stuff.

          Would Zetetic’s opinion be the same if it was Right Wing nutters involved – I doubt it.

          grumpy 16 February 2012 at 10:30 am

          HIGH FARCE!! OR SECRET MILITARY TRAINING SESSIONS

          You be the judge.

          Grumpy here at last, is your chance, tell us what you think.

          The evidence:

          The participants were given fully automatic military style weapons to shoot at human cut-outs.

          As part of the training, the participants were put in a darkened room while individuals with night vision glasses moved stealthily among them removing selected targets from the group, without them being aware of it.

          One of the participants, denied any military training at all took place, instead claiming that he had been to a conference. We only went “to use a room, then we returned to Auckland”.

          “Guns? I don’t think I’ve ever talked about what we do at our conferences. It is private. You are on the wrong track with this, I’m not in a position to discuss it. I will just let it go, I’ve got to shoot.”

          Others were more honest.

          Another participant in the alleged secret weapons training sessions, admitted that he had a “fantastic time”, but had been told to stay quiet on the details.

          National MP Wayne Mapp said at the time he was concerned that the participants “had access to and were taught to use firearms”.

          The Prime Minister John Key said he understood there were weapons discharged at a firing range. He did not know what kind of weapons were involved.

          A spokesperson, claimed the “interaction” was just a discussion around “enhancement of leadership, team dynamics, culture, ethos and values”.

          “That concluded with a cocktail party.”

          Clowns? Terrorists?

          Guilty? or not guilty?

          You be the judge

      • Mark 3.2.2
        16 February 2012 at 9:59 pm

        Hey aerobubble.. can I have some of that shit you’re on? It may help with my comprehension lol.

      • Populuxe1 3.2.3
        16 February 2012 at 10:12 pm

        But we should remember that many re-enacting, or anti-terrorism training, would be indistinguishable from a real terrorist training camp.

        Which is why you are supposed to have some sort of official permission for re-enactments using fire-arms, and WTF would civilians be doing having anti-terrorism training. That would be vigilantism and also illegal.

        • insider 3.2.3.1
          16 February 2012 at 10:40 pm

          It doesn’t seem to be illegal to train in ‘terrorist’ camps under current laws like the TSA or crimes act unless your aims are made clear or criminal inent is the purpose of the camps. So if you are survivalists preparing for the rapture, Or national fronters getting ready for the race war, having training camps probably wont be illegal. You might end up breaking arms act laws but that may be incidental

  4. deemac 4
    16 February 2012 at 10:29 am

    the answer to your question is pretty obvious to anyone who knows anything about how the courts work. The police may know a person is carrying out numerous crimes but in court they need hard evidence on absolute specifics, any one of which may fall over for any number of reasons – I sometimes think it’s a wonder anyone with a good lawyer is ever convicted of anything!

  5. ianmac 5
    16 February 2012 at 10:37 am

    So far there is not evidence of crime other than maybe some weapons are illegal. Go to the nearest paintball venue and some groups play at army-like stuff.

    • insider 5.1
      16 February 2012 at 10:46 am

      That’s not what the Supreme Court said. They basically said there was evidence of something extremely dodgy going on.

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.2
      16 February 2012 at 10:57 am

      ..and sending text messages declaring an interest in “”killing the white motherf*****s”?

      Untroubled by that ianmac?

      • Jenny 5.2.1
        16 February 2012 at 8:21 pm

        So Gormless, you would be quite happy for me to trawl through all your phone calls, text messages, emails, and letters with malicious intent. Until I discovered some off colour comment about a person, or racial, or political grouping?

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel 5.2.1.1
          16 February 2012 at 9:43 pm

          Well, I can save you some trouble. I have never threatened to kill white motherfuckers, or anyone at all.

          Is this unusual.

          • QoT 5.2.1.1.1
            16 February 2012 at 9:49 pm

            Really? Well in that case we know you are definitely not a terrorist, just like that nice boy Tim McVeigh.

            You know, Gorm, I really do worry about people who are so horrifically offended by radical brown people expressing angry feelings about white people. Maybe a little worried that they’re getting uppity and threatening our centuries of societal domination?

            And before you have a whinge, try growing the fuck up and realising that actually, a person saying “I’d like to smash my oppressors” is not terrorism, and is not indicative of anything more than a person feeling angry and oppressed. For it to be big scary nasty terrorism for which people should be locked up, key thrown away &c, they need to actually do something, or even have a concrete plan to do something.

            And if these people DID have such a plan and ARE actually terrorists (which means, yes, doing something other than saying nasty things about white people)? We’ve got no one to blame but our sodding unprofessional, unethical police force for fucking up and ruining their opportunity to nail the bastards for it.

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel 5.2.1.1.1.1
              16 February 2012 at 9:54 pm

              K. Killing people is alright by QoT. Got it. I remain if the view that it is a bad thing. At least we know where we all stand I guess.

              • felix …
                16 February 2012 at 10:28 pm

                “Killing people is alright by QoT”

                Lolwut? Wanna show where she said that? I can’t find it anywhere.

                It’s a pretty serious thing to say about someone and an apology is probably in order.

            • Populuxe1 5.2.1.1.1.2
              16 February 2012 at 10:54 pm

              Oh QoT, you do entertain me so.

              You know, Gorm, I really do worry about people who are so horrifically offended by radical brown people expressing angry feelings about white people. Maybe a little worried that they’re getting uppity and threatening our centuries of societal domination?

              Well QoT, I really worry about people whose obsession with Political Correctness has their head rammed to far up their rectum that they cannot detect the irony of their position. The ethnicity of said individuals is irrelevant – if their is a potential threat of violence, it must be investigated. Out of curiosity, if a Maori activist had made jokes about raping Helen Clark, what would your response be?

              And before you have a whinge, try growing the fuck up and realising that actually, a person saying “I’d like to smash my oppressors” is not terrorism, and is not indicative of anything more than a person feeling angry and oppressed. For it to be big scary nasty terrorism for which people should be locked up, key thrown away &c, they need to actually do something, or even have a concrete plan to do something.

              The irony is that you get very worked up about perceived injustice and privilege in language, and yet “I’d like to smash my oppressors” is fairly unambiguous. You, QoT, are a hypocrite of the first water. What if it had actually been terrorism, and it had been laughed off by the police (which would have been a patronising position to take). Also you are quite incorrect in your definition of terrorism – it is quite possible to do it spontaneously and on a budget if you happen to have the tools lying around.
              And if these people DID have such a plan and ARE actually terrorists (which means, yes, doing something other than saying nasty things about white people)? We’ve got no one to blame but our sodding unprofessional, unethical police force for fucking up and ruining their opportunity to nail the bastards for it.
              Right on, QoT, stick it to the man… One way or another…

              • Matthew Whitehead …
                17 February 2012 at 12:11 pm

                People certainly shouldn’t make comments that can be easily interpreted violently. But you know what? Saying something like “smash my oppressors”, while dangerous political rhetoric that should be condemned, is not against the law. We still believe in freedom of speech in this country last time I checked, and that doesn’t mean anything unless you include violent, hateful, controversial, and otherwise offensive speech. It’s not evidence, it’s not even related to whether there are any terrorism-adjacent offenses to charge these people with.

                And the fact that we don’t even have enough specifics to say the generalities of what those offenses could be is worryingly indicative that these charges are complete BS.

                • grumpy …
                  17 February 2012 at 1:36 pm

                  Yeah but using that to justify what appears to be violent behaviour with a view to putting “smash my oppressors” into action is.

                • insider …
                  17 February 2012 at 1:48 pm

                  Discussion ideas to assassinate John Key and blow up the beehive, and use armour piercing bullets to shoot two or three cops in one go is a wee bit more than citizen smith style viva la revolucion slogans, especially in the context of arms training camps and assembling and disseminating an arsenal.

                  • Gosman …
                    17 February 2012 at 1:53 pm

                    Actually blowing up the Beehive, (so long as noone was present), wouldn’t have been such a bad idea. Maybe we could put them in jail for arms offences but give them an Architectural good taste award as well.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  17 February 2012 at 6:14 pm

                  Perhaps Matthew, but QoT was specifically saying these individuals shouldn’t be held accountable for their statements/actions because they are Maori. That would be to lump them in with children and the mentally ill, which is entirely patronising nineteenth century behaviour tarted up with PC trappings and a pinch of hypocrisy.
                   

          • Jenny 5.2.1.1.2
            16 February 2012 at 10:54 pm

            I have never threatened to kill white motherfuckers, or anyone at all.

            Is this unusual.

            grumpy

            In answer to your question.

            No grumpy, it is not unusual at all, for a European New Zealander to have never threatened to kill WMFs.

            In fact, never in my whole life have I ever heard of a single instance of a White New Zealander threatening to kill WMFs.

            But, over the years I have heard many comments from New Zealanders of European extraction making disparaging racial comments sometimes even expressing a wish to shoot/deport/jail/kill Maori, or Asian, or Polynesian, or Moslem New Zealanders.

            Rather than get into a heated argument, like I guess, most New Zealanders, I am sometimes guilty of ignoring such comments, hoping that the speaker is being flippant and is not really expressing a wish to kill or attack Maori or Asians or Polynesians, or Moslems.

            Since you didn’t address my query properly. I will ask you directly. If I had the computing power of the state and decided to electronically search every digital recording of every email, text, phone call etc that you have made or sent, looking for key words like Maori or Chinese or unemployed or Islander. And/or smashed into your house in the dead of night and seized your hard drive and all your letters and files. Could I with malicious intent make a case for you being a racist?

            Come on be honest

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.2.1.1.2.1
              17 February 2012 at 8:35 am

              No. You couldn’t.

              And I am a bit surprised that you are so convinced that you could.

            • grumpy 5.2.1.1.2.2
              17 February 2012 at 11:51 am

              Weren’t grumpy wot said that – but if I’d thought of it first I would have.

              Strange that so many people here are quick to justify violence and terrorism……………………….

              • lprent …
                17 February 2012 at 12:00 pm

                Probably because the evidence has never particularly appeared to support the police’s claims. Which is why the charges have now dropped down to what amount to some no particularly serious Arms Act charges. The police may be able to make some of those stick.

                Their terrorism charges were simply total bullshit under any act, and their dire intonations of potential violence would have graced the front page of The Truth with an even lower level of accuracy than it usually achieved.

                Of course from the little I have seen of the trial reporting thus far, the prosecution appears to be more intent on speculating than doing the hard yards of tying evidence of actual unlawful acts to people.

                • grumpy …
                  17 February 2012 at 12:36 pm

                  A long way to go yet…………

                  It’s these blanket ideological justifications that get me.

                  Wasn’t it Horomia who said something like “Stupid white people and Maori radicals are a bad mix….”?

                • insider …
                  17 February 2012 at 2:05 pm

                  Yes who’d have thoguht assembling increasing amounts of weapons and ammunition, discussing killing high profile figures and sabotage, and assembling activists from around the country to ‘play’ with those weapons and then giving them out to them would have led any reasonable minded person to think these people might actually have a violent purpose.

                  I mean this is much more likely to be just a bunch of light hearted fun and jolly japes. No, discussing the merits of armour piercing rounds in killing cops and assassinating opposition leaders is something we all get up to after a hard days work. Just what were the police thinking?

                  • lprent …
                    17 February 2012 at 2:42 pm

                    Lets just take a couple of these stupid myths.

                    ..assembling weapons and ammunition..

                    Friend of mine used to have a ex-navy rocket launcher aimed right over Auckland city. Of course it provided a good motor and tracking system for his solar panels (that powered his submarine batteries). He was a bit extreme in the numbers of weapons he had around. You could scarcely sit down without finding a old webley pistol with a stuffed barrel under you.

                    Most rural people wind up having a few weapons around. Many have even been registered if they are young enough. Ammo is the same. The question often is if it was from the first or second world war…..

                    killing high profile figures

                    You mean killing them by building a catapult and using it to launch a bus? Let me put it to you that you can find that kind of bullshit in any country pub. It is called idiots blatting the breeze. It isn’t credible.

                    ..assembling activists from around the country..

                    Like that never happens… I was on one of those highly suspicious assemblings last month.

                    As it happens, I have also done a lot of shooting over the years. Quite recently in fact. I have been known to badmouth not only politicians, but also bloggers and journalists. I did it only this week. In fact I have wished that some of them that they would meet an untimely demise.

                    I have been known to play with explosives. In fact I did pretty well at one stage in artisticly carving my initials into armoured steel with some.

                    FFS: All of those things I did were completely lawful bot of themselves and in conjunction. The issue that the prosecution has to prove is that they were all leading up to something nefarious. So far they haven’t in any of the material I have seen. I could point you to probably several hundred people I’ve known (who aren’t even political) who’d fit the police’s criteria.

                    It is pretty common. For instance, in recent months Whaleoil has written about how he has been creeping around in the bush with a rifle, meets with activists whilst doing so, and has been known to wish that I’d have a more effective death dealing heart attack next time. And I don’t read his blog more than once every few weeks.

                    I’m afraid that I tend to class your comment in the same vein as I did with John Pagani’s similar diatribe. You must have had a very sheltered upbringing. City boy are you?

                    • insider …
                      17 February 2012 at 3:22 pm

                      Lynn

                      You can try and isolate every single element of what went on and without context they can appear perfectly normal. I’m sure if you looked at David Bain when he did his paper round, and then his washing, or cleaned his gun and left it lying in his front room it all looked perfectly harmless, if you ignored the bodies around his house. It’s called circumstantial evidence for a reason.

                    • lprent []
                      17 February 2012 at 7:38 pm

                      Yes, and that is the polices problem. First they have to show there was a crime. No bodies…. Not even any attempts according to the police.

                      They spectacularly failed when the initial terrorism charges did the titanic trick. The entirety of their actual case so far has been to try to prosecute for charges that aren’t even on the docket. Just read the reports of the trial, and then look a the list of charges. No real relationship is there? The prosecution are straining…. And not actually focusing on the actual charges. Ever wonder why?

                      So it has just been face saving exercise for the police, and a way to justify throwing people in prison without bail for months on charges that had no real validity, and running a fishing expidition across the entire activist community in the country.

                      Quite simply the cops concerned are complete fuckwits….

                    • Jackal …
                      17 February 2012 at 3:31 pm

                      Well said 1prent. Keeping that in mind, there is no doubt that the whole thing is being used to punish a few activists and thus deter others. Preparing for the court cases and adhering to the Crowns stipulations has assuredly reduced the accused ability to conduct their rightful activism.

                      Insider. There is no similarity in your hypothesis. In one there were murders. In the other, the Urewera 4 ran around the bush with some guns. By your account, all hunters are murderers.

  6. insider 6
    16 February 2012 at 10:44 am

    >how come they’ve only been charged with a handful of minor offences? And how come the others had the charges dropped? Where are the treason and conspiracy charges

    Have you been asleep in your burrow for the last few years?

    Treason is not an applicable offence. They have not been charged with murder either.

    They are in a sense charged with conspiracy – being members of a criminal organisation is a form of conspiracy.

    The charges are not ‘minor’. They could get 10 years prison

    • Blighty 6.1
      16 February 2012 at 12:57 pm

      Treason:

      73 Treason

      Every one owing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand commits treason who, within or outside New Zealand,—

      (a) kills or wounds or does grievous bodily harm to Her Majesty the Queen, or imprisons or restrains her; or

      (b) levies war against New Zealand; or

      (c) assists an enemy at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between New Zealand and any other country; or

      (d) incites or assists any person with force to invade New Zealand; or

      (e) uses force for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of New Zealand; or

      (f) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in this section.

      If they were planning to establish their own government by force, that’s conspiracy to treason

      • insider 6.1.1
        16 February 2012 at 1:56 pm

        Establishing their own govt on a small part of NZ is a very different thing to overthrowing the whole govt of NZ by force, so is not subject to this law.

        • The Gormless and Gobsmacked Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel 6.1.1.1
          16 February 2012 at 3:55 pm

          You are fucking kidding.

          • insider 6.1.1.1.1
            16 February 2012 at 4:20 pm

            Nope. Look at the act’s words above; there is nothing in there that matches the actions of the Urewera crowd; same for the TS Act.That’s why they weren’t prosecuted under it – they couldn’t match its provisions up with the actions. Carving out your own little niche is not the same as trying to change things for the whole country, and it appears talking about revolution or even training for it is not illegal of itself if actual intent or plans are not there.

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6.1.1.1.1.1
              16 February 2012 at 4:48 pm

              I have read it.

              “uses force for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of New Zealand” must mean from any part of New Zealand over which the government has power to govern. You can’t get off treason because you planned to overthrow the government everywhere but Waiheke Island.

              • insider …
                16 February 2012 at 5:01 pm

                I disagree because it’s about proportion and aims – cecession is not insurrection, so fighting for waiheke independence is not like a revolutionary movement aimed at the Beehive. Fortunately the law has never been tested afaik. But the real issue is that no force was used so no-one can have conspired to do so. training camps is not use of force, nor is talking about use of force a crime without the actual deeds.

                I haven’t read anywhere that treason was considered as a charge, so I’m assuming they had similar views on the law to me. Or maybe they just forgot about that law.

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                  16 February 2012 at 5:07 pm

                  You are on drugs.

                  • insider …
                    16 February 2012 at 5:23 pm

                    Wow, so erudite and argued with unchallengable logic.

                    • Gosman …
                      17 February 2012 at 2:11 pm

                      Considering NZ law tend to follow the same principles as British law, (not always admittedly), I’d say Treason would include trying to leave the auspices of the State. There have been numerous Treason cases involving Irish Nationalists who were attempting a very similar thing to what some Tuhoe want.

                    • insider …
                      17 February 2012 at 3:03 pm

                      Follows the spirit but not the word. The UK Treason Act includes planning the death of the king (compass or imagine) but the NZ act doesn’t, so thoughts or deeds can get you into trouble. And the Irish ones often conspired with overseas powers to make war, eg Casement. and the Easter Rising was during WW1 so martial law was imposed. That probably influenced the number of executions.

                      It appears treason might have been used if they had actually done something concrete. Lot’s of talk and little action means Treason doesn’t apply.

              • Mark …
                16 February 2012 at 10:10 pm

                The Goverment on Waiheke Island is in effect Fullers, SeaLink, and the bloke imposing his dodgy taste on us who owns Placemakers. Overthrowing of any Govt should include this mob.
                Seriously though, I am very troubled by the evidence in this case, and the fact that due to poorly drafted laws, and the Operational deficiencies, there are quite a few others not in the dock. FFS, successive Govts (ie us) have bent over backwards to right historical wrongs,  wtf do we need to do?

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel …
                  16 February 2012 at 10:14 pm

                  You misunderstood. I was proposing overthrowing the elected government everywhere but Waiheke.

                  • felix …
                    16 February 2012 at 10:32 pm

                    What’s the difference, according to your example and reasoning?

                    I thought you were saying that claiming sovereignty over any part of the country was the same as claiming it over all.

                    In which case it works either way. Surely.

                • Adele …
                  16 February 2012 at 11:31 pm

                  Tēna koe, Mark

                  I appear to have missed the episode showing you (successive governments) bending over backwards to right historical wrongs.

                  I did however catch the one where you took a dump on the Treaty and then expected us to be grateful for the manure.

                  • Mark …
                    17 February 2012 at 12:28 am

                    Adele, thanks for the salutation, my bad if my Te reo only runs to Teina Kotu, or Kai moana.. however my young pakeha daughters have compulsory Te reo at school,and whether or not I believe it is the best second language for them to be learning I support it.
                    Would those dumps on the Treaty be the many $Million ones?.. if all you got was manure you should be taking that up with your Iwi I imagine.
                    I do know that as a 7th generation Kiwi (both sides) I and many others in our Society also have the right to occupy land, grow families and enjoy the bounty of Aotearoa, without being held to ransom by a confusing historical document. 
                    We should be joining shoulders to rid our country of the scourge of child abusers, rapists, thieves and murderers, whatever their race, but throwing money and land at them doesn’t work. Tell me what I and others of my ilk can do to help restore the Mana and dignity of your people.
                    Ka pai 

                    • felix …
                      17 February 2012 at 12:46 am

                      “Would those dumps on the Treaty be the many $Million ones?”

                      Like the 170 million Ngai Tahu settlement for example? That sort of thing?

                      What would you think if you were owed 20 billion and only got 170 million?

                    • Populuxe1 …
                      17 February 2012 at 1:01 am

                      What would you think if you were owed 20 billion and only got 170 million?

                      I’d still be pretty chuffed given the major improbability and logistics of more money that didn’t exist in the budget. A bird in the hand…

                    • felix …
                      17 February 2012 at 1:11 am

                      Yeah, most people who have their debts paid at less than 1 cent on the dollar feel exactly the same way Pop.

                      Stoked.

                    • Mark …
                      17 February 2012 at 1:38 am

                      20 years ago I sold my HT Monaro 350 (bought it from my Uncle) I got about $5k for it from memory.
                      Fuck me if the the guy and subsequent purchasers didn’t improve it, it’s worth about $120k now.
                      So I’m going to chase the current owner down, and get him to pay me the difference.. plus a sum for the airspace above it, plus the rain that’s landed on it, and why not have a go for the bandwidth that the radio has throughput.
                      Oh, nearly forgot to include the loss of the chicks I could have pulled.. and the enjoyment my kids would have got had I kept the car.
                      How much does that all add up to in today’s $$$?
                       

                    • felix …
                      17 February 2012 at 1:54 am

                      You got paid for the car in the first instance, moron.

                    • Jackal …
                      17 February 2012 at 3:11 pm

                      Mark

                      We should be joining shoulders to rid our country of the scourge of child abusers, rapists, thieves and murderers, whatever their race, but throwing money and land at them doesn’t work.

                      Are you a member of the SST Mark? Despite what they believe and what is often promoted in the mainstream media, Maori are not all offender’s. In fact it is a disproportionate application of the law that is most to blame for their overrepresentation in prisons.

                      Oh, nearly forgot to include the loss of the chicks I could have pulled.

                      Clearly you’re thinking with your cock.

    • Fortran 6.2
      16 February 2012 at 1:17 pm

      They will only be found guilty of minor firearms charges – home detention.
      They will otherwise be found not guilty – look at the jury makeup ten women and two irrelevant men.

  7. Ross 7
    16 February 2012 at 11:43 am

    Yes, they could get 10 years…or maybe home detention, or even a fine.

  8. Ross 8
    16 February 2012 at 11:47 am

    In 2005, Tama Iti discharged a shotgun in public and shot a NZ flag. He was found guilty on two counts of possessing a firearm in a public place except for some lawful purpose and was fined $300. His conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal.

  9. crite40 9
    16 February 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Give over guys!!
    The reason so many of these offences are NOT being proceeeded with is the stupid decision of the courts to disallow all the video evidence that the police collected.
    I have been involved in CCTV security systems and have one myself.
    As far as I am concerned whatever you do in PUBLIC
    is in the PUBLIC domain. If you want to do somethingstupid or illegal then face the consequences.
    It is just the other side of why repressive regimes face problems keeping their bad deeds quiet.
    We live in connected world and its about time our legal system got into the 21st century.
    BTW I do historical reenactment and I’m not a bit worried about being photographed in chain mail!!!

    • insider 9.1
      16 February 2012 at 12:12 pm

      The problem was, much of it was not in public, hence the trespass issue.

    • lprent 9.2
      16 February 2012 at 12:14 pm

      …whatever you do in PUBLIC…

      Most of the video evidence was filmed unlawfully by the police on private land. Perhaps you should actually read something about the case rather than exposing how ignorant you are in PUBLIC.

    • frasmu 9.3
      16 February 2012 at 12:16 pm

      ” the stupid decision of the courts to disallow all the video evidence that the police collected.”

      just to separate the issues here for a moment –

      the police knew they were, at best – on very shakey grounds, and at worst – outright breaking the law when they employed covert video surveilance on private property. Theyve known this was the case for years.

      So its not a stupid decision for the police to be required to follow the law in order to enforce the law.

    • vto 9.4
      16 February 2012 at 12:17 pm

      “As far as I am concerned whatever you do in PUBLIC
      is in the PUBLIC domain.”

      Bullshit imo crite40. What people do is their own business, until it affects another in some variously described way. Anyway, perhaps you could outline what you think “in PUBLIC” is..

    • stever 9.5
      17 February 2012 at 2:45 pm

      “Whatever you do is in the PUBLIC domain”—unless you are the PM? And in a café?? And merely talking??? Having invited the country’s press to watch (and not listen)????

      Well, I guess a café is not public *land*—but you get the idea!

  10. johnm 10
    16 February 2012 at 12:08 pm

    probably because Tama Iti adds colour to NZ’s image for tourists. Come view a genuine Maori wanting Independence as they were in the 1840s-really exciting! view him shooting the NZ flag, part of our adventure tourism image!
    Actually Tama could charge for flag shooting displays?!

  11. crite40 11
    16 February 2012 at 4:25 pm

    To clarify.
    If one is off one’s private property (NOT tribal or Iwi
    lands) and in theoretical public view (by a lawfully overflying aircraft for example) then the privacy issue should not arise.
    I have followed this case to a degree and understood that cameras were put on bush trails in the area.
    How could that “footage” NOT be public?

    After all, what was so secret?
    Was it of no importance, or was there a genuine reason for police and public concern. By all accounts some local people were concerned by gunfire etc.

    This is a problem I have come across personally with the NZ police, who are often unwilling to even house community CCTV equipment on their premises. They were affected by this court decision.

    I reiterate. Once you are outside your door you are, at least. potentially in public.
    If you don’t like that, tough. But remember the only reason the Arab spring has happened and the Greek government is in trouble is the very fact that cameras are everywhere. Like every technical improvement, it cuts BOTH ways.

    • insider 11.1
      16 February 2012 at 4:54 pm

      crite

      you need to read teh supreme court judgemnets. They were on Maori owned land which is by definition private. A similar argument wsa put forward that access was usually given to the public to access the land so there was an implicit permission that reduced privacy. The judges said that access was only for what the owners approved, which was walking and hunting, and they never approved covert filming

    • lprent 11.2
      16 February 2012 at 5:30 pm

      So what you are saying is that tribal or iwi lands are public lands? Therefore the any mug is permitted to wander around them at will? So this applies to their farmlands as well?

      Therefore the same applies to any farmlands as there is little difference legally. Ummm the farmers would have something to say about that. So would the iwi.

      Yeah right. I think that you are a bit of a munter.

      • grumpy 11.2.1
        16 February 2012 at 7:15 pm

        Sheer pedantics mate! It’s a bit like being slightly pregnant – either they were doing this shit or they weren’t. Simple as that!

        • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.1
          16 February 2012 at 10:05 pm

          The legality of the video evidence is affected by whether it was taken in a public or a private place.

          Just like the tea tapes.

    • hateatea 11.3
      17 February 2012 at 2:09 am

      Firstly, tribe is the English word for iwi, they are not different things

      Secondly, if you think that because my whanau (or Tama Iti’s whanau), hapu or iwi own land, the same protections under law as are given to the Key whanau or the crite40 whanau don’t apply is offensive to the nth degree.

      The law is the law. It applies even more specifically to the Police and to the Crown as the creators and enforcers of the laws of New Zealand.

      To take a lesser position would be to take New Zealand down a truly frightening path indeed

      • Populuxe1 11.3.1
        17 February 2012 at 2:18 am

        But wouldn’t a full assertion of Rangatiratanga imply legal rights and privileges exclusive to Maori? I don’t mean that to be cheeky or sarcastic, I just think it’s a relevant question. Such things prick and my socialist instincts.

  12. cite40 12
    16 February 2012 at 5:07 pm

    Oh! That’s very interesting. Does that mean that a pakeha (or Pacifica) farmer cannot be checked out for (say) a prime crop of NZ green?
    After all the farm might be owned by a company or partnership rather than an individual and this surely is like a tribe in law?
    If this is NOT so then our law needs sorting out to give equal rights to all NZ citizens.

    Again and again I find myself wondering why people today are so scared of observation. Perhaps its because I’m an oldie and don’t go out drinking at weekends.
    As far as I’m concerned society should first protect the innocent NOT the socially irresponsible and antisocial.

    It is always the same.
    There is NO freedom WITHOUT responsibilty. There never was and there never will be.
    But then I remember a time before the 1970’s and I wasn’t even stoned then!!!

    • insider 12.1
      16 February 2012 at 5:34 pm

      Crite

      You need to read the judgement because it traverses all of that specifically around filming. Searching a private property is fine with a warrant. Filming on private property is considered an illegal search. Ethnicity is irrelevant. Maori owned land means it is private, as in not owned by the public.

      the bit you are forgetting in your outrage is that four people are on serious charges and could end up in prison for 10 years. Those charges have been possible because because they are serious charges and the law is not black and white, even though the police breached the law. The court said it’s a balance between personal freedom and community wellbeing, and the dividing line was determined by the seriousness of the offending.

    • Dafonz 12.2
      18 February 2012 at 2:59 pm

      Farmers irrespective of their ethnicity can have their farms scanned from above for NZ green, and in general do not object to such surveillance techniques.

      However what the cops are not allowed to do is place stationary cameras on farms just because they think the farmer may be doing something illegal. Once illegality is established through traditional policing methods, then cameras are sometimes installed and in general the courts turn a blind eye to that sort of draconian surveillance because at least a threshold of unlawfulness was established first.

      In this case from what I can gather from the supreme court ruling is that it took many months if not a year or more of unlawful filming and all sorts of interceptions of private communications before the police were able to establish what they believed was illegality.

      That is why the supreme court was unanimous in ruling the police warrant applications and use of filming to be unlawful. However the vote went 3 to 2 (out of 5) judges as to whether the 4 primary police targets should still go to trial, Chief Justice Sean Elias being one of those that opposed the 4 going to trial.

  13. Mark 13
    17 February 2012 at 12:56 am

    Felix
    “Would those dumps on the Treaty be the many $Million ones?”
    Like the 170 million Ngai Tahu settlement for example? That sort of thing?
    What would you think if you were owed 20 billion and only got 170 million?

    $20B, that’s a big number.. how do you arrive at that?
    Maybe using values projected 200 years from Treaty date?
    So should we use future numbers from Quota?, Forests etc to determine grievance figures?

    • felix 13.1
      17 February 2012 at 1:05 am

      Are you saying I made up that number?

      Kind of showing your ignorance there Mark.

      • Mark 13.1.1
        17 February 2012 at 1:21 am

        Yeah, I am very ignorant of how you made up that number Felix.
        Care to enlighten me, and justify it, so we can discuss reality?
         

        • felix 13.1.1.1
          17 February 2012 at 2:09 am

          Nothing you’ve posted so far indicates any desire to discuss reality. Why should I believe you now?

          If you’re not willing to find out the simplest most commonly observed facts about a subject, why should anyone bother to stoop to your level and hold your hand while you piss your pants and cry?

          You’re not my fucking child. Do your own research.

        • hateatea 13.1.1.2
          17 February 2012 at 2:41 am

          Easy, Felix didn’t make up that figure. Read my post at 2.04am for an answer to your question

    • Populuxe1 13.2
      17 February 2012 at 1:05 am

      Thin air – same place all that extra money would come from. But what price on peace of mind?

      • felix 13.2.1
        17 February 2012 at 1:13 am

        What “extra” money, Pop?

        • Populuxe1 13.2.1.1
          17 February 2012 at 1:20 am

          The rest of the money that is believed owed. It’s all well and good to talk about righting old and indeed legitimate wrongs, but there are basic limits to what can be feasibly done without bankrupting treasury or utterly undermining democracy, state infrastructure, and quite probably race relations.

          • Colonial Viper 13.2.1.1.1
            17 February 2012 at 1:29 am

            $1.7B for SCF and $1.1B for tax cuts for the rich. $2.8B total just on those two items. So I suggest while there are limits like you say, those limits are high when the accompanying motivation is also high.

            • Populuxe1 13.2.1.1.1.1
              17 February 2012 at 2:09 am

              $3 billion here and there is a far cry from $20 billion. Our current GDP is only US$126.68 Billion.

              • felix …
                17 February 2012 at 2:31 am

                So if you can’t (or won’t) pay a debt all at once right now it gets written off?

                They’re insanely big numbers for most of us to think in and that can be distracting, but for the sake of a more tangible example imagine I owed you $20 but I only wanted to pay you 20 cents.

                Not 20 cents a day or 20 cents a week, but 20 cents and that’s that. For $20.

                And when you ask me where the rest of it is, I say “I invested it and shared the profits with my family and friends, and it’s now worth $120 a year but there’s no way we can afford to pay back more than 20 cents. And that’s that”.

                “$3 billion here and there is a far cry from $20 billion”

                And $170 million here and there is a much further cry! That doesn’t make it seem any better you know.

                • Populuxe1 …
                  17 February 2012 at 6:23 pm

                  Well that, and I’m not convinced the Treaty has been applicable since 1949 when Iriaka Ratana was voted into parliament, thus making the Crown and Maori no longer separate de facto entities. It does become slightly fantastical when you consider that a percentage of the Treaty settlement money has actually been paid with money from Maori tax-payers.

                  • McFlock …
                    17 February 2012 at 6:39 pm

                    Even if your 1949 point were correct, it still wouldn’t invalidate claims for violations prior to 1949.
                      
                    B has an outstanding debt to A.
                    A and B marry.
                    Unless A chooses to forgive the debt, B still owes A.

            • Gosman 13.2.1.1.1.2
              17 February 2012 at 2:18 pm

              This is the same faulty logic that people use to to try and claim that the bankers have been bailed out by the Taxpayers to the tune of Trillions of dollars. In the case of SCF this is the total amount of liability that the Crown has agreed to guarrantee. A lot of this will be recoverable from the assets of the company. It is likely the true loss will be in the low hundred millions. Still a lot of money it is true but a long way from 1.7 Billion.

  15. hateatea 15
    17 February 2012 at 2:04 am

    “$20B, that’s a big number.. how do you arrive at that?
    Maybe using values projected 200 years from Treaty date?
    So should we use future numbers from Quota?, Forests etc to determine grievance figures?”

    The $20billion figure has been in public domain for at least 13 years as was part of a report prepared by CS First Boston and others and presented to the Government as part of the negotiating process for the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/lifestyle/mainlander/461117/Evolution-of-an-iwi

    If you have time on your hands you might want to go and read some of our country’s fine record in relation to the whanau, hapu and iwi that you disrespect almost every time you post.

  16. Stephen Whitefield 16
    18 February 2012 at 12:11 pm

    Yes it is true that military styled training in or itself is not unlawful and even making a few loose statements while blowing off steam is not exactly unlawful as well. However it seems to me that the police were able to determine after a few years of bugging these activists phones, emails, text messages, internet chat, cars and houses, that the intentions of at least some of them were to commit some form of terrorist act.

    You do not need evidence of this because you can determine what people are thinking through close surveillance and intelligence gathering of this nature over a long period of time. The new search and surveillance bill will give police the powers they need to affect prosecutions of these types of criminals in the near future who do not specifically plan to commit specific crimes but their intentions are certainly unequivacally criminal.

    • Dafonz 16.1
      18 February 2012 at 2:49 pm

      @Stephen

      Er, explain to me please just how many degrees that comment of yours is away from thought crimes mate?

  17. Jenny 17
    18 February 2012 at 10:45 pm

    The head of the New Zealand police spent a part of the lead up to the Terror Raids in the hot house environment of Washington DC, under the Bush administration, at the peak of the war on terror hysteria.

    While in Washington, The Police Commissioner Howard Broad was hosted and toasted by the American intelligence and enforcement community.

    Broad, was wined and dined by the spooks of the CIA FBI and home land security amidst an atmosphere, of glamour and opulence, but also of conspiracy, rumour, paranoia and mistrust that is, the DC intelligence community. No doubt the Commissioner, heard many heartfelt plaints about how this country was not doing nearly enough in the Global War on Terror. On return to Godzone in an effort to impress his new buddies in Washington DC. Howard Broad launches a new front in the Global War on Terror in, wait for it, New Zealand.

    In the heady weeks after the terror raids, while the TV camera lights are still on him, Howard Broad announces to the country that he will be seeking a second term as police commissioner. But with the passing of time as the whole overwrought debacle starts to unwind. Howard Broad instead of seeking a second term in office has to settle for an ignoble early retirement.

    • Jenny 17.1
      18 February 2012 at 10:48 pm

      The US war on terror fanatics had easy clay to work with in Howard Broad.

      Wednesday, 5 April 2006, 12:30 pm
      Press Release: Lynley Hood

      On Thurs 1 October 1992, Detective Inspector Howard Broad of Christchurch announced to a packed press conference that four women child care workers had been arrested in the Christchurch Civic Creche case [Press, 2 Oct 92]. He named the women and described the shocking charges they faced jointly with the already-demonised Peter Ellis (who had been arrested 6 months earlier):

      They [three of the women] are accused of sexually violating a boy by having unlawful sexual connection with him; indecent assault on the same boy, who was then aged three and four; Indecent assault on another boy, then aged three and four; and indecent assault on a girl, then aged three and four.

      The fourth woman … is charged that jointly with Ellis she wilfully did an indecent act in the toilets at the creche some time between April 1, 1989, and October 31, 1991. 

      The charges against the women were dismissed pre-trial. My research [A City Possessed, 2001] established that the allegations were the product of the ritual abuse hysteria sweeping Christchurch at the time. Police officers in the grip of this hysteria made the grossly unprofessional mistake of treating rumour and innuendo as established fact.

      Howard Broad s press conference in October 1992 destroyed the careers and previously unblemished reputations of four well-qualified, experienced and dedicated child care workers.

      Since then, calls for a commission of inquiry into the creche case have been rejected by government. Consequently, none of the officials involved have learnt anything from the mistakes made. Indeed, because they have never had to admit to making any mistakes, many of them have repeated the same mistakes, over and over again. With Howard Broad s appointment as the country’s top police officer, there is a real risk that ongoing damage caused to the fabric of New Zealand society by sex abuse hysteria and false allegations will continue unabated.

      ENDS

      Two years after the release of this press statement, Just as she predicted he would, Howard Broad and the force he led are in the grip of another hysteria, this time about terrorists, and repeat the exact same pattern of behaviour that Lynley Hood documented in the Christchurch Creche case.

      1/ Make widespread smears in the media against a big group of people.

      2/ Drop the charges pre trial against the most ludicrously defamed, but with out explanation or apology.

      3/ Pursue convictions against, a despised minority member. In Peter Ellis’s case a homosexual, In Tama Iti’s case a tattooed Maori Activist.

      • ianmac 17.1.1
        18 February 2012 at 11:08 pm

        Jenny the connection between 1992 and the current trial, with Mr Broad as a common factor is disturbing. Throw into the mix the Washington influence with the current means of arrest and the case against Mr Dotcom and one would rather wish that sleepy ole’ NZ had remained obscure and unnoticed.
        Good work Jenny. Connectivity.