Written By:
Mountain Tui - Date published:
6:41 pm, January 16th, 2025 - 28 comments
Categories: uncategorized -
Tags:
The final Atlas Network playbook puzzle piece is here, and it slipped in to Aotearoa New Zealand with little fan fare or attention.
The implications are stark.
Today the submission for the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill closes: 11:59pm January 16, 2025.
As usual, the language of the bill is opaque and positively crafted.
Ostensibly, it’s to protect NZ interests, but independent journalist Mick Hall reported on it on his Substack last month.
He noted:
The legislation [is] effectively the reintroduction of old sedition laws inherited from the British colonial state. Those laws were used against communists, trade unions and indigenous communities.
I’m not going to belabour it – it’s late. Probably too late.
Everyone is tired from submissions and no-one expects so much to counter from its own government.
The government is successfully “flooding the zone with shit” – of the opaque variety – and outside of independent media and Substack writers, including Dr Bex and Mick Hall, our media and writers didn’t have the time and resources, or simple vested interest, in highlighting the bill & implications of it.
On the Regulatory Standards Bill, Jane Kelsey, emeritus law professor at the University of Auckland and Melanie Nelson worked to help us understand over a year’s worth of writing.
Auckland based lawyer and former Clark Government minister, Matt Robson, did try to highlight the risks of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill:
.. the danger of being convicted even in the absence of intent to commit any offence will leave academics, politicians, journalists and others second-guessing their words and actions and the propriety of whom they are talking with
And, Hall’s article notes:
Chairperson for the NZ Council for Civil Liberties, Thomas Beagle, told In Context he also had concerns that legitimate political activism could fall under the scope.
Want to see what these things look like in practice?
In the UK, after 14 years of Tory conservative rule and Atlas Network “junk lobbying” and politicians, it’s become one of the most strident anti-climate and anti-environment protest jurisdictions in the Western world.
England: Police officers arrest Just Stop Oil activists near Earl’s Court in London. Photo: Anadolu Agency/Anadolu/Getty Images
England arrests climate activists at three times the global average rate.
This year, 5 environmental activists were jailed for four years each.
Their crime?
Peacefully blocking a motorway in 2022.
Two more environmental protesters were jailed in 2022 for terms of two years and 20 months respectively.
Their crime?
Throwing tomato soup at a Vincent Van Gogh art piece in London. The gallery said there was only “minor damage to the frame” and the painting was unharmed.
Artists, art workers and historians had begged the judge for clemency to no avail.
Think about this:
This has implications for the seabed mining protestors, the local activists in Northland who are trying to stop sandmining, academics and unionists, peaceful activists who write or act. Intention doesn’t have to be proven – only inteference.
For a year, I’ve thought to myself, the only missing piece of the Atlas Network playbook is criminalizing peaceful and environmental protests.
That day is here.
And it’s not a great one.
Other Reading:
Good post MT.
Protests over here have become more respectful and more law abiding recently. The need to escalate this is absurd. Unless the intent is to divide and divert from what they are trying to achieve which is essentially further pillaging and raping of the environment.
Is Labour supporting this bill?
It passed its first reading in November, with votes in favour from Labour.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2501/S00022/foreign-interference-bill-prepares-new-attacks-on-democratic-rights.htm
I don’t understand why francesca asked that question because she linked to the exact same article before!?
Really ?
Because Mickey's comment seemed to indicate the bill was the work of the current pack , when it's bipartisan .I wanted an answer from
Mickey acknowledging that .
Perhaps I should have added 'nt to the is
It was written by the current government but conforms to the Five Eyes stock standard. Whether it is bi-partisan in this form will be determined by Labour members on the SC when submissions are considered.
They have agreed to a re-write, no more really. It is just tacit agreement of the need to better manage foreign interference via local agency.
They might want to conflab with Labour in Oz on a moderation (Oz law was moved by the previous government 2017-2018)(and estate tax as well).
"Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has already said, the Labour Party will be supporting this to select committee, and, indeed, I note that a quick search of the internet confirmed my memory that this work actually commenced under the last Labour Government, "
followed by a few quibbles
Whereas the Greens come out with a clear statement that they will not be supporting the bill
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20241119_20241119_36
Had you read your own link to the Scoop article, and did you know the answer to your own question when you commented on 17 January 2025 at 8:34 am?
In short, yes
Sometimes questions have a rhetorical intent .Did you read my reply ? (posted 17th January 2025 at 4.34 pm )I thought I had explained .Perhaps not
Yeah, I’d read your reply, more or less, which together with this answer confirms that you’re engaging in rhetoric rather than in good faith debate. Why would MS waste his time on replying to you? BTW, and FYI, that’s a rhetorical question.
A few more analyses of it —
At one level, the language is designed to enable investigative surveillance (identify foreign agency).
On the other the most real threat is to criminalise whistleblowing (as if this is acting for some offshore Assange) that impacts on our reputation (such as leaking Crown Law documents in the 1990's).
There has to be a public interest defence.
How it impacts on public interest journalism would be hard to spot (the MSM barely covered the bill, so do not seem to care).
One would hope they will not move on foreign/international organisational (environment/conservation) movements that have branches here. But they could become the prime target of this current corporate regime.
The reality of it will be in whether they prosecute, or it is on the statutes books like the old blasphemy law/sedition laws to scarecrow – enable covert surveillance and harrassment without court time – a form of PWO methodology.
True. Which is one of the reasons I so despise the Tories.
But you let your argument down when you fail to point out that the same attitude and related laws from them have led to people being arrested by cops, and jailed far too often, because they said mean things about Muslims and immigrants on Instagram, Facebook and such.
I can only assume that you didn't mention those because you're ok with people goring the others ox?
Countering Foreign Interference?
Sounds an awful lot like "Russian Collusion" and I and other RWNJ's have been hammered about that for eight years now, with bugger all support from the Left about the "Deep State" which was such a feature of the 1970's left.
Would they have protested differently if it would have been possible to damage the Van Gogh? What price the Earth and the future of humanity?
Perhaps that philosophical attitude is the real worry?
Given the "mean things about Muslims and immigrants on Instagram" tended to be in the ballpark of inciting people to attack hotels where they were sheltering or were in violation of existing judicial orders or previous criminal records, the only person letting down their argument here is you.
Here is a list of some of the context for your comment
i.e. "mean" things you say people say about Muslim people that leads to arrest – it add important context that you may have excluded:
Let's take Tommy Robinson for example – a well known figure supported by the likes of Kiwi billionaire Nick Mowbray –
Robinson is a leading figure of the anti-Islam movement in the UK
He went to prison for contempt of court after repeating false information about a Syrian refugee which led to widespread riots across the country
In addition, Robinson has quite a rap sheet:
Assault occasioning bodily harm
Jailed for assault on an off-duty police officer (Daily Mail)
EDL leader Stephen Lennon convicted of assault (BBC)
Mortgage fraud
Tommy Robinson, former EDL leader, jailed for fraud (BBC)
Stalking
Tommy Robinson ‘threatened Independent journalist in bid to prevent publication of story’ (The Independent)
Using a false passport
EDL Leader Lennon Jailed For Passport Offence (Sky News)
Breach of the peace
Ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson jailed at Leeds court
etc.
Research links courtesy David Farrier and bodza
Oh of course. He's the example.
But here's some other, less well-known examples:
My favourite – aside from the many visits by police officers to people's homes because someone claimed they were "offended" by a social media post, is this one where a judge sentenced a guy to two years in jail for posting "It's ok to be white" while letting a child rapist serve no jail time, with the judge saying he had no doubt the former's mindset was that of a white supremacist but "not knowing" what goes through the mind of the latter.
https://x.com/aaronsibarium/status/1825977695361994875
Or how about Caroline Farrow: this Twitter thread explains what happened in more detail and the Samizdata blogsite have summarised it here in case it vanishes. And all that without ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.
Start caring about this sort of stuff as well and you might get more support for your imprisoned activists.
Under a Tory government.
Yes. I was not being partisan about this. As I said above, I'm disgusted by these laws the Tories put in place and I was glad they got smashed in the recent election.
But Labour have not dumped these laws.
The Tories impose authority without qualm.
Starmer has to decide where Labour stands on this impost on people.
He was brought in to the prosecutor role because of his human rights background.
So far the notable thing has been a going after of critics of Israel on Gaza, how he responds to this is as yet an unknown.
(Police have been known to act to please their PM – here Ureweras after Turia left Labour, how a PM responds is on them).
Judging by the part he (Starmer)had to play in the persecution of Julian Assange, I wouldn’t be holding my breath
I can't see the smoking gun clear trail to Atlas Network. I know Atlas/ Rothschild $$ came in to fight the gang patch ban but I can't see the trail here.
What I make clear is the Atlas Network playbook has characteristics.
Those are made clear in the Guardian article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/06/rishi-sunak-javier-milei-donald-trump-atlas-network
And this part – criminalizing peaceful protests – was the only missing piece.
The law has the potential to give it that final missing piece.
With the support ,minus a few lame quibbles, of Labour
We need to demand more of Labour, instead of blindly defending them in a partisan manner.
I don't defend Labour – nor any party at all – but I will refrain where I can understand rationale.
Does that make sense?
I'm really grateful for your posts, I do find them very useful in understanding the juggernaut underway.
Do you have any sense as to whether Labour, much like Starmer's Labour is also influenced by the Atlas network ? Why the ineffective opposition , or am I being unfair?
Hi francesca
I don't think you're being unfair. I think a lot of people want more from the opposition.
One reason they are as they are is probably they aren't as wealthy and cashed up as the right wing parties.
Second is that they probably have to be careful because so many Kiwis have absorbed narratives about them and it's not easy for them to push back.
Third, they know that the right wing are friendly with many influential media groups.
I don't have a sense that NZ Labour is commensurate to the UK.
I stopped following UK politics after the Tories lost but ironically, never found Keir Starmer inspirational or held out much hope for him, having watched him in Parliament many times.
@ Mountain Tui,
Have you seen this article Revealed: The 10 emails to Minister Nicole McKee that helped toughen Three Strikes?
Incognito
I had not – thank you very much for bringing it to my attention!
Cheers,
Tui