Zaoui Winners
The big winner from the Zaoui affair has to be Deborah Manning. Her advocacy on behalf of Zaoui has been tenacious and effective. She has won against the Crown on multiple occassions.
If I was ever arrested by the Government for treason, then Manning is who I would try and get as my lawyer. Of course with her political leanings she is more likely to be the Crown Prosecutor for my trial 
The second winner is Warren Tucker. He is winning plaudits for both the compromise and direct negotiations with Zaoui, but also actually holding a press conference. I also urge people to read the SIS report into their decision – it provides some very useful info.
People should also read Zaoui’s undertaking to the SIS, which are not entirely trivial.
The third winner is Helen Clark. If the compromise has not occured, then she faced one of three scenarios:
- The security risk certificate being struck down by the Inspector-General, which would cause a crisis of confidence in the SIS.
- The certificate being upheld and the Minister intervening to stop Zaoui being deported, opening the Government up to massive criticism from NZ First and National for a waste of money and soft touch.
- The certificate being upheld and Zaoui being deported with a massive protest from the left.
The fourth winner of course is Zaoui himself.
John Armstrong also looks at winners and losers. The NZ Herald editorial says a revised Immigration Act will be Zaoui’s legacy. Peter Metcalfe also reviews the case and notes how Zaoui’s interactions with the GIA were stronger than his supporters had claimed.
September 14th, 2007 at 9:54 am
The big winner – Helen Clark. When she resigns in the next twelve months (give or take six) she will be in a much better position to get that coveted chair at the UN.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:05 am
“People should also read Zaoui’s undertaking to the SIS, which are not entirely trivial.”
Looking at all that whited out text, I now want to join the SIS so I can get the juicy tidbits!
September 14th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Interesting lesson – Helen Clark was a winner because she kept her nose out of the whole affair.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Pathetic The guy arrived here illegally Three European countries didnt want a bar if him He left his family in Malaysia.He should have been turned around at the border and the airline made to take him back to Malaysia he has cost the taxpayer over 3 million dollars that could have been spent on assisting Kiwis with health and education and other more important matters.
His family will know arrive and all will go on a benefit and live in a State house.
And you saps all think this is OK.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:36 am
The undertaking to the SIS is brilliant in its simplicity.
Perhaps our courts could get similar undertakings from criminals. Prisons would be redundant overnight, and our communities safe once again.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:38 am
insider, If you believe Helen kept her nose out then you probably still believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Lee
Teeth don’t disappear from under my pillow on their own…
September 14th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Well, that’s good to hear, insider. Just don’t sit on any old men’s laps!
September 14th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Zaoui Winners = I find that comment obscene.
Is it coincidence that winners = those who got paid (by the taxpayer) and those who scored professional or political brownie points from this fiasco. And of course, the man himself.
That just leaves the average NZ citizen as the losers then?
“an undertaking to the SIS” . FANTASTIC. Therein lies the solution to Quantanamo bay. Just get them to sign a document saying they will behave and send them all back home. How simple is that, my God we could make the world a peaceful place after all.
Tell me though, if AZ commits any illegal act, or supports any illegal act in conjunction with his ‘old’ freinds, would he be the first terrorist to be charged with breach of contract?
Is anyone else laughing at this ridiculous situation?
September 14th, 2007 at 11:28 am
New Zealand will regret this decision be letting this parasite into our country. We will regret this decision if he turns out to belong too sleepy cell who could be prepared to commit Terrorist Acts against our country or one of our allies. From my understanding he has Intellectually Handicap Child which will be leech on our Welfare System.
With some luck Malaysian authorities will be able to track his family down and send them back to Algerian. And then he will have to go back too Algeria to rescue them.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:39 am
More despairing than laughing. We have white-collar criminals locked up and terrorist-affiliated immigrants given freedom.
The magazine that everyone loves to hate (‘Investigate’) is apparently about to publish more on Zaoui-alikes who have found NZ to be a nice safe haven. Oh joy.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:39 am
It is difficult to see what up-side Helen Clark has in this affair. It has not been party policial except a number of her supporters were supporting Zaoui. It has been a nasty little sideshow that has made an absolute mockery of our immigration law. If we do not want someone here then they piss-off especially people who land without travel documents.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I only hope that NZ does not live to regret this. What we know is that this took lots of taxpayers, honest hard working money to get him to swear that he’ll be a good boy. Lots of money diverted from serious issues in this country. Legal representation to a convicted not just criminal but terrorist that deliberately flushed his passport down the toilet – He wasn’t under threat in Malaysia so why didnt the send him back. It’s simple no legal papers to enter the country – you don’t get in.
This sends a sorry precedent – hey everyone if you can’t be arsed paying the fees and filling out the forms for immigration – scrap your passport on a plane to NZ – particularly if you have a criminal record and mix with dodgy company. Just great he must be laughing his bearded head off.
Nice primer for Clark’s UN application
September 14th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I wouldn’t give all the plaudits to Manning. She had assistance from Rodney harrison QC and from (I suspect) Steven Price, among others. And let’s face it, putting one over the SIS is like predicting the result of the All Blacks v Portugal match.
As for Helen Clark being a winner, please explain. The Immigation Minister could have withdrawn the security certificate at any stage. One wonders why that didn’t happen much sooner after the RSAA issued its comprehensive and decisive judgment in 2003.
Gordon Campbell is less than impressed with the government’s efforts. He is also unimpressed with the SIS’ attempts to besmirch Zaoui by claiming that he provided the SIS with information. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00240.htm
September 14th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“What we know is that this took lots of taxpayers, honest hard working money to get him to swear that he’ll be a good boy. Lots of money diverted from serious issues in this country. ”
Whose fault was that? As stated above, the government could have nipped this in the bud years ago but didn’t. And I disagree with you that this case wasn’t serious. It was. The SIS claimed to have information that Zaoui was unsafe, that he was a risk. Well, where is it? The fact is, it doesn’t exist and the SIS tried to win its case by any means possible.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
The big loser was the NZ taxpayer (as usual) who funded your supposed big winner to defend the real biggest winner – AZ himself.
If he really was in physical danger then now he will live a happy life in New Zealand.
Surely this could have all been sorted $3 million ago.
September 14th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
actually all he needed to do was starve himself for 50 days & the government would have folded. We would have saved $3M PLUS the food cost. Just another case of a process in disarray.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Does anyone else think this stance on both Zaoui and the Hunger Striker is going to give Winston Peters a migrane and a half.
“He don’t like it when they go soft on the fuzzy wuzzies Cap’t Mainwaring!”
September 14th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
So the question is….
Are those that are so deeply opposed to this guy little more than French military glove puppets?
September 14th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Clearly then it’s all part of a left wing, tree-hugging, dope-smoking, queer-loving conspiracy to bring foreign terrorists into the country.
Or was the security risk certificate removed simply because the guy is not a security risk…?
(BTW would we have been right to arrest all Irish immigrants back when the IRA were running their campaigns in the UK? Or is it mainly the darkie ones we don’t like here?)
September 14th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Ross – if Zaoui is such an innocent, what is the behind the Herald story about him trading secrets that were passed onto the CIA as part of the deal to remain in NZ. In doing so he has neutralised the perceived risk attached to him. The SIS also said that he had been considerably more candid than he has been previously – he was in it up to his neck, he has won the pissing contest and the taxpayer gets the bill yet again. Suckers !! I am cringing already at the thought of Mark Sainsbury’s family reunion story – an hour long special no doubt.
September 14th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
No word on democracy?
Zaoui was part of a legitimately elected government. Sure it’s policies weren’t that great but it was majority vote, the military with French backing stepped in and took control then carried out a purge of it’s opposition the now not in power political party took the only option that was available and began fighting back.
It was/is a very dirty war with atrocities carried out by both sides and with a lot of dubious activities by the military linked to much of the killing. I just wonder what you expect a man like Zoaui to do reading all your views on the EFB I would expect most of you to fight if a group took power with out majority consent and that would make you terrorists. It’s a very fine line.
Cheers
September 14th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Indeed, as Fairfacts Media notes over at No Minister, what kind of person have we let into the country?
The Islamic Salvation Front party, which Zauoi represented in the Algerian Parliament backs an islamic state under sharia law, and financial inducements to encourage women back into the home.
I wonder if Debra Manning knew this? So here we have a high flying lawyer representing someone who would happily silence her and send her back into the kitchen, if he wished, based on his party affiliations.
Of course, I am sure Manning would have instructed her client to keep his trap shut, lest the media might hear some unsavoury views. The regular legal aid paycheques from the taxpayer, no doubt, would encourage her to keep her trap shut too, incase he ever wanted to switch to another lawyer.
I just wonder whether somewhere there might be statements from Zaoui as a member of Parliament, something in the Algerian press maybe, perhaps in an Algerian equivalent as Hansard.
As noted at No Minister, they might make interesting reading.
Alternatively, has tolerant New Zealand changed the man, or does he still believe in the Islamist bigotry he supported in Algeria, by virtue of being an MP for an extremist Islamist party.
. It is interesting to note that Zaiou made his deal with the SIS by swearing on the Koran, suggesting his Islamic faith remains strong.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
CW,
As Gordon Campbell makes clear, the Herald article is a crock. The SIS are simply trying to make themselves look better than a slapped backside. They’ve stuffed up but can’t quite manage to admit it. I quote from Campbell:
“However the claim in the NZ Herald that Ahmed Zaoui has provided the CIA with information on his former colleagues – notably Anwar Haddam, who is now freely living within the US – is a sign of what lengths the SIS is still prepared to go to in order to besmirch Zaoui’s name, even as the SIS collapses its case and slinks towards the exit.
In reality, Anwar Haddam has never hidden the fact that he, Mohammed Said and Abderezzak Redjam were the three FIS leaders who had sought to build a bridge between the FIS and the more militant GIA during the 1993-95 period.
Said and Redjam paid for this attempt with their lives. Nothing that Zaoui could say now in 2007 about Haddam could possibly help the CIA. Any conversation in 2007 about Haddam between Zaoui and the SIS would almost certainly have been related to the SIS’ own misguided attempt to link Zaoui to Haddam, Said and Redjam as extremists, in order to bolster their case. “
September 14th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Geez Darren, I have no truck with the guy but you considering it dodgy that he swore an oath on the Koran is bizarre. His muslim beliefs have never been in question. What should he have sworn on, the karma sutra?
September 14th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
ANother point to this, the SIS says that he has only recently been full (ish) and frank (ish) on his history and withheld things from the RSAA.
Doesn’t this then call into question the RSAA decision that Zaoui’s supporters have trumpeted for so long. I remember reading their decision and thinking they seemed to have just taken everything he said for granted with little testing. It appears they were a little too credulous.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Oh, and CW, I don’t know how you justify the comment that Zaoui was “in it up to his neck”.
The SIS/Govt were the ones accusing Zaoui, so the burden of proof was on them. The mud didn’t stick.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
“Doesn’t this then call into question the RSAA decision that Zaoui’s supporters have trumpeted for so long. I remember reading their decision and thinking they seemed to have just taken everything he said for granted with little testing.”
No, it doesn’t. After all the nonsense to come out of the SIS, you now believe their version of events? How odd. The SIS need to provide evidence instead of innuendo.
Zaoui was apparently on the witness stand for 11 days before the RSAA reached its decision. If that’s your definition of little testing, I’d hate to think how long a serious interrogation would have taken.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I dunno Ross, having close links with the armourer and treasurer of a major terrorist group just doesn;t seem something you should shrug off.
In terms of the RSAA, I read the full decision and it to me seemed like they had accepted the info given to them by the Zaoui side. Yet he even now admits he was not fully open in his answers. Sounds like 11 days actually wasn’t that tough if it has taken so many years for vital information to emerge.
I note there has been a distinct lowering of the triumphalism on the Zaoui side that marked earlier ‘victories’. I don’t think that is just relief, despite what Gordon Campbell may think about events.
September 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
“Yet he even now admits he was not fully open in his answers”.
Where does he admit that? You seem to be parroting the SIS line.
Read this article from Steven Price, which suggests that anything the Herald says about the case should be taken with a grain of salt.
http://www.pjreview.info/issues/docs/10_1/pjr10_1_04zaoui184-190.pdf
September 14th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Yes no doubt the deal he has done with the SIS will mean he has to remain here.
September 14th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Well Ross, Zaoui signed a good behaviour agreement formed well in advance I expect of the withdrawal of the certificate, and not a single word has come out of Zaoui or his lawyers to dispute the SIS’s version released yesterday.
Maybe I am wrong in assuming silence is acquiescence, but surely if they disputed the SIS’s accusing him of effectively lying by omission, the previously very outspoken Ms Manning would be all over this like a rash?
September 14th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I hope Zaoui has sent his hi fives onto Osama and congratulated him on still eluding the US.
What is this country coming to we bow and scrape to the Greenies who want to hug trees and terrorists and we persecute anyone that speaks out against the Govt [Falun Gong and EB's]
We should extend an open invite to Taleban and Co now that the doors officially open.
Refugee or not why do we have to put up with this terrorist?
September 14th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
AZ’s remaining in NZ wasn’t ever worth the risk….when he first arrived and now. What perversity has insisted that we ,a tiny,credulous ,soft Country,takes this crap on board. We do box above our weight on global issues at times.We are not experienced enough to realize that,in Islamic terms,4 years of waiting for anything important, is absolutely nothing.
He outstared us…pure and simple.
September 14th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
AZ for pm ,his f**ken grin and mo, is similar to helens but because they are both shitter*, a terriorest cannot be worse than a educated liar , hell her picture is artificial shit and he was a terrorest till the day before yesterday, so to all you educated tossiers (that word again) YOU GET WHAT MY DOGS SHIT OUT zaoui a taxi driver,before working at MASSY uni our ms davis a serial???? , am i SONIC or ????
September 14th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
My vote for biggest looser is the family somewhere in a crappy refuge camp. They filled in all the forms and met all the criteria but will NOT get into NZ because AZ JUMPED the queue. We should have compassion, but for whom? When will we see their photo in the papers?
September 14th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Open the flood gates, let the world know…. NZ is the easiest place in the world to obtain entry to!
Our immigration policies are ludicrous.
September 14th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
“What is this country coming to we bow and scrape to the Greenies who want to hug trees and terrorists and we persecute anyone that speaks out against the Govt [Falun Gong and EB’s]”
that is a very thought-provoking statement. The EFB was motivated by the EB, after all, and we would never wish to offend our soon to be paymasters, the Chinese. Just shows how fickle the system is that will spend three million dollars of our cash to defend the freedom of one who has consorted with terorists and professes Sharia Law, but reduce the freedoms of the whole electorate in NZ, because the governement took exception to the ‘extreme’ views of the EB, or disagrees with ‘buying’ influence at election-time.
September 14th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
No no no..
There is something about the mans demeanour that does not add up..
I trust my instincts..
September 14th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Adam 2314,I am quite possibly old enough to be your Grandma and my instincts have proven to be mostly correct in all my long life. I agree with you that “there is something about this man’s demeanour that does not add up”. Just watch . Time will probably tell.
September 14th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Thank you Mara.
Old age and cunning eh !!
I was born before WW11.
)
September 14th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“Adam 2314,I am quite possibly old enough to be your Grandma”
“my instincts have proven to be mostly correct”
“I was born before WW11.
)”
Ah, yea.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Show some respect to your elders,you horrible children. I know about horrible children. I have one.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Earn it.
September 14th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
“Show some respect to your elders,you horrible children. I know about horrible children. I have one.”
Ahhh,
That must be why you are a twisted old hag.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
“I also urge people to read the SIS report into their decision – it provides some very useful info.”
What happened to good old conservative scepticism. I am reminded of a discussion I had recently regarding the difference between Kingsley and Martin Amis and how despite Kingsley being a jurassic conservative I far preferred his iconoclastic scepticism to Martin’s meagre Tony Blair’s bottom kissing leftism.
Does one really expect the SIS to come out say “golly gee, we were absolutely wrong”? What they have done is taken a bunch of unconfirmed hearsay and rumour mashed together simply to cover their butts. This exercise could be done with virtually any exile from Algeria, Saudia Arabia or any of the other despotic regimes that are currently our friends.
“10. Mr Zaoui belonged to a social network in Belgium that included both the GIA
armourer and the treasurer. He admitted meeting with the person described as the “GIA
treasurer” regularly but says he stopped doing so when he realised the person had joined the
GIA. Mr Zaoui was arrested with the “GIA armourer” at the Swiss border, but says it was a
coincidence that they were travelling together in the same car. Mr Zaoui does not deny
knowing the person but he does deny being a leader or member of the network.”
“Belong to a social network”? excuse me what kind of half-a***** accusation is that?
“He admitted meeting with the person described as the “GIA
treasurer” regularly ”
Did he describe him as the GIA treasurer? No, note the use of the passive tense. The SIS feel so utterly confident about there accusation that ummmmmm….they neglected to name him.
Same goes with the GIA armourer. I mean if these people are such kingpins in a terrorist network why are they tootling across borders with such ease.
What a crock.
When conservatism loses its scepticism regarding secret societies (ie the NZSIS) they have lost the only positive feature of conservatism – a rigorous attack on state control and is instituitions.
This is selective, one sided reporting of interrogations where Zauoi has no standing to challange the basis of the claims.
“21. Mr Zaoui claims that he was not aware of any of his associates providing logistical
support to the armed movement in Algeria, including “G”. He agrees it is possible that they
did so without his knowledge.”
And frankly Zauoi is far more trustworthy than the dishonest, lying clowns of the NZSIS.
Martin Amis would be cheering them on til he was hoarse, Kingsley would be scowling in the corner.
September 14th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Charlie Tan… try telling my lovely,long legged young filly that her mother is a twisted old hag. Eh,, You clearly know nothing about having teenagers. Creep back to your crypt Charlie Tan.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:46 am
The SIS report (along with Zaoui’s religion and a bunch of other extraneous details) is a distraction from the real issue. Zaoui knew, of all the countries he would like living in, that NZ did not have the conviction to uphold its immigration law when faced with someone who was happy to raise the stakes. He abused the process. The losers will be the genuine refugees that arrive in NZ and play by the rules.
Zaoui’s tactics are those of the person who transfers all of their assets into an offshore trust before declaring bankruptcy (and who then waits out the bankruptcy period wearing a big smile while the creditors fume).
In the light of this clever, connected, smarmy guy’s success, anyone care to comment on what happened to this Sri Lankan girl last year? Sedated and sent back home: where were those immigration officers when Zaoui landed?
September 15th, 2007 at 2:14 am
“Sedated and sent back home: where were those immigration officers when Zaoui landed?”
The reason is perfectly simple. That girl could be sent back to Sri Lanka without fear of government persecution.
You can not make the same claim of the current Terrorist (albeit Western friendly) regime in Algiers.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:04 am
“The reason is perfectly simple. That girl could be sent back to Sri Lanka without fear of government persecution.”
That is a narrower definition of refugee than is required by UNHCR. Do you seriously believe the girl was less vulnerable than the grinning Zaoui?
He is certainly no Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi – unless of course you share the view that Sharia law is a worthwhile social reform.
By your standards (govt persecution) I guess Tim Selwyn could claim refugee status somewhere.
Now if only Zaoui would file a false GST return: then he would discover one of the few laws that are pursued until death in NZ.
September 15th, 2007 at 5:02 am
“That is a narrower definition of refugee than is required by UNHCR. Do you seriously believe the girl was less vulnerable than the grinning Zaoui?”
I have no real opinion on the case as I can barely remember the sketchy details. But whether the government made the wrong decision, as you hint, or the right one has absolutely no bearing on the Zaoui case.
If Zaoui, as a member of a democratically elected government, of which other members have been imprisoned and murder by the current military dictatorship, meets the classic definition of political refugee or the term has no meaning.
“He is certainly no Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi – unless of course you share the view that Sharia law is a worthwhile social reform.”
Given he has given no support to a program of bombing civilians like Mr Mandela did I expect you are correct.
The social reforms for Algeria is something for Algerians to decide and they elected the FIS. A legal and democratic system based on Islamic tradition seems to work reasonably well in Iran, while the secular and nationalist ideology of Baathism was a grotesque failure.
September 15th, 2007 at 6:14 am
Just about everyone in NZ will have associated at some stage with convicted criminals, often without knowing it, that association doesn’t make us guilty of any crime.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:09 am
and did anyone notice the smarmy grinning creep john campbell all over Zaoui like a rash at the press conference – clearly part of the supporters crew rather than any kind of “independent” journalist.
September 15th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Damn ,good cartoon in todays weekender, it says it all about the islamist silient takeover of our godsown country (OPPS wrong word ,could be offensive to the recent , local throat slitting algerian terrorist) whose been wellcome home,
September 15th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
This man swore on the quran” thats laughable, it is clearly written in this nasty book “Muslims must lie to kaffirs”.
Our family has been following this case with great interest, we are appalled
at the decision to let this shifty eyed muslim and his family enjoy the freedoms of this country which my father and many of his companions fought and died for, seem our leaders have forgotten about this, as we step closer to barbaric sharia law.
Criminals, welcome to NZ!, a tip flush your passport and papers on the aircraft to ensure your entry to NZ.