But I find it strange that David Farrar accuses the Greens of prejudging the evidence, which we haven’t actually, at the same time as he accepts as gospel Helen Clark’s “evidence” which hasn’t even surfaced in court yet : that the accused “at the very least illicitly used firearms, constructed Molotov cocktails and trained themselves how to use napalm.” More to the point what does ….. think of a PM providing some version of “evidence” gained in private briefings and thus prejudicing her Solicitor General and Attorney General’s consideration of whether to lay charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act?

By the way, the Greens have never demanded bail for all the accused. We too wait for the evidence. I can understand why David thinks otherwise because an item on the TV3 website on October 20 wrongly summarised my comments to Radio Live in Aotea Square that day. Others protesting that day did call for bail for all the accused, but I didn’t. A sub-editor may have mistakenly connected my views with those of other people protesting at the same venue.

It is also a relevant debate as to whether the Police should go down the track of trying to prosecute on terrorist charges (where offenders get an extra penalty for their political motives), when any wrongdoing would better be prosecuted under the Crimes Act. See my Second Reading speech on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill – http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech11334.html.

[DPF: Thanks for the clarification and post Keith. I think Clark was silly to start laying out details, but I also think the non stop protests are undermining the legal process ahead. I have my own doubts about the necessity of all the actions taken, but am suspending judgement until I'm better informed]

The issue is balance.

One can be for personal freedoms/choice and also for a progressive public health policy.

One can be for protecting the weak minor and also be for protecting the civil liberties and human rights of political protesters.

Especially if you want to whip up a reactionary fever hey David. Look no one has been charged under the TSA, it has merely been mentioned as a possibility – so why are you branding the “Urewera 17″ as alleged terrorists?

“hey attack the Police and the Government at every turn on the arrests, without even waiting to hear any evidence.”

What BS David. The greens have rightly criticised the illegal activity of the police when pulling innocent people out of their cars and subjecting them to the indignity of being treated like a criminal. They have also rightly questioned the need for the police to use the “terrorism suppression act” in this instance. i.e. If anyone was plotting a murder they could be charged with “criminal conspiracy” – which carries a hefty sentence itself. Do you have a problem with these valid objections? If so why?

“Inventory2 ”

“how do you reconcile her unwavering support for the police to correctly investigate smacking allegations”

Investigating a possible offense is one thing – pointing a gun a someone’s head, arresting them and holding them without bail is quite another.

phil(whoar.co.nz)

they are all up..and barking..

(as expected..eh..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Yes. To own land in nz you should live here. If that means your business has to lease land because you dont live here then so be it.

It goes right to the heart of the strength of a community. Absentee landlords and tenant communities make for weak communities. This is not unusual – many countries do not allow non-inhabitants to own land.

This does not affect any other investment flows etc – it is solely to do with land and property ownership. There is no benefit in allowing the 1 billion people in north america and europe (for exmple) to own land here.

You seem to disagree – i would be interest as to why

I may be talking myself out of benefit here as I am a residential property developer and have been for near 20 years. As such I have some understanding of land ownership and communities etc

I don’t think anyone is saying that those arrested shouldn’t have charged. The contention is that people are bandying about the “T” word, when in fact no one has been charged under the Terrorism Suppression Act. David is as guilty of this as any sensationalist media outlet.

In fact the crown is now admitting that there is no case under the Act where 5 of the 17 activists are concerned. Now it’s merely “thinking” about charging the others under the Act. Expect to see more embarrassment for the police in the coming weeks.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4255980a10.html

[DPF: The fact the search warrants used the Act is news worthy. I am not surprised not all 17 are being charged under that Act - I predicted as much some time ago]

Disingenious? roger nome, if anyone is being disingenious, it is your own good self! You know full well that the Solicitor General has been asked to approve charges under the TSA, and you omit the money quote from Dear Leader where she convicts those who have been arrested – may I remind you?

“The activists rounded up in police anti-terror raids had been training to use napalm, Prime Minister Helen Clark confirmed yesterday.

Her comment was the first official admission of previously unconfirmed reports about napalm being used at activists’ training camps in the Ureweras.

Clark’s comment yesterday – that those arrested “at the very least” had been training with firearms and napalm – was also unusual, in that she was discussing cases currently before the courts.”

Also this:

“She dismissed allegations by the Maori Party that the Government was conspiring with police to target Maori sovereignty activists, saying such a move would be illegal.

But she said she had been briefed by police and it was plain those arrested had been training with napalm – something police have not officially confirmed.

Clark lashed out at the Maori Party for calling for senior minister Trevor Mallard to be prosecuted after he punched an opposition MP last week while defending those arrested in the raids.

“I find it absolutely extraordinary that the Maori Party on the one hand is demanding police prosecute Trevor Mallard for assault and on the other is claiming people, who at the very least have illicitly used firearms, constructed molotov cocktails and trained themselves in how to use napalm, should not be charged,” Clark said.”

Wow! First I had heard about this. Can you point me to your source please?

It would also seem the mother in question did very little different to what David Cunliffe allegedly did to his child at a shopping mall. Where was Bradford then?

“But what do the Greens say when it doesn’t involve the serious crime of smacking a backside, but minor stuff like alleged firearm and terrorism offences or to quote Helen Clark:”

As far as I know there hasn’t been any charges laid under the terrorism suppression Act – stop being disingenuous david

Very hard to find fault with what you are saying Scott – excellent contribution.

They can however be expected to have a soft spot for Maori radicals — overthrowing the existing order is part of the DNA of the socialist movement.

But why should they support the police against parents who smack their children? Unhappily the socialists are always suspicious of the family — because the family and especially parents are not directly under the control of the state. Hence they represent a threat, in the socialists eyes anyway, because they have power not directly controlled by the state.

I would like to see a government — and hopefully National will take note of this — that vigorously pursues those buying military style weapons and explosives, including napalm, and threatens to kill white people.

On the other hand I would like to see a government that changes the law so that parents can physically discipline their children, as they have been doing from time immemorial.

I think we need a change of government. And without the Greens. Perhaps the Exclusive Brethren were right after all?

Other than that they are the classic (sometime) intelligent but brainless left example.

The Greens are nothing more than communists in sheeps clothing.