Further thoughts on Police informant story
December 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm by David FarrarWe now know that at least one activist has been working for the Police, and also that several activists worked for private investigators.
I wonder if it is possible that some of the smaller activist groups are 100% made up of informers? 
Trevor Loudon has blogged the reaction on Indymedia to the revelations.
Also Bryce Edwards has blogged an e-mail from three years ago raising concerns about Gilchrist.
The Dom Post reports what John Key said on Breakfast:
Mr Key today said police investigations were an operational matter and the Government could not direct who it investigated.
But the spying allegations raised some concerns, he said.
“I think the main point here is we would need to be satisfied as any New Zealander would that those being investigated were worthy of investigation, in other words, they present a real or credible risk to the safety and security of communities, not just a group the police target because they feel like it,” he said on TVNZ’s Breakfast programme.
He said he would be concerned if frivolous investigations led to a loss of public loss of confidence in the police’s judgment.
“I wouldn’t like an individual group like Greenpeace to be targeted,” he said on Newstalk ZB.
However, he would be more comfortable if it was individuals who were being investigated rather than organisations.
But he said police based their actions on a wide range of information and even environmental groups could “undertake quite violent behaviour”.
And Judith Collins is sounding more concerned than initial reports suggested:
Mrs Collins said she wanted to know the facts before deciding whether an inquiry was needed, but would be concerned if innocent people were being watched.
She has asked Mr Broad for a report at their weekly meeting today. “I would be very concerned if law-abiding groups and activities were being spied on.”
It will be most interesting to see if anything eventuates. Ministers need to be very careful about second guessing the Police, but there certainly seem to be some questions that need answering.
Related posts:
- The SST Police spying story
- The Gilchrist saga gets yucky
- Rochelle hits back
- The Gilchrist case gets murkier
December 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
My God, do you think Clark and Cullen had a police infiltrator in the Kerepehi Women’s Institute?
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
God I laughed when I read that indymedia comments section. The comrades are fuming.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
We need good information on the Tuhoi country camps alleged to be giving insurgency training in arms before we make judgment on alleged police spying on protest groups.
Some of the groups mentioned are among those alleged to have had members at these camps.
Any way, to hell with the Happy Valley varmints who have added to the millions they are costing taxpayers by delaying Solid Energy when all it wanted to do was export coal at the top of the commodities market.
And how can the little prick who knifed Don Brash’s reputation sanctimoniously go on about spying? What did he do, but pry into personal information?
And are animal activists peaceful protesters? Overseas they have blown up labs and murdered scientists. As a society that lives by exports based on animals, it would be criminal neglect for us not to keep tabs on these activists
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I actually met a group of the Tuhoe “terrorists”. I was hiking in Waikaremoana Park, and met some elders resting on a bench on the track, all out of puff. They had sent their young people on ahead, where they were going to help DoC lay traps for pests on some of the small islands, to help protect the native plants and animals.
And yes, they confirmed that they taught them traditional Maori “martial arts”, mostly as a way to tire the kids out so they would stop and listen.
The net result? The parents were shocked and surprised that, after the programme was done, and even in the midst of the programme, the young people started helping around the house and even (shock, horror!!) helping with the dishes!!
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Are Republicans a peaceful group? Overseas they’ve blown up buildings and murdered policemen. As a society that lives by having a monarch as the head of state, it would be criminal neglect not to keep tabs on these activists.
ant-abortion etc
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Therefore… all animal activists blow up labs and murder scientists?
I’m not sure I’d call it criminal neglect. They believe that many forms of our current treatment of animals are immoral. Yes, if their morality became widespread and implemented via law, our animal-export industry would take a hit, just as the US cotton industry took a hit when anti-slavery morality became widespread and was implemented via law. There is more to the consideration of actions than their economic impact.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
That would be high farce, and incredibly funny.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“God I laughed when I read that indymedia comments section. The comrades are fuming.”
yeah, for a bunch of hippies with ‘nothing to hide’ they sure are pissed !
lol lol lol
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Sigh As overseas experiences have shown the more nasty and radical groups will infiltrate a realitively minor and largely peaceful group to try and wind them up like a top and get them to agree to radical actions in the heat of the moment.
Tats why dimbulbs police and secruity forces keep a close eye on these groups.So they see if a nasty in getting involved and stirring them up
Poor ole Nicky is just stirring the pot as well as getting all the foil hat and black helicopter brigade afrothing.
As the one formerly known as Dear Leader used to say Nothing to see here Move on
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Poor ole Nicky is just stirring the pot as well as getting all the foil hat and black helicopter brigade afrothing.
Vote:Nicky’s winding up Trevor Loudon? Wonders never cease
December 15th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“foil hat … brigade”
LOL
love it!
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Judging by the majority of comments on the Indymedia blog and elsewhere, those (who profess to be) involved with the anarchistic left and with whom Gilchrist apparently associated are far from being peaceful and harmless. Only one that I noted was willing to sit in the corner humming happy thoughts whereas the frothing others were wishing all sorts of harm on their former mate. One wonders what they are so pissed about.
My pick would be that the Police unit had a watching brief only and as long as there wasn’t anything violent or illegal being proposed they would have kept all the reports in the “no action required” file.
I for one would be pissed off if the police weren’t at least keeping a soft eye on these groups. It sounds like at $600/week they were getting a bargain if they didn’t have to do any active policing around a whole bunch of whackos.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
David in Chch writes: “and yes, they confirmed that they taught them traditional Maori “martial arts”, mostly as a way to tire the kids out so they would stop and listen.”
And David, I suppose the (alleged) Molotov cocktails and firearms were there to tire the kids, too? And even after the raids, the Tuhoi proudly showed to a TV crew a youngster well below licence age firing a shotgun (badly). I suppose this was for safety???
Ryan Sproull, with his comment above “therefore… all animal activists blow up labs and murder scientists?” extends my argument then pounces on the extension. Ryan is false alleging my argument was of the pattern A and B; A therefore B.
In fact it was of the pattern A and B, if A then the police should be on guard in case there should be B.
That is if some A (animal activists) have B (murdered scientists and blown up labs), then it is prudent, rational, and quite democratic to keep a watch on A (animal activists).
Ryan, I seem to recall you have stated in the comments of this blog that you are a philosophy graduate. I suspect then you are displaying here sophistry rather than, well, ignorance.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Oh, just making the point with a bit of hyperbole. For your argument to work, you have to demonstrate that it was something specifically about being an animal activist that has a causal link to their violence. As someone else pointed out, pro-republican movements have produced violence – does that mean the police should be spying on the republican movement in New Zealand? Anti-abortion movements have given rise to murders of doctors – should the anti-abortion movement in New Zealand spied on also?
I’d call my response rhetoric rather than sophistry, but there’s a fair amount of post hoc ergo propter hoc in yours.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Wasn’t the SIG established to watch out for terrorism, not protests? It’s a pretty tough argument to say that Greenpeace are terrorists. By many accounts Gilchrist was actually one of the most extreme activists, egging everyone on. Perhaps he wanted a pay rise?
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
That all depends on your definition of terrorism.
Besides, you don’t think parking wardens would start stretching definitions if everyone in New Zealand fed their parking meters on time? Gotta justify your job somehow.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Anyone watch Broad interviewed tonight. Did not look at all comfortable. If someone knows how it would be worth posting his interview and just watch his eyes, if you can see them through the lids. Bad Bad body language.
Vote:Somethin is’a cookin’.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I’m not sure if the animal rights movement per se is the threat. The real problem comes with the antivivisectionists who have engaged in violence overseas and could conceivably do so here and the two movements overlap. I would have no problem, if they weren’t already stretched, with the antiabortion movement being spied on. The ones that I’ve met – Ken Orr and his nutty group – are only interested in legal methods and not a threat but there has been at least one conviction here in Chch (some religious nutter trying to tunnel into a clinic iirc). Certainly if the some of the extremists from overseas ,who publicly advocating bombing clinics, toured then I would expect official concern.
And lets not forget the anti-GE movement have already engaged in illegal acts. Back in the late 90s Rod Donald, Nandor Tanczos and other members of the party trashed facilities at Crop & Food Research with the Green Party later denying that this action has any official sanction from their party (even though their own co-leader was involved). Many people in the anti-GE movement are seriously upset at the fact ERMA keeps giving approvals to GE field trials. Some of them are probably angry enough to act again if they knew the location of the fields. Before the election Jon Carapiet publicly implied that there might be more acts of vandalism (and he subsequently disppeared from the Green Party’s Party List).
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Jarbury it would be a stretch to label Greenpeace as a terrorist organisation, I concur. The sad fact is that their best recruits are young and impressionable. I know I use to be a member. Sadly what Greenpeace fail to realise is that people grow up to be old fart farmers that know they talk a load of hog wash.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Ryan:
Your suggestion of the logical error “after this therefore because of this” is still extending the argument. If the police monitor animal activists because some activists have proved to be extremely violent the argument is: “after this because of this, and we therefore we need to take precautions.”
If courts establish there was illegal guerrilla type training in the North Island and if they were to establish that some Happy Valley protesters had undergone the training, then police surveillance would surely be justified. But can they afford to wait until a court case grinds out.
Ryan, if you were in charge of London in 1939 you wouldn’t start building bomb shelters and strengthening the fire brigade and ambulance services until bombs began to fall. Just because the Nazis bombed Warsaw, Rotterdam etc would be too much of a “after this therefore because of this” fallacy for you.
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Jarbury notes : “By many accounts Gilchrist was actually one of the most extreme activists, egging everyone on”
It’s an interesting observation that Jars makes.
Did the SIG have Gilchrists nuts in a vice
OR
Are the hippies just moaning because they have been reamed.
I still question what the mustache brigade are doing infiltrating some stupid hippies.
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 8:42 am
# jarbury (8) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 3 Says:
December 15th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Wasn’t the SIG established to watch out for terrorism, not protests? It’s a pretty tough argument to say that Greenpeace are terrorists. By many accounts Gilchrist was actually one of the most extreme activists, egging everyone on. Perhaps he wanted a pay rise?
Does piracy come under the banner of terrorism … such as stealing oil tankers?
Attempting to high-jack whaleing vessels is an act of piracy/terrorism.
A tough argument to say that Greenpeace are terrorists? No.
Should they be watched?
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 9:23 am
This is absurd.
There is no terrorism in New Zealand. We do not have any history of activist terrorism, in fact, our history shows activists are the victims of extreme violence (police violence of the Anti-Tour campaign) and state-sponsored terrorism (Rainbow Warrior, Maungapohatu…). Any arguments that Greenpeace, SHVC or other campaign groups in NZ should be the subject of constant surveillance and infiltration, are based on people who do not have a clue of how these organisations operate or who is involved. It’s all very easy to say ‘those people’, when you have never met or engaged meaningfully with any of them.
But, if you were intent on fostering a terrorist culture in NZ, this would be the best way to go about it: send police-paid infiltrators into legitimate protest groups, to work undercover on gathering personal information on members (who hooks up with who, who fights with who, factions within networks..), then encourage the infiltrator to be an active member in a radical action group (the one who always yells at police officers at protests, and tries to get people to organise more radical and risky actions), then ask the infitrator to report back on all plans of a group (for example, campaigners involved in climate change issues in Auckland), whether they are perfectly legal or otherwise. Then, when it becomes public knowledge about the betrayal, the police would have succeeded in alientating the vast majority of innocent, upstanding people in the groups and also proven to the tiny percentage of activists who were already paranoid about the police, the state, and the police state that they have every reason to be looking over their shoulder.
It is a democratic right, if not a duty, to be allowed to protest and organise campaigns. Shame on the police, and shame on those who try to argue this away.
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Jack5, illegal guerrilla type training, you better have a word with the army because they are putting a hell of a lot of horis through what you would consider to be illegal training.
Vote:The Tuhoe incident was a joke, if it was serious think the cops in their natty black overalls would be involved ?
Nope, in the Solomons when it got hairy they called the army in.
Jeez, Tame as Mao, LOL
December 16th, 2008 at 10:01 am
These are democratic rights that have not been infringed upon. Public protests and publicly organised campaigns are easily observed because they are public, the police do not need informers to find out about a mail out campaign to 100,000 people.
Informers are used to find out about non-publicised activities like vandalism, sabotage or a bunch of hairy hippies growing dope.
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 10:02 am
goh,
spose its ok for a bunch of white supremacists to play guns on the basis they too are stupid fucktards?
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 10:03 am
unaha – surely these protest groups werent drug growers and suppliers?
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
expat – they might know a few growers.
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Jack,
I think there is a stronger argument for causation in that case than in yours.
The question was rhetorical the first time, but I’ll ask properly now:
Do you think the police should be spying on Christian anti-abortion groups, due to the fact that Christian anti-abortion groups overseas in the past have been guilty of murder?
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Yeeaaah…assumption seems to be that since the Nazis were one organised group (representing a whole nation-state at the time), so the activities of animal rights activists in Louisiana are directly representative of activists in NZ = they’re the same group , right?
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Ryan Sproull addresses me: “The question was rhetorical the first time, but I’ll ask properly now:Do you think the police should be spying on Christian anti-abortion groups, due to the fact that Christian anti-abortion groups overseas in the past have been guilty of murder?”
Your Honour, this is my response and I swear upon my Kiwiblog archive it’s the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth:
If members of Christian anti-abortion groups are among those suspected to have attended the alleged insurgency training camps in Tuhoi country, yes. If Christian anti-abortion groups start monkeying around with molotov cocktails and explosives, yes. If Christian anti-abortion groups chain themselves to rail lines and sabotage the national economy by trying to block exports, yes.
Ryan, can you justifiably single out Christian anti-abortion groups? There are probably other groups opposed to abortion, perhaps Muslim ones or some types of Buddhists. I haven’t heard of violent pro-abortion groups, but then some people would argue what they support, induced abortion, is violent anyway. So perhaps we should apply the same rules to them.
Vote: