The Gilchrist case gets murkier
The Greens are understandably upset that Rob Gilchrist also spied on them for the Police. Not to be fair to the Police, I very much doubt they asked him to do so. He probably just sends them any stuff he thinks is useful. But there are real issues of judgement for the Police involved. They should have made very clear that he should only report on activities where people planned to break the law, not all sorts of protest action. If they are paying him $600 a week, they do have some responsibility for his actions.
If a group of protesters are planning to break the law by breaking into private property, and digging up GE potatoes (something that elements of the Greens have done in the past), then the Police are acting properly in monitoring this and trying to prevent this.
But if a group are just planning to hold a public protest against say the Police having tazers, then the Police have no legitimate role in collecting information about that protest.
This issue is posing some dilemmas for the Government, even though it all actually happened under the previous Government.
On the one hand the new Minister of Police doesn’t want to start the job, by undermining the Commissioner. They need to have a healthy working relationship. And also generally Police Ministers should stay as far away as possible from operational issues. Of course this rule is not absolute as we saw with the Commission of Inquiry into police conduct in the 80s.
But the element of possibly spying on a political party makes it a problem for the Government, especially as Rochelles Rees has scores of e-mails, documents and phone calls between Gilchrist and the Police. I imagine these documents will be revealed to the public a bit at a time over the next few months. And that means every few days the Government will be asked what is it doing about the issue. And the Greens will try and portray National as endorsing or being unconcerned about Police spying on protesters and even other political parties. The irony is of course it happened under Labour, and National has been victim of spying, leaked e-mails and secret taping more than any other political party. But perception is more important than reality, sometimes.
So is there a solution for the Government? Well, yes, a simple one occurs to me. Why not refer the issue to the Police Complaints Authority. This wipes the issue off the front page, and will ensure that some independent scrutiny is given to the issue. This is ideal for the PCA and is much better than having a formal external inquiry by a QC.
And here’s the clincher for me. I am 99% sure that after two months of released emails, documents and phone calls, Mr Hager or Ms Rees (or someone from the activist community) will themselves complain to the PCA. So why let it drag out in the media for weeks, and months. Just refer it to the PCA now.
Interestingly Garth George is also supportive of the Greens criticism.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:33 am
What was behind the timing of this information being released? Did they know Gilchrist was spying back when Labour were in power?
[DPF: I have asked Rochelle this. She says she found out a few weeks before the election, but didn't collect al the proof such as proof of payments until a couple of weeks ago. Rochelle said she would have preferred to reveal it when Labour was Govt, as they would have been less able to refuse to take action]
December 18th, 2008 at 11:46 am
John Key should make it clear that the police are supposed to investigate and prevent crimes, not political dissent. He should explain that Phil Goff and Helen Clark created a police unit who appear to have spent at least some of their time spying on legal protests and this is not acceptable in a National-led NZ. The unit should be disbanded. And, if the police commissioner doesn’t like it then he can resign. Actually, he should resign anyway since he was responsible for overstepping the proper duties of the NZ Police and for paying incompetent informants.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
To be fair to the police, they are not really in a position to respond fully to the allegations for obvious reasons, so we are only hearing one side of the story. It may well be that there are some individuals with extreme views and outrageous, destabilising plans, even in an apparently benign organisation like the Greens. So, we should not jump to conclusions. The police may have very good reasons for what they are doing.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Excellent post DPF – my only quibble is your assertion that “the Greens will try and portray National as endorsing or being unconcerned about Police spying on protesters and even other political parties”. I’d love to be proven wrong, but unless National act quickly to crack down on this sort of thing then it *does* demonstrate a lack of concern, or at the very least a distasteful predilection for realpolitik. And given National’s reluctance to pursue the last two Solid Energy scandals, the chances of that happening are looking pretty slim…
December 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
The Greens are to the “Te Aro Te Quaeda”, what Sinn Fein are to the I.R.A. It would be next to impossible to investigate the one without bumping up against the other somewhere along the line.
Half the Green MP’s themselves, have had past connections to the kind of dodgy international revolutionary fronts that entitle our security agencies and police to take an interest in them.
So the Greens are upset? Well, they would be, wouldn’t they?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Any equiry into activities of informants, could put those people in danger. Doubtless some do a very useful job, & need to be left alone to quietly do it. A resigning police commissioner would kill two birds with one stone, I’m assuming he would be aware of information being held outside of the police.
How unusual that none of this was public when Labour were in power. Hard to understand why the Greens are joined at the hip to Labour. In the absence of effective leadership, the Greens are doomed next election.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
The Press has a common sense editorial on the issue that rightly defends the police and their tactics and points out that many of the groups being watched, including Greenpeace, are invlolved in illegal activities.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4793828a14337.html
“John Key should make it clear that the police are supposed to investigate and prevent crimes, not political dissent.”
If the “political dissent” is being carried out in illegal ways that involve attacks on other peoples freedoms and property then the police are right to be pro-active on that.
Many of these so-called “peaceful” groups, especially animal rights groups, anti-GE groups, and others have been involved in attacks on other’s rights and property, and they have been doing so for years. I for one am sick and tired of these groups acting as though they are above the law then whining when they are held to account.
What John Key SHOULD do is make it clear that the police acted rightly and that such illegal activities on the part of lefty and greeny groups are NOT legitimate political dissent, but criminal acts by arrogant activists who consider themselves above the law.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
There is only one reason why I have not made a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority – and that is based on advice I have received that the PCA, like the government, cannot pass judgement or interfere on police operational matters.
Unfortunately it doesn’t look as though the police in this case were doing anything illegal – though of course all of it was totally unethical. That is why I want the government to do something – ie, set up a royal commission of inquiry that has the ability to make recommendations to the government on legislative changes that could be made to protect our civil liberties, and potentially disband the SIG, unless their activities can be diverted to real national security threats.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
What John Key SHOULD do is make it clear that the police acted rightly and that such illegal activities on the part of lefty and greeny groups are NOT legitimate political dissent, but criminal acts by arrogant activists who consider themselves above the law.
Well, I would agree with you, but only if you were right. Where is the evidence that any of these groups were undertaking criminal activities? Where are the charges? Convictions? There don’t seem to be any.
This is simply a creeping increase in the surveillance society. But don’t worry, these activities are giving the police the practice they need to arrest you an me when it becomes an offence to voice an opinion that is at odds with religious dogma.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
rochellerees – Could the $10m that a Royal Commission costs please come out of your taxes and not mine.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“and potentially disband the SIG, unless their activities can be diverted to real national security threats”
How do we know that you and your fellow ‘protesters’ are not real national security threats?
Do you mix with any of the Urewera 17?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Brian – every New Zealander benefits if police monitoring of innocent civilians is curtailed. I would have thought Kiwibloggers as good little libertarians would be right behind this. Why are you such a user-pays fanatic?
Clearly you are the classic He-who-dies-with-the-most-toys-wins type of extreme libertarian, completely ungrateful for the beautiful old country and society that has been provided for your comfort, and bitter about all those poor people and lefties and bludgers who (in your mind) are standingin the way of your unfettered wealth accumulation that you so richly “deserve”???
December 18th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I’m sitting here with a grin as I happily contemplate Labour siccing it’s tame Commissioner on to it’s Coalition partner and it’s good friends in the various action groups. And I wonder who were the spies on National and ACT? Life in NZ certainly does imitate the spy novels.
Yes, it would be a good idea to refer this to the PC. That would be a day of bliss when it reports that there are indeed some dangerous nutters in and around the Green Party. FFP, STV, here we come!
JC
December 18th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
JK must establish beyond any doubt that this all occurred under the Clark/Cullen et al administration. The Inquiry must call Big Howie and put the blow torch down his Y fronts to find out who told him to do this
Make no mistake Howie would have been acting on orders from the 9th floor
I suspect H1 told H2 to tell Howie to set up the squad and who to investigate.
I suspect Clark has used the Police SIS et al as her own private intel for the past 9 years.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Most of these groups amount to badly washed unemployed malcontents shouting mindless slogans at various street corners and other sites. There is no intelligence to it – violence and illegal activites is the natural progression and the only option their minds can construct. Then their political arm, The Greens, state an equally mindless logic free argument in parliament.
Don’t kid yourself that these “protesters” are exercising free speech or enjoying their civil liberties. They’re just waiting for an excuse to become destructive. NZ should not be tolerating this kind of organisation in any form. The Police have figured it out, and I’d say a reasonable portion of them are socially liberal, so what is so hard for the rest of you? Stop divorcing the reality of these organisations from the abstract idea of freedom for everyone and you’ll get a truer picture – though they’ll be less to waffle about.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
# PhilBest (3830) 4 2 Says:
December 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
“The Greens are to the “Te Aro Te Quaeda”, what Sinn Fein are to the I.R.A. It would be next to impossible to investigate the one without bumping up against the other somewhere along the line.
Half the Green MP’s themselves, have had past connections to the kind of dodgy international revolutionary fronts that entitle our security agencies and police to take an interest in them.
So the Greens are upset? Well, they would be, wouldn’t they?”……..
I’ve been trying to find online, the in-depth article by Trevor Loudon in the “Investigate” Magazine back in October I think, on this very subject. It doesn’t seem to be available online, which is a pity.
Can others who have also read it, please comment?
Here is a blog post from Trevor back in August. He did indeed post several profiles between then and the election, but it was the “Investigate” Magazine article that put it all in one place.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Green Party File 1 Exposing The Watermelons
The New Zealand Green Party is a fraud.
“Most grass roots Greens are decent people concerned primarily about environmental and social issues. However, the Green leadership is heavily dominated to extremists from the Maoist, Trotskyist and anarchist traditions.
To these people, the Green Party is merely a vehicle for agendas so extreme they must be camouflaged from the voting public..
The Greens are a “watermelon party”-green on the outside, deepest, darkest red in the middle.
Up until the election, I will be profiling leading Greens and examining the party’s connections in a series of linked posts.
These will be released in no particular order. Each will be a stand alone look at some aspect of Green Party radicalism.
Some will be old information-for background, but much will be new.
I hope to expose the Green Party for the extremists that they are. I also hope that readers will circulate my material widely, to alert as many people as possible to the true red nature of the Greens…….”
December 18th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Rochelle – do you, as a Labour Party activist, find it ironic that this police activity has occurred when the country was being governed by a Labour-led government? I certainly do! If this had taken place when National was leading the country, there would have been a huge hue and cry. I still find it a little surreal that the Police, under a left-leaning or left-sympathetic administration, were collecting intelligence on supposedly left-friendly organisations.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
DPF
Did you really believe this low life socialist Shelia when she told you ” she would have preferred to reveal it when Labour was Govt”?
Remember this Shelia thinks nothing of telling lies to further her fucked up view of the world, I would bet that she had all the time and opportunity in the world to release this before the election.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
A question – would anybody object to police monitoring the activities of known taggers?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
billyborker,
“Where is the evidence that any of these groups were undertaking criminal activities?”
This is from the article:
“Last year, Save Happy Valley Coalition protesters halted a coal train by cementing themselves to the rail tracks near Christchurch, and Greenpeace supporters illegally attempted to block a coal-carrying vessel leaving Lyttelton in March this year.
Other protests have involved sabotaging experimental plots of genetically-modified vegetables, and there have also been instances of animal-rights activists taking direct action against the battery hen industry by breaking into farms and removing chickens.”
And I know of one incident in Christchurch a few years ago in which animal rights activists physically stormed there way up a flight of stairs to invade a meeting of medical research specialists and in doing so seriously harmed a women who fell.
Just because there are no convictions does not mean such things do not happen. For far too long such “activists” have been given way too much leeway by liberal judges.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Could it be that some of the protestors don’t actually like Labour, and that the Police don’t first check where people fit on the ideological spectrum before they investigate them?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“If this had taken place when National was leading the country, there would have been a huge hue and cry.”
“I still find it a little surreal that the Police, under a left-leaning or left-sympathetic administration, were collecting intelligence on supposedly left-friendly organisations.”
My god, some of you are paranoid!
Yes, the evil socialist conspiracy for world domination is everywhere, they’re even controlling the Police for political purposes now! Hell, it’s getting JUST LIKE ZIMBABWE IN HERE! (Collect 20 rightie style points for a simile involving Zimbabwe or any other current dictatorship.)
December 18th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Stephen – don’t be silly. it’s OBVIOUS that the NZ Police were directly controlled by their “Liarbore” masters, who used them to silence political opposition or dissent wherever they found it. And then they suppressed the evidence, which is why it’s only ever spoken about by a few illuminati on blogs like this. But the truth is out there!
December 18th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Rochelle – do you, as a Labour Party activist, find it ironic that this police activity has occurred when the country was being governed by a Labour-led government? I certainly do! If this had taken place when National was leading the country, there would have been a huge hue and cry.
I find this whole thing disgusting regardless of who the government of the time is – and yes the Labour Party is largely responsible for this mess in that they set up the SIG. However at the same time I accept Phil Goff’s assertions that they were not aware of what that policing unit was used for. I would prefer we were under a labour government right now – as it would be easier to force action on the issue as labour would either have to back the police, or do something about it. Unfortunately National is not in the same position – they are able to somewhat remove themselves from the situation as they were not responsible for what happened. Personally, I cannot see what the National Government has got to lose by acting on this and digging deeper – they are not responsible for the situation, but they are responsible for what happens from here.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Isn’t it the IPCA now? That “I” makes all the difference, eh. I think you’re wrong, DPF. If any official investigation into this mess is to be done, it should be the Office of the Ombudsmen. The IPCA is not “I” enough.
Rochelle, good on you for going through what you’re going through. It’s not easy but it’s the right thing to do. However, I think you give the Labour government too many scruples in saying that “it would be easier to force action on the issue as labour would either have to back the police, or do something about it.” The “do something about it” bit would have included a scenario where your silence and/or co-operation would have been bought. You wouldn’t be the first. We live in the age of public choice theory, after all.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
The “do something about it” bit would have included a scenario where your silence and/or co-operation would have been bought. You wouldn’t be the first. We live in the age of public choice theory, after all.
I can see why you might think so – but I would have to be very convinced that this sort of thing would be stopped from ever happening again before my silence could be bought. I may have had previous involvement in the labour party – but my number one issue will always be animal rights, and issues like this that prevent legitimate campaigning and protest activity are far more important to me than whether labour cops some flack on this.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
The fathers rights movement peacefully protests outside pollies, judges and lawyers homes and the SIS can go jump in the lake. Look to the sky JUSTICE IS COMING. Give that megaphone a blast Batman. At one protest we had more SIS agents than protesters. I got photos to prove it. Labour are criminals who use police as puppets.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Lee>This is from the article: “Last year, Save Happy Valley Coalition protesters halted a coal train… etc etc
You list a few very minor crimes. Like a woman falling. Hardly the sort of things that would warrant setting up a special police unit or paying informers. If you’re going to dedicate resources to the sort of problems you list, then why not employ paid informers to spy on people engaged in other forms of minor crime? Like any crime that results in consequences more serious than delaying a train, causing a woman to fall, or destroying some crops.
IMHO, the Key Government needs to decide whether it is a liberal right wing government or an authoritarian right wing government. I hope it chooses the first option, as the second should have been left well behind when Muldoon lost the 1984 election. A good way to signal his choice would be to wind up the unit, explain that National doesn’t accept the methods of this Goff-created secret police unit, of secret bugging of political conferences, or of Hagar-like steeling of e-mails, and that politically motivated crime can be investigated like every other crime… by normal police work.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Police have had paid informants for decades and Rob Gilchrist was just one of the many who helped the Police over the years in fighting crimes. So to moaners and attention seekers out there who jumped on the Rob Gilchrist spy allegation story to get their face on our evening news on TV, please move on and concentrate on something more important/useful to discuss.
The Police might as well have an inquiry to their paid informants who are currently informing on gang activities. Hang on, do we call these police gang informants spies? No. Rob Gilchrist was an informant and no spies, which is something that all law enforcement agencies around the world do.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
From the opening post:
“They should have made very clear that he should only report on activities where people planned to break the law, not all sorts of protest action. If they are paying him $600 a week, they do have some responsibility for his actions.”
I feel this is rather naive. Firstly some turncoat hemp enthusiast may not be able to judge what constitues a violation of the law, nor are the police likely to send him to uni to get a law degree, and then thoroughly brief him on the state of their investigation; thus I submit he wont be able properly discriminate between useful information on crimes and irrelevant information. Secondly much of the secondary information (ie not directly relating to a breach of the law) can be of enormous importance to an investigation. Who a suspect associates with, and their activities (even legitimate ones) might serve to provide an alabi and thus eliminate them from the enquiry, provide additional suspects, give a clue as to their future illegal agenda. Even something seemingly irrelevant can, when combined with other information the police have already gathered, serve to close a case.
The point I am trying to make here is the police are entirely justified in demanding information on everything that an informant has to offer. Indeed they would not be doing their job if they didn’t. If green party members associate with a suspect, then it should be entirely legitimate to invesigate them.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
“You list a few very minor crimes.”
Ohhhh well. They are only MINOR attacks on people and their property. That makes it perfectly ok then doesn’t it. You won’t mind then if I slap your face and steal your wallet, just in minor way of course.
And she did not just fall, she was pushed out of the way by the protesters and fell down stairs, resulting in broken bones. I guess thats just a MINOR thing to you though.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Lee>Ohhhh well. They are only MINOR attacks on people and their property. That makes it perfectly ok then doesn’t it. You won’t mind then if I slap your face and steal your wallet, just in minor way of course.
It doesn’t make it okay. But I’d hardly expect the police to task their national security crimes unit to deal with slapping and wallet stealing crimes. With a multi-million dollar budget, no doubt, and paid informants following you around.
I see similarities between the NZ situation and the councils in the UK who have used their anti-terror surveillance powers to monitor people putting their rubbish bins out on the wrong day…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082225/March-dustbin-Stasi-Half-councils-use-anti-terror-laws-watch-people-putting-rubbish-wrong-day.html
But I’m presuming you’ll be in favour of spying to prevent minor rubbish disposal crimes.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“But I’m presuming you’ll be in favour of spying to prevent minor rubbish disposal crimes.”
No, because the crimes I pointed out were not “minor” in the first place. Attacks on people and property are never minor. The police SHOULD monitor political groups involved in serious crimes, and unlike you I consider attacks on people and property serious. Putting attacks on people and property on the same level as rubbish disposal is frankly laughable. Do you seriously think that assaulting a women by knocking her down a flight of stairs that results in her having several broken bones nothing more serious than putting a rubbish bag out on the wrong day?
Get real. These groups do not have any rights to attack people and destroy property, and because they are political groups with a history of placing themselves about the law they should be carefully monitored.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Lee>Get real. These groups do not have any rights to attack people and destroy property, and because they are political groups with a history of placing themselves about the law they should be carefully monitored.
If the national security police are going to monitor every group of people who have ever assaulted someone or stolen or damaged property, or been associated with a person who has assaulted someone or stolen or damaged property, then we’re going to need a LOT more national security police.
We could start by reclassifying just about all normal police as national security police. Because clearly you believe all crimes, except for rubbish related crimes, are serious enough to warrant the involvement of dedicated national security police with their associated intelligence gathering operations.
You’re lacking perspective. Working yourself in to a state because of a single assault and a couple of delayed trains is all well and good. But they are not national security matters and don’t warrant surveillance and paid informers.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
“If the national security police are going to monitor every group of people who have ever assaulted someone or stolen or damaged property, or been associated with a person who has assaulted someone or stolen or damaged property, then we’re going to need a LOT more national security police.”
Not really. Only a small number of groups regularly engage in such activities.
“Because clearly you believe all crimes, except for rubbish related crimes, are serious enough to warrant the involvement of dedicated national security police with their associated intelligence gathering operations.”
Nope. If you had bothered to carefully read what I posted you would know that I only believe that political groups that regularly engage in such activities should be targeted.
“But they are not national security matters”
The groups themselves are. Groups that have international ties, that openly support Arab terrorism, and that attack people and property are national security matters.
“You’re lacking perspective.”
I don’t want your “perspective”. You excuse serious crimes and whitewash dangerous groups.
If these groups are so innocent, why when we see them parading down the streets are they often wearing balaclavas to hide their faces, and carrying pro-terrorist flags?
December 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Lee, the incident you mention where you claim a woman suffered several broke bones after being knocked down by protesters was quite different from your description. I know, I was there.
it was August 2001 we were protesting against a conference of vivisectors (main speaker Mr Michael Strkyer of california who drills holes in kittens heads) or medical research specialists as Lee likes to call them. 8 of us were arrested and the incident was recorded on surveillance cameras. Nothing came up in court about any broken bones and charges were dropped against me and some others, the remaining people pleased guilty to minor disorderly behaviour charges. Only after the case did rumours start about broken bones, no complaint of assault was ever laid. I spose its possible everyone was too scared because of our alleged Al Qeada connections, but I suspect the more likely explanation is that it never happened. what is it you do Leee, perhaps you are involved in “medical research” involving chopping up animals?
Incidentally Police informant Rob Gilchrist was in charge of police liaison on that protest . . .
December 18th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I’m linkwhoring myself from my own minor blog where I wrote a letter to the Speaker protesting that the monitoring of an MP’s office crosses a line- a line crossed in 1642…
Edit: I received notification that the letter was received.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
So you don’t like someone else’s opinion and ideas so its ok to then attack them or their property in a physical way to get your own way. I don’t think so. Debate if you like but the moment you either intrude on another persons property or intrude in their affairs you are on the wrong side of the line. Its Parliaments job to make the rules and if you want them changed get your policy changes through the legislature.
So, I find a kind of irony in these “activists”, who perpetrate these pointless acts of interruption and violence against others, then winge and moan when they find out they are being treated in the same way as they are treating the people they are targeting. In fact the whole concept is laughable. The jokes on them I’d say. Time they grew up and got a real life.
As someone predicted earlier the emails will be released on the slow release maximum exposure type garbage. Here’s the first from none other than W—- wanker Mc Carten.
Unite Union leader joins call for inquiry into police spying
3:26PM Thursday Dec 18, 2008
Unite Union leader Matt McCarten has joined the call for an inquiry into the activities of a police spy unit.
Earlier this week Prime Minister John Key ruled out an inquiry and said police assurances had been given to the Government that covert investigations were justified.
Today Mr McCarten released emails from police informant Rob Gilchrist to the police spy unit, detailing activities being organised by the union as part of their push to abolish youth pay rates and increase the minimum wage.
Reports of police spying on protest groups broke at the weekend.
Rochelle Rees, an animal rights and Labour Party activist, told the Sunday Star-Times she had discovered her former partner, Mr Gilchrist, had been paid by counter-terrorism police to spy on the protest groups when she helped him fix his computer.
Mr Gilchrist, heavily involved in various campaigns and protests over the last decade, was paid to pass information on the groups plans and members to the police Special Investigation Group (SIG).
Mr McCarten said today the emails he was releasing gave the lie to a police claim that only potential criminal actions by individuals were being targeted.
“A wide range of legal actions by unions, political parties and peace and justice groups came under the evil eye of the police.
“There is no evidence that the actions of Gilchrist were in any way discouraged by the police.
“We need a full public inquiry into the actions of the police spy unit whose actions have clearly gone way beyond any legal mandate,” said Mr McCarten.
Green MP Keith Locke called for an inquiry when the story first broke, and yesterday his party was furious that Mr Gilchrist had infiltrated its offices and was used to report on the party’s activities.
Mr Locke said there were rules about how police could act in Parliament’s precincts and he would be writing to Mr Key, Police Minister Judith Collins and Police Commissioner Howard Broad with his concerns.
The SIG teams were set up in 2004 to focus on terrorism and threats to national security.
They are reported to have monitored Greenpeace, animal rights, climate change campaigners and, according to Mr McCarten, the Unite Union.
- NZPA
December 18th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
All roads lead to and from Labour on this one.
I simply don’t believe that Ms Rees and Co didn’t stall the release of this story until National took office.
As David says – nip this in the bud and force Ms Rees to put up or shutup by instigating a PCA investigation.
Lets see all the information and THEN make some calls.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Lee, wearing balaclavas, oh you mean those so called cops who were so afraid of a bunch of women and kids they needed to hide their faces in Tuhoe country.
Yes they were a giggle, is it not funny that when a mob of a thousand in the Solomons were at each other with machetes the cops were no where to be seen.
That they left to a half platoon of infantry.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Gee, I wonder how many of the people who have expressed outrage over Rob Gilchrist’s antics also showed the same level of indignation in response to Hagar’s use of confidential information lifted from stolen emails in his book.
Bill.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
“Lee, wearing balaclavas, oh you mean those so called cops who were so afraid of a bunch of women and kids they needed to hide their faces in Tuhoe country.”
Its amazing how much mileage the maori party and their associates got out of this, and I guess, a testament to the ignorance of the general public. The (to quote Hone Hariwira) “Ninja gear” the police were wearing, more commonly known as body armour, was no different to what they wear on any other armed offenders squad callout. Nor is it substantially different to the armed offender response units of other western countries. It was entirely appropriate to be employed given that the suspects being brought into custody and/or having search warrents executed upon were confirmed to be in possession of semiautomatic weaponry. Now if you want to see what can AND DID HAPPEN when the police confront an armed suspect without the “ninja gear” and effective firearms, I suggest you see the New Zealand movie “Out of the Blue”.
December 19th, 2008 at 12:39 am
These dumb Lefties get what they deserve. Screw ‘em, it sounds like Rob Gilchrist certainly has been.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:31 am
disgusting the rhetoric on this blog… protest has seen many many injustices righted that you all would agree were unfair… civil rights, womens vote, aparteid… without protest these would have carried on today.
a protestor is NOT a terrorist. Screw you NBR for stating they are
December 19th, 2008 at 7:18 am
The time has come for a complete clean out of the upper ranks of Helen Clark’s politicised police force.
Who can have trust and confidence in this morally bankrupt and operationally unhinged outfit otherwise?
December 19th, 2008 at 10:01 am
BR – There’s a massive difference between leaking a political party’s internal memos to a journalist and spying on a grassroots advocacy group for the police. One was in the public interest, the other was for pure pecuniary gain. Why is this so hard to grasp?
December 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
OK, I’ll stick my neck out.
Rochelle, you are aggrieved that you have discovered the Police surveilling you and your group’s activities. Assuming everything you do is above board, I would also be aggrieved. However the Police have obviously not acted on information about any hen-house raid, so maybe they don’t think you’re so dangerous.
However everyone here would be outraged if we had another Rainbow Warrior bombing. There is only one way to prevent another such event. And that is to gather information about a wide ranging set of activities, analyse it, and either discard or store the information as necessary. Information did come from Gilchrist about the Urewera insurgency training. Ooops I mean bush craft education. If that information had prevented a bunch of kiddies getting shot up in a mall, then that’s a win.
Lets remember that Gilchrist was essentially spraying information at the Police (for 10 years apparently) and some of it has been useful.
Over the years I have sent many emails criticising the governments of the time. I don’t know whether some of them have hit the desks of analysts because I am not sure whether there is some form of covert monitoring of all emails/phone calls etc. However I do know that some of my Letters to the Editor have hit an IRD database of information scraped from public sources (newspaper websites etc). So surveillance has been occurring for years, maybe even decades.
So we have a choice. Hold on tightly to our privacy and likely lose any opportunity to pre-empt something really nasty. Let go of some of our privacy and likely lose some of our freedom. I don’t know the answer.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Before judging the police on the spying go to Loudon’s Newzeal http://www.newzeal.blogspot.com and watch the video about animal activists in Britain.
Hell’s teeth, they’re nearly as bad as Al Qaeda! And the local lunatics wanted to bring to NZ a kingpin of the British movement, a man who has served jail terms for arson and other offences.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Talking Rainbow Warriors and things nautical this impressive behavior from the last survivors of the nautical union. Apparently they have a complete death wish for their jobs.
Workers may walk out over spy scandal
Friday, 19, Dec, 2008 2:04PM
Maritime Union workers are considering walking off the job over the police spy scandal.
The union is one of several organizations named in emails about union actions sent by a police spy to a specialist investigation unit.
Maritime Union General Secretary Trevor Hanson says the union wants an apology and is considering seeking damages from police. He says workers will not allow their unions to be treated as criminal organisations by the State.
Mr Hanson calling for its branches to prepare for industrial action, unless they get a full apology and explanation.
December 20th, 2008 at 12:26 am
“There’s a massive difference between leaking a political party’s internal memos to a journalist and spying on a grassroots advocacy group for the police. One was in the public interest, the other was for pure pecuniary gain. Why is this so hard to grasp?”
Spying on protest groups, most of which attract more than a passing interest from radical nutters, is certainly in the public interest, and Hagar has a pecuniary interest in his book sales. One is completely legal, and the other is of doubtful legality. That’s not hard to grasp is it?
Bill.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:00 am
DZU442
December 20th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Gavin
Just what does “Owner Confidential” mean?
So how did you aquire this status?