Editorials 19 March 2010
Three editorials on Waihopai. First the Herald:
Infamously, former Telecom chief executive Theresa Gattung once admitted her company used confusion as a marketing tool. For quite some time, it worked.
A similar strategy employed by three men who broke into the Waihopai spy base near Blenheim in 2008 and slashed an inflatable plastic dome covering a satellite dish has enjoyed equal success. Various wishy-washy defences have proved sufficient to befuddle a jury in the Wellington District Court, leading to the trio’s acquittal. …
The acquittal will not set a legal precedent. That is the domain of judges, not juries. But it will probably encourage others who have attacked public property to mount the same defence.
The widespread disbelief that has greeted this decision means any such attempt will surely fall on stony ground. Clearly, that should have been the case this time, as well.
And the Press:
The question now is whether the decision will set a precedent. Legally, a decision by a district court jury does not create a precedent.
But it is likely that others charged with offences related to a cause which they passionately believe in will attempt to use the Waihopai defence.
An example might be an anti-abortionist charged with damaging a hospital where abortions were performed.
Which is what you get when people think their beliefs put them above the law.
And the ODT:
It is plain fact that state borders do not deter terrorists and criminals in the digital age yet citizens continue to rely on the State to protect both themselves and the nation’s borders. The Waihopai station must be considered to be part of that obligation but it seems hardly ever to be considered that its activities may well be saving lives, including within this country’s borders.
However much some sincere objectors may dislike it and what it represents, can they offer a practical and reliable alternative to hold secure the safety of the nation and its citizens?
That’s disapproval all round.
The Dom Post breaks the pattern and talks about former Auckland Museum director Vanda Vitali:
The not unexpected resignation of Auckland War Memorial Museum director Vanda Vitali on Tuesday raises some interesting questions. Though the parting of the ways between board and chief executive was inevitable after Dr Vitali antagonised the family of Sir Edmund Hillary, the manner of her going led one Auckland mayor to suggest the board, rather than its employee, should go.
Implicit in Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey’s criticism was that, having searched worldwide for a museum professional to bring Auckland’s historical treasury into the 21st century, the board could not manage a woman who, once appointed, stood her ground. …
March 19th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
And the whole Terrorist movement is based on a confusion which has like Telecom worked well with emotional reactions, but not as quite with rational people.
But yeah, we need spy bases like so to keep an eye on the aliens, just in case!! Coincidentally, Australia and NZ are bidding or competing for the right to develop radio wave bases to try and listen into alien conversations!
Geeses, why don’t they develop a cable connection to hook up 3d movies, they better hurry or miss da bus…..
March 19th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Reading the comments in other threads here, I’m astonished at the sheer arrogance of Bryan Law. He is an Australian who has come to NZ is order to damage OUR property and OUR security. It’s christian imperialism. And then he has the gall to claim that if just one percent of people join him then they can force a change of NZ’s foreign policy.
The man is the worst kind of anti-democratic fascist. If we wants to do that in his own country then that is his own business, and that of his own people and government. I just wish he’d stop trying to patronise and oppress me and fuck off back to Australia.
March 19th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
A very curious editorial, The Dominion Post’s. It puts up an inference (from what it calls Bob Harvey’s ‘implicit’), and then seems to wander off into the realms of how hard it is for a woman to be at the top.
There is standing ground and there is standing ground. The first is, it is good to stand your ground when you are right. Or, if you think you are right, knowing that there might not be a better alternative.
The other standing ground can be downright harmful and damaging. It’s stubbornness, it’s wilful, it’s pig-ignorant, and often for it’s own sake. “I will not be pushed around.”
Now I am not in Auckland, and I haven’t been inside the Auckland War Memorial Museum for perhaps 20 years.
It seems to me — and without knowing all the circumstances — that Dr Vitali might have been an individual who mistook flexibility and a willingness to listen as weakness.
Who in their right mind in New Zealand would want to fight with the heirs of Sir Edmund Hillary over his papers in such a way that it ended up with threats of court action and the intervention of the prime minister’s office?
Who in New Zealand would want to slight — or do something that they felt slighted — the old men who gave away their youth in WW II and took off Night After Night in their Wellingtons, Lancasters, and Halifaxes to brave night fighters, flak, in-air collisions, and fire to bomb Hitler’s Reich into submission? Who?
And that’s the one that baffles me the most. Dr Vitali is a Canadian. The Royal Canadian Air Force (as it was then) made its own sizeable contribution to Royal Air Force Bomber Command during WWII. There are Bomber Command association branches in Canada. Of the 55,000 aircrew killed, 9900 were Canadians.
You would think she might understand the emotional reasons men who went through those experiences would want to have a memorial. They raised the money for it.
They didn’t want their sacrifices, and those of the men who never came back alive, to be forgotten. What was wrong with that?
March 19th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
This guy is allegedly a catholic friar. The Catholic church’s position on contraception has led to thousands, probably millions, of deaths from AIDS. If that’s not a ‘greater good’ defence, I don’t know what is.
March 19th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Bob Havey – lost his brain or what?
March 19th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
This guy is allegedly a catholic friar. The Catholic church’s position on contraception has led to thousands, probably millions, of deaths from AIDS. If that’s not a ‘greater good’ defence, I don’t know what is.
Clearly not as important as saving the lives of Al Qeada and Taliban insurgents. God forbid one of them get killed an evil blood thirsty (and lets not forget racist – thank you Mr Hanks!) Yankee soldier!
March 19th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
> Which is what you get when people think their beliefs put them above the law.
If someone does something for which there is a legal defence, they are within the law, not above it. The law is that you are allowed to damage property to save lives if you believe, in the circumstances, it is reasonable:
Crimes Act 1961 s48: “Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use”.
Embryoes and fetuses are unlikely to be considered people – and it would be hard to say it was in defence of the mother unless the mother was being forced to have an abortion against her will – so it seems very unlikely that anyone would successfully use the defence in relation to an attack on a hospital.
As for Bevan’s view that the plastic bubbles over the Waiohopai spy base satellite dishes protect New Zealanders, I seriously doubt it. More likely they are used to help the US spy on governments around the world and used to serve the interests of the administration in charge. The average New Zealander has more to fear from private calls being tapped by the US than they do from them not being tapped.
March 19th, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Talking about emotional outbursts, anything could happen!!!!!
March 19th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
As for Bevan’s view that the plastic bubbles over the Waiohopai spy base satellite dishes protect New Zealanders, I seriously doubt it. More likely they are used to help the US spy on governments around the world and used to serve the interests of the administration in charge. The average New Zealander has more to fear from private calls being tapped by the US than they do from them not being tapped.
And I seriously think you are a deluded conspiracy theorist. Fact is that spy base works to defend NZ and its citizens, unless you can provide documented proof otherwise – then epic fail on your part. Oh and proof isnt suspicion by a deluded moonbat, or the yanks using one of their own listening bases to spy on someone either…
Actually are you even able to form your own opinion – or do you just regurgitate crap written by Nicky Hagar?
March 19th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Well, fair’s fair — where’s your documented proof about what the spy base does?
March 19th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Silly Repton. Government knows best is the default position. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of anyone who disagrees. Keep up.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Nah he can’t!
he’s a regurgitator
they spy on people don’t they?
March 19th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
The Solicitor General, Dr David Collins, QC, should ensure that the Crown appeals the flawed decision of the jury that acquitted the three Waihopai spy base protestors on 17 March 2010 of charges of burglary and intentional damage (vandalism) to government property amounting to NZ $3.5 million. The men entered the base by cutting through the perimeter fence of the high-level security base in April 2008 and then slashed the dome over the satellite using sickles..
Their acquittal that followed an eight-day trial, was based on a “claim of right” defence, where in the minds of the three men, when they cut through the spy-base fence and slashed the dome, they claim they honestly believed they were acting lawfully and within their rights. The vast majority of reasonable-minded law-abiding New Zealanders recognise such claims as preposterous, self-serving and dishonest.
The “claim of right” defence is normally used in property cases, where the case turns on whether or not the case can be established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused believed their actions were lawful, even if they were ignorant or mistaken. The prosecution must counter such a “claim of right” by establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused could not have truly believed that their actions were lawful. In the Waihopai case the Crown failed to do this, but the question remains as to the quality of the direction given to the jury by the Judge that led to the acquittal.
The Waihopai case ruling did not turn on establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the men genuinely believed their actions would save lives, and that having accepted this that the force they used was reasonable. If a judge misdirected the jury on this point, and the Crown appears to think he did, then an appeal should be applied for. Any jury member would have been seriously misguided to take the view this case turned on establishing that the concept of “justified force” applied and that the sincerity of the attackers beliefs about saving lives were critical.
The “reasonable force” defence argument can be used legitimately with respect to actions involving the behaviour of a person(s) charged with the control and discipline of an individual person(s) (e.g. ship and aeroplane captains and officers) and in self-defence. But they do not apply in this Waihopai case and yet the jury appears to have been directed otherwise.
Actions that lead to the damage of government property can be justified in law if the saving of lives and/or prevention/minimisation of immediate harm to an individual(s) or animal(s) can be established as the direct outcome of taking such action. The nexus between the real possibility of harm prevention/loss of life and the force used, must be one that most reasonable-minded persons would accept exists and can be demonstrated. Direct intervention in disrupting and disconnecting a high voltage electric fence on government property that had entangled a suffering victim is fully justifiable, even if the ‘vandal’ admitted that he knew it was against the law to ‘tamper’ with such property. Similarly cutting through government security fencelines to free trapped livestock so they can avoid drowning in the event of rising flood waters is perfectly justified in law.. However, in both these cases a law-abiding citizen would attempt first to contact government authorities, if possible, to request them to free those in harm, before ever embarking on a solo or grandiose gratuitous group action involving sharpened sickles, religious incantations and other juvenile paraphernalia, without reference to authorities.
The actions of the three men – teacher Adrian Leason, 45, Dominican friar Peter Murnane, 69, and farmer Sam Land, 26 – involving burglary and wilful damage to the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) base at Waihopai falls well outside the “claim of right” defence protections available in law. They are only open to those individuals who are ‘compelled’ to ‘damage’ government property in order to actually save lives or actually relieve suffering and truly believe that their actions are lawful in the circumstances..
The Crown could easily establish on appeal that the three Waihopai vandals knew their actions were illegal. The secretive and calculated nature of their attack and their decision not to give any prior notification to government authorities of their actions, speaks volumes. The highly publicised pantomine they undertook brandishing sharpened self-serving sickles and declaring “In the name of Jesus Christ we release you” (or similar words from the fundamentalist dictionary) with reference to a balloon canopy, serves to highlight the extraordinary attempt they undertook to dress this illegal action up as some sort of benevolent work of god’s righteous holy-than-thou agents. Similar barbaric vandalism was carried out by ‘Christian’ knights in the Crusades. Instead of balloons being punctured, so-called ‘Christian’ zealots butchered and raped Muslims and created untold destruction to Muslim property in the claimed belief that it was “right”.
And what about other consequential impacts of the Waihopai vandalism besides the $3.5 Million repair bill the tax-payer will have to fund. If the base were closed for a period so repairs could be made, what are the consequences of this in terms of endangering the lives of Kiwis (e.g. failures to monitor Islamic terrorist traffic properly in the South Pacific) at home and serving abroad? Second. The massive repair bill depletes government funding that could have been used elsewhere in the economy to save lives e.g. staving off life-threatening diseases through health care initiatives..
The teacher, farmer and Dominican friar should each make full reparation to the Crown for the damage done to government-owned property.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
The vast majority of reasonable-minded law-abiding New Zealanders recognise such claims as preposterous, self-serving and dishonest.
This is common sense, but when did we expect common sense out of our courts, they are a lottery look at child sex cases in the last year and name suppression.
March 19th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Tassman 1:43 pm,
… and I’ve already got an off-planet communication system set up and operational – and not only that; it’s free.
If you like I’ll put you in touch with the ‘provider’ ?
March 19th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Well, fair’s fair — where’s your documented proof about what the spy base does?
I’m not the one making accusations about what activities the base undertakes – as I am not a deluded conspriracy theorist. The onus is on the accuser to proove their point, not the other way around.
EG: If I was to say that you are a raving butt licking poofter, the onus is on me to prove that you are one, not on you to prove you are not.
Silly Repton. Government knows best is the default position. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of anyone who disagrees. Keep up.
Actually it is – if you make an accusation without proof, then you are either lieing, or are very gullible. But I suppose you also think the yanks only drop bombs on innocent peace loving muslims as well, and that there are vast trucks raping the oil out of Iraq and Afghanistan as we speek…
March 19th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
And regarding the Waihopai spy base vandalism:
I wish I’d been on the jury – ’cause if I had my way thay wouldn’t have been acquitted, that’s for sure.
Let’s hope it goes to appeal and they get done.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I wish I’d been on the jury – ’cause if I had my way thay wouldn’t have been acquitted, that’s for sure.
Let’s hope it goes to appeal and they get done.
I’d say you can guarentee it. Lets just hope the next jury have an avergae IQ over 50.
March 19th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Re Dr Vitali,
her ‘crime’ was to seek to enforce the provisions of Ed Hillary’s will as opposed to yielding to emotional suppport for Peter and Sarah Hillary and their ‘version’ of events.
As always in NZ emotion and support for Hillary and All Blacks triumphed over rule of law.
No wonder this country is going down hill.
Re Waihopai
How the hell did they get a green judge and 12 green/pro Keith Locke jurors?
March 19th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
adamsmith, they didn’t, they got a jury of 11 ordinary Nzers who, unlike you heard and saw all the evidence and exercised their judgement. It’s just amazing that in your ignorance you condemn the entire justice system just because it doesn’t enshrine your own personal prejudices.
Komata, if you’re reading this I’ve replied to your question on http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/03/general_debate_19_march_2010.html#comment-673302
I’ve been busy today, fomenting revolution.
davidp, I’ve come to your country not to break the law, but to support friends and colleagues who acted on conscience and then faced a legal contest as a consequence. Now that they’ve been found guilty you have to acknowledge that they are not law-breakers either.
The press in your country has been miserable in reporting this trial. No mainstream journalist watched more than a few hours of a trial which filled six whole days with public testimony. Therefore they misreported, and then mis-analysed just about every fact and issue. No wonder people are confused and tending towards outrage.
March 19th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Now that they’ve been found guilty …..
Steady on, the appeal hasnt happened…..yet.
March 19th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Re Dr Vitali,
her ‘crime’ was to seek to enforce the provisions of Ed Hillary’s will as opposed to yielding to emotional suppport for Peter and Sarah Hillary and their ‘version’ of events.
To Adamsmith, I’ll defer to your greater knowledge. But … (there’s always a but) I was under the impression that the Hillary family were not going to have any say about how the papers were used, and by whom, and that the Hillarys were concerned that among the material were matters they thought were ‘personal’, and that they were not going to have any say on its use.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
I’d believe the spy base was being used in the war against terrorism, such as against the Taleban and the main man Osama Bin Laden.
These 3 actually support Osama Bin Laden through their actions and I consider what they have done as treason.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
bryla>davidp, I’ve come to your country not to break the law, but to support friends and colleagues who acted on conscience and then faced a legal contest as a consequence.
You’re like a guest I’ve invited in to my home who has repaid my generosity by dropping your pants and shitting on my couch. Guilt or non-guilt doesn’t matter… You’ve decided that you as an Australia have the right to change NZ’s foreign policy that is supported by the government, the opposition, the last government, and the majority of the people of NZ. And if we don’t like you lecturing us in your sanctimonious manner, then you don’t care a damn and will carry on regardless. As a guest, that is just rude and arrogant.
The worst aspect is that you’re “shitting on our couch” because you think god is telling you to. That is no different than the Taliban, whose lives you hold more dearly than the lives of the victims of the Taliban. I urge you to stop believing in the supernatural and take a more critical view of good and evil, because the Baathists and Taliban you’re trying to protect are pure evil.
March 20th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
As far as establishing motivation for the 3 flakes you could apply the law that motivation is a fuction of the value of a goal and the probability of achieving it and thereby compare the probability of gaing publicity versus the probability of saving a life by their actions.
Another idea is eavsdrop on them at the local pub and listen to the nice friars sound very like John Minto.