Two more coments on Waihopai verdict
Had 120 comments yesterday on the Waihopai verdict. Best comment was from Dime:
how did they get the bain jury to come out retirement?
Heh.
Others have called for jury trials to be abolished – a rather extreme over-reaction.
But there is one positive side to the verdict.
If Wellington Airport persists with its woeful giant Wellywood sign, we know we can destroy it, and get let off by the jury 
On a more serious front, the Dom Post reminds us of what can happen when people think that they can take action in the name of God:
In the US last month, anti-abortion campaigner Scott Roeder was convicted by a judge of murdering an abortion doctor after failing with a similar defence. His lawyers had argued for a lesser conviction because Roeder believed that the killing was justified to save the lives of unborn children.
Now no one thinks the Waihopai Three would act in such a way, but none the less it is a reminder of the danger of people putting their personal beliefs above everything else.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
That is what worries me most about this verdict.
What will happen next when some nutjob (religious or otherwise) believes he can be above the law. Surely it will be a lot harder to convince a jury when violence is involved, but nevertheless, someone may be inspired by such a verdict.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
This verdict means I can now murder anyone I believe to be a threat to the community. And get away with it.
I’m making a list….
March 18th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Not PC has a great post on jury nullification. As nuts as the jury’s decision in this case appears to be, jury nullification is an always-valuable check on government power. I’ll keep that in mind if I am ever called as a juror in a ticket scalping or tariff-avoidance case.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
If an allied soldier was killed as a result of the base being attacked by the three Waihopai idiots – would they be liable for the soldiers murder.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Bevan, in a word, no.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Bevan, in a word, no.
Why? Is an allied soldiers life worth less than that of a Taliban insurgent?
March 18th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
“people think that they can take action in the name of God”.
Like Bishop Brian Tamaki religion and churches in general .
March 18th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Their belief is that the Waihopai Spy Base is part of a system that, on the whole, kills people rather than saves lives. That was their motive in damaging the property – drawing attention to New Zealand’s complicity in that system and disrupting an installation they believe causes death.
In some ways, there is a significant difference between breaking the law to damage property in order to save lives, and an anti-abortion activist killing a man to save lives. If the anti-abortion activist had disrupted the power supply to a clinic rather than murdering a doctor, his actions would be more analogous to the Ploughshares guys.
Anyway, as they said, they believe they’re answerable to a higher moral authority than the law.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
So could any jihadist supporter in NZ damage govt buildings and infrastructure (without maiming anyone) and also claim the same defence of answering to a higher god and to stop “suffering” supposedly in Iraq?
As I said on the other thread on this topic, use a globe and ruler to work out whether Waihopai actually contributes to the US effort in Iraq – it can’t.
Anyhow Iraq back in 2008 when the Waihopai attack occured was not like it was when the invasion occured back in 2003 and the subsequent 2-3 years of turmoil – Iraq is now self govening (i.e. the US war was over) hence alas the protesters actions, if it ever could be proved that Waihopai could be used for US purposes in Iraq, wouldn’t have helped prevent loss of life, on the contrary intelligence is used to ensure the correct threats are known about and targetted and thus is a means to save lives, especially civilian.
So I wonder how the 3 would feel knowing that their actions could have actually potentially put innocent lives in danger, or killed? How does that sit on their conscious? Alas their child-like innocence on the realities of Waihopai, and their one-dimensional view of the US in Iraq is rather astounding from so called adults.
Another thing even if they disagreed in their innocent way on the role of the US in Iraq – is it their role to JUDGE the US? Or is it not (their) GOD’S role to judge? (Or were they a form of strange Christian sect by chance)?
March 18th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Their belief is that the Waihopai Spy Base is part of a system that, on the whole, kills people rather than saves lives. That was their motive in damaging the property – drawing attention to New Zealand’s complicity in that system and disrupting an installation they believe causes death.
Their ignorant beliefs are no excuse for commiting an act of vandalism.
Lets imagine for a minute that the base is involved in the Middle East campaigns – though Im sure the intellegence gathering is taking place a lot closer than the conflict than little ol NZ! The majority of the work done at the base would be detecting transmissions between Taliban and Afghan insurgents or detecting Al Qeada plans for committing terrorist attacks around the globe, how is that NOT something NZ should be supporting!
If the Waihopi three want to save the lives of Al Qeada and Taliban insurgents, and reduce the ability of the western world to detect plans for terrorist attacks, then they have laid their colours down and are clearly siding with our enemies – they have committed an act of treason and should be tried as such.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Perhaps they would view you the same way. You think you know more about Waihopai than they do, and they think they know more about Waihopai than you do.
Very few Christians interpret “judge not, lest ye be judged” to mean “don’t have any opinions on anything and don’t oppose things you consider immoral”.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I think they’ve made it pretty clear they don’t think the Echelon network is primarily defensive. They may be wrong, but that’s some way off trying to encourage terrorism.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
They have been successful using the law, and causing expensive damages. I just don’t see any success in the changing of people’s minds (beyond a few fellow extremists) or creating wider support for their cause.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
There’s a tricky problem for activism that many of the tactics that give an issue the most attention are also the tactics that encourage the least support for the activists’ cause. For example, protesting the young tennis player from Israel.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
With all due respect Mr Farrer, the Dominion Post is a yellow rag of the worst order. The central fact they got wrong in their report was the defence used, upon which the jury acquitted.
The defence of necessity (or greater good) had been struck out by Judge Harrop on Monday or Tuesday. The defence of “claim of right” is based on the defendents’ belief in April 2008 that they were acting with lawful justification.
The inclusion of the doctor murderer was completely gratuitous, and seems calculated to undermine the good work these men did.
If you want to read an accurate account of the trial, go to my stories on scoop http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1003/S00202.htm (the prosecution closing) and http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1003/S00206.htm#b (the defence closings and Judge’s summing up).
In there you will find the key question that Judge Harrop directed the jury to answer.
Once more I bemoan the ignorance of many of your commenters about the justice system and the rule of law. The floodgates argument was raised in Court by the defence and judge, and the jury was told their job was to decide on the particular facts of this case – and nothing else. That’s, like, a foundation principle of British common law, and of its descendants like NZ and Australia.
As for those morons among you who now claim they have a license to murder and destroy…. well, do it. Then stand trial for it willingly and openly. If you really believe what you say, you’ll be acquitted. Of course you won’t. Basically you are cowards and blowhards who think that holding an opinion is the same as knowing what you’re talking about.
March 18th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
“If Wellington Airport persists with its woeful giant Wellywood sign, we know we can destroy it, and get let off by the jury ”
DPF – I understand this was in jest but for the record judicial decisions make precedent, jury decisions don’t. There is nothing in this that will prevent the next jury bringing in a guilty verdict is the same facts came before a court at all.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Yeah, I agree with your perspective. After all Waihopai is like a magnet for certain groups in NZ, which is self-feeding in that they perceive it in a negative light, they like to hear other like-minded types saying similar things and bingo = groupthink takes over any reality or makes them less receptive to hear other viewpoints etc.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Bryla
And your opinion that damaging the dome achieved what you claim it did fits this description exactly.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Bryla
If you had the balls you claim to have you would have actually stopped the satelite dish from working, not just damaged it’s dome (what it hides under). Tilting the windmills Bryla, big scary plastic dome was… removed so the dish could continue to operate as normal. Wow, that saved a lot of lives. What a joke.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
“If you want to read an accurate account of the trial, go to my stories on scoop ”
HahahaHahahaHahahaHahahaHahahaHahahaHahahaHahahaHahahaHahahaHahahaHahahaHahaha
March 18th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
[DPF]: Best comment was from Dime: “how did they get the bain jury to come out retirement?”
It’s a weird verdict. I have no problem with people “acting in the interests of peace” in general, but I thought the role of a jury was to decide whether or not a person is guilty of specified crime X, not get into philosophical debates over the pursuit of world peace.
But I thought the best comment yesterday by far was
[Bryla at 8:05 pm]:
“My my my, you rabid type folk don’t have much of a sense of humour do you?
Or grip on reality.
I’m amazed by the way you turn on the jury, and by your ignorance of the law, and of the court system. For one thing, no-one can appeal an acquittal. drongoes.
I’ve been inviting you all to come and watch the trial, and I’ve written (with knowledge) about what’s been happening each day. I even offered to make bets on the outcome as the trial unfolded. But having kept yourselves ignorant, you now profess surprise. You might find like souls in the irrelevant and powerless Tea Party.
David Farrer has at least a grip on reality and a respect for the rule of law in a democracy.
The impact of this trial will be to facilitate recruitment and development in Christian nonviolent action for peace. More and better actions here and in Australia, and reclaiming ANZAC Day for the people.
You rabid folk shout as much as you like. The law of unintended consequences means you will drive more people to consider and adopt our position.
Oh yeah…I told you so.”
March 18th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I guess after this verdict the next time these nutjobs or others of their ilk damage the Waihopai base nothing will be done at all. I think they should be airflifted to Afghanistan or Pakistan’s NW provinces so they can beat a few of those Taliban scimitars (and kitchen knives) into ploughshares.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Bryla
I just tore up a plastic bag I found in the kitchen, how many lives do you think I saved ?
March 18th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
burt, again this very question was raised in the courtroom testimony. All the defendents had together come to the same belief.
Information collected through Echelon (to which Waihopai contributes) is used to identify (correctly or incorrectly) targets for bombing and rendition – as well as commercial and diplomatic intelligence. That targeting information is being collected ALL the time, so any interruption, even a short and temporary one could save the lives of targets.
Given that the war on terror is phoney, nothing but a justification for the schoolyard bully, the waihopai activists are not only justified, they’re right.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Bryla
So is it your opinion that you managed to shut the base down or do you know it to be a fact ?
March 18th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Hey Bryla..
Whatever you are smoking… Can I have some?
March 18th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Bryla
Let me remind you of a relevant quote about that opinion;
Basically you are cowards and blowhards who think that holding an opinion is the same as knowing what you’re talking about.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Bryla
We (NZ residents) need to thank you for the service you have done the NZ Govt. The gummit are now justified to pass laws further invading our privacy and freedom of movement/association to protect the likes of Waihopai from the sort of vandalism you did. Cheers, I look forward to more invasive laws passed under urgency because of your actions – wanker!
March 18th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
It’s great that these guys saved some taliban lives so they can go on stoning women and shooting at New Zealand soldiers. Jesus must be so proud.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
burt, you believe you have privacy in the face of modern intelligence agencies? Really? How quaint.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Sadly it is becoming clear that our Jury system is now redundant, this is another case where activist Judges appointed by the last Administration are making dupes of the Jury and giving instructions designed to achieve their objectives rather than let the Jury decide the matter as they historically have on an assessment of the facts.. In this case the defence seems ridiculous and the instruction equally so.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Backster, you are wrong in everything you say.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Thinks . . .
• “drawing attention to New Zealand’s complicity in that system and disrupting an installation they believe causes death.”
Can not one argue that by this action and verdict these protesters have drawn international attention [and therefore Taliban and Al Qaeda attention] to New Zealand’s complicity with the USA and makes New Zealand a greater target for terrorism [and a very much easier one than the US or UK], so their “saving lives’ is endangering ours, possibly during the World Cup?
Does their action deprive us of information which could aid the New Zealand SAS in Afghanistan or elsewhere?
• Given previous protests of one man in particular, including the spilling of blood on the carpet of the US Ambassador’s office, was not the dish attacks just an anti-American protest without any direct intent to save lives?
• Is Cameron Slater acting for the greater good? And has he not already indicated a similar defence before this court case started?
• Did they believe puncturing the coverings of the dishes would decommission them and
‘save lives’, or was it just an cat of protest which the prime intent?
• Why, among so many reports, is it so hard to find out now what the damaged dish covers cost the taxpayers?
• What is the relationship if any between this “what is in the mind at the time” defence and that which Clayton Weatherston tried?
• Is Hone Harawira now able to select any supermarket and walk in with an axe and destroy the tobacco products storage units above check-outs and claim the same defence, “saving lives”, given –
1] the statistics on Maori smoking
2] Hone’s well-known position on smoking and the ban he publicly pursues
3] mandate – his election to act on Maori behalf those who voted for him
4] Government, health area, and world-wide resource information on that ‘smoking kills’. supposedly 5,000 a year, many of the Maori
March 18th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Bryla
If I do or don’t then that is neither here nor there – you and you dim-bulbs have given justification for the govt to further enhance their ability to monitor etc. Well done – nice big bullet hole in your foot. Wanker.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Bryla – you and your fellow travellers are cowards. You perform your petty acts of vandalism and banner waving safe in the knowledge that nothing serious will happen to you – at worst a bit of soft time at Rangipo or some home detention. Why don’t you go to Pakistan or Nigeria and protest the slaughter of Christians by Islamic mobs? Why not put your bodies in the way of the machetes and really show how much you care about saving lives. I am all for Waihope (and Echelon) collecting targetting information and using it to drop hellfire on Taliban, AQ, other assorted Islamists and anyone else who wants to destroy my culture and way of life.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Are they right? I thought part of the verdict is that despite what they believed is wrong, because they believed it, they did not commit a crime.
Much like Graemes example of the stuffed dog in the car parked in the sun. Because you believed it was a real dog and broke the window, it wasn’t wrongful even though in hindsight it did prove to be wrong.
So, my questions, is my interpretation correct (did the court find that the defendants were mistaken in their beliefs) and die they accept that they were wrong?
March 18th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Yes, one can argue that. It’s a good point.
Who knows? (Not a rhetorical question.)
March 18th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Exactly Ryan. The point is made that no-one “knows” if any lives have been put in jeopardy by the existence of the Waihopai station either except that many of us hope that it is contributing to the body of knowledge that is used to protect us from a particular danger.
When you find a wasps nest under your neighbour’s house Ryan, do you knock off the wasps one at a time after they fly in through your open window or do you work with your neighbour to try and destroy the nest as a protection against future wayward wasps stinging your infant child as she sleeps in her basinet?
Many people are comfortable with the “destroy the nest” option in NZ (probably some true Bhuddists excepted) and I for one would be mightily annoyed if my sprayer was rendered inoperable by someone trying to protect the nest.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
This interview on Radio NZ is worth listening to. Contrary to what Bryla (with the big fat holy cross on his chest) says the last interviewee says the decision has worrying implications for the rule of law and the first talks about woolly thinking and flimsy arguments and how if you are going to have a defence force you have to be part of an intelligence system:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2010/03/18/waihopai_aquittals
March 18th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Bryla, I think you criticism is inappropriate. Most people are not lawyers and are, as you say, “ignorant” of the law’s finer points. generally they do have a sense of what is right and what is wrong, and what is lawful and what isn’t, and I would say most people would have difficulty understanding this verdict.
There may be the harsher voices here on the blog, and you may be right with the more extremes comments, but I don’t think you can mitigate the sense with the general public that the defendants just got away with it.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
So the bottom line is the laws of NZ now only apply when some people want them to apply even though the connection between the actions of the perpetrators and the provisions of the law are direct and the perpertrators admit their guilt.
Soooooooooooooooooooo we no longer have the historical precedent that all are equal as regards the law.
The 3 have proved some are more equal than others.
the genie is out of the bottle!!!!!!!!!
March 18th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Still thinking, and . . .
• What evidence did the Three offer to substantiate their belief they were saving lives?
An example given on talk-back radio this morning was the destruction of property by firemen or police to gain entry to save lives – obvious. But given the secrecy of Waihopai, how did the Three know of any effect their actions could have? Is it part of a communications network for US-led stand-by, or similar functions, as I doubt they monitor my emails for key words, or monitor local Iraq or Afghanistan walkie-talkie calls. It may have been their hope to “save lives” but being a ‘highly classified’ installation, how did they know?
Hone Harawira’s motivation for any possible smashing of tobacco products shelves is far more concrete.
It has just been mentioned by a caller [who obviously reads Kiwiblog] on Radio Live, asking ‘Why Hone hadn’t been out there doing his thing before lunchtime already?’ and Willie Jackson says ‘Why do you think I am so pleased about tis decision?’
March 18th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Not really lastmanstanding.
If you had had strong religious and pacifist beliefs and thought the spy base was causing harm to people and went there and burst a balloon, got arrested, used a similar defence in front of a similar jury you would probably have received an equal outcome.
It is apparent that the law under which they based their defence is common to many countries. A few isolated cases have been quoted – Ireland, Germany, and unsuccessfully in the US – this suggests that we may not see an avalanche of similar offences and cases here.
Most people are probably not that naive that they would bother to go to Waihopai and do some damage thinking that it would save lives in Iraq.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
“Now no one thinks the Waihopai Three would act in such a way,”
Excuse me? I do. They are fantatical wack jobs and I can see nothing that they would stop at. Particularly now that our judical system has validated their delusional world view.
This virdict was by far and away the most fucked thing our courts have done for a long time. And they’ve done some pretty fucked up shit. I smell legislation from the bench again.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Have you met any of them?
March 18th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Eszett, I don’t think the defendants have changed their mind about what the base does, and much of their information comes from Nicky Hager’s book “Secret Powers” (1996), and testimony from a UK whistleblower from GCHQ that Echelon spied on UN members in 2003.
Detailed and factual knowledge about the base is hard to come by, and the (quite conservative) Judge ruled that the defendants could not demonstrate a direct link between Waihopai and the death or injury to others to the required standard. thus he struck out the defences of necessity and defence of others.
The jury was then asked to consider whether or not the defendants genuinely believed in April 2008 that their actions were justified under law. I think the jury believed the defendants.
But, at law, what the jury decided was that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s beliefs were not genuine.
You know, don’t you, that the jury system is an integral and indispensable part of democratic society?
March 18th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I’d expect that could be very difficult to prove, especially in this case were everything indicates they were actually genuine beliefs.
Bryan, do you think this has any likelihood of triggering a spate of similar type protests? Or are they likely to be selective and/or isolated?
March 18th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Anyway, as they said, they believe they’re answerable to a higher moral authority than the law.
Bin Laden ?
March 18th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Trying to link their actions to support of Bin Laden or any terrorist group is nonsense, they believe in no violence. I think that has potential problems, but far different to blaming them for actions of violent extremists.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Not necessarily. Do all democratic societies have a jury system or just the ones that are somehow connected to Britain? Germany does not have a jury system. Works quote well and I would call it a democratic society.
I would have thought that the separation of power and with it the independence of judiciary is an integral and indispensable part of democratic society. But the jury system not per se.
But that’s beside the point.
Would you agree then, that if the defendants did the same thing again now (after this trial) they probably would not be able to run that defence?
March 18th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
The track record of paedophile Catholic priests molesting young boys in NZ is well documented. Some of these poor boys will believe that it is the Catholic church that has caused the abuse they suffered, and that they may well be saving other young boys from a similar fate (and the consequent addictions, mental health problems, suicides etc) if they attack the RC church and its property.
If the victims of the paedophile priests were to start torching Catholic churchs, would Father Peter Murnane leap to their defence? Or is he more concerned with the unsubstantiated fate of unidentified people somewhere in Iraq, than the reality of defenceless children here in NZ terrorized by the institution of which he is a member.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Bryla: “But, at law, what the jury decided was that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s beliefs were not genuine.”
But had these three been of a dfferent mind: that they believed destroying the Waihopai dishes WOULD endanger US lives, for example, would the jury have voted the same way?
• and perhaps . . .
If they hadn’t so badly fucked up the Terrorism Act in the Tama Iti tattoed teddy bear affair, should te Police have charged these three under that act.
• bottom line: can I cause a million dollars worth of damage, say I believed in what I was doing was for the good off others, rather than myself, and get off scott-free?
March 18th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“But had these three been of a dfferent mind:”
I look at their photos and I’m not convinced between them they have a single mind. All I see is the shallow end of the gene pool.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Yvette, just shut up and do it – then face the consequences. But of course you won’t. You don’t have the courage.
Pete George, it won’t open the floodgates – it’s too hard. Remember these three have gone through two years of legal process, which has taken up a large part of their lives. Everything they have, including their liberty, was at risk. So no floodgates will open.
having said that, this is the fifth acquittal world-wide for this kind of offence over forty years, with four of those acquittals taking place in the past four years. For people thinking seriously about taking ploughshares actions, this verdict offers hope, and the trial discloses better and more effective organising techniques. So our movement will benefit and grow (slowly).
Eszett, Mike Knowles, for Leason, acknowledged in his closing that for these three the claim of right defence was no longer available.
However IMHO the necessity defence is much more available when attacking and disabling a material piece of military equipment directly involved in war-fighting. Which overcomes the secrecy around Waihopai and other spy bases.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Hang on a moment, unless you are nothing but a rabid anti-american in disguise using issues like Waihopai to cloud the issue for the general public (and contribute to collective anti-american groupthink), what you wrote appears to be at odds with all norms and reality i.e. wrong.
For example: “Information collected through Echelon (to which Waihopai contributes) is used to identify (correctly or incorrectly) targets for bombing and rendition – as well as commercial and diplomatic intelligence”.
Well, if so, who is being targeted for bombing and rendition? Me? You? The man or woman walking into the dairy? Maybe the man and woman walking into the dairy in say, Australia, Tonga, Indonesia, Egypt?
No. Targets for bombing and rendition would be people plotting acts of terrorism eg the jihadist’s or AQ etc. Or maybe those same folk who wish to deprive especially women, an education, or pretty much anyone else who disagree’s with them, but either killing or maiming them. They don’t care whether their own kind (fellow muslims) die notr if they are babies or children. So what exactly do you have an issue with here? Your words were written in such a way to suggest that this is not a good thing? Care to elaborate why? Or again is it simply because you are at the extreme end of anti-american group-think? So surely if you agree with me in that it is not nice for these jihadist’s or fundamentalists to kill and main their own people, nevermind westerners, then surely it is in YOUR (and MY and OUR) best interests that NZ contributes to the Western intelligence system?
For example: “That targeting information is being collected ALL the time, so any interruption, even a short and temporary one could save the lives of targets”.
Is this some sort of Orwellian double-speak? Shouldn’t we be assisting, somehow, in any way, in the contribution to actually target people that are deliberately trying to kill and maim innocent people? And think about it this way, if western intelligence could be better, wouldn’t that be a good thing to ensure a drone doesn’t target the WRONG i.e. innocent people, which can and does happen due to an intelligence failure?
And then to say that “one could save the lives of targets”, which we all know in this context means jihadist’s, fundamentalists, and AQ, can you please re-phrase this as I am hoping you are not actually suggesting that we really do want to save the lives of these jihadist’s, fundamentalist’s and AQ so they can kill and maim their own people, westerners and anyone else who doesn’t agree with them or their interpretation of the religion of Islam.
Do you not see these jihadist’s, fundamentalist’s and AQ are merely acting out the sort of deluded fantasies (men are tough, have guns, rape women, kill women, be in control of women, control this terority, control that one too, under some sort of non-democratic feudal kingdom system where the people live in subsistance etc) that is abbhorant to modern civilised thinking, be that western, eastern or wherever etc? Is this what you really want? Because you may or may not realise that is what you appear to be supporting?
For example: “Given that the war on terror is phoney, nothing but a justification for the schoolyard bully, the waihopai activists are not only justified, they’re right”.
Last time I checked, the Democrat’s won the last US Election and Bush and his necons were tipped out. With that why should the war on terror (granted, a very bad way to sell in to the public by Bush and Cheney) be seen as phoney. Last time I checked, the jihadist’s, fundamentalist’s, and AQ, hadn’t stopped killing and maiming their own people, westerners or anyone else within range that doesn’t agree with them. So the WoT isn’t phoney as such is it?
The schollyard bully? Who is that? The Americans? Last time I checked the US weren’t raping women, killing teachers, and blowing up schools to keep their people ignorant.
“the waihopai activists are not only justified, they’re right”. Well if you can follow my logic, not they weren’t, they were inadvertantly contributing to the problem whereby a lack of intelligence can have consequences whereby innocents may be put in harms way.
So please have a think about this , I do hope you are not so narrow minded as you appear to be. And I do hope you are not some troll in disguise supporting the rights for jihadist’s, fundamentalists and AQ to kill and maim innocent people?
And as others have said, these attacks on the likes of Waihopai merely allows Govts (of all hues) to further tighten up laws surrounding freedoms of association as well as enhanced survellience on citizens etc.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Some decent analysis starting to find it’s way out.
March 18th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Link to photo of you, please?
March 18th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Bryla – “Yvette, just shut up and do it – then face the consequences. But of course you won’t. You don’t have the courage.”
Can you not understand from my comments I don’t approve of what your three men did, and had I a cause that I’d eliminated all legal avenues of redress or protest for, and followed their “example”, I suspect jail isn’t particularly great for someone my age.
“# So the trio used “claim of right” – that even though they had been mistaken, they had genuinely believed they were in the right.”
I thought this was roughly what Clayton Weatherston argued.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
He committed a different crime.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
“I thought this was roughly what Clayton Weatherston argued.”
The lawyers have pointed out that it only applies to property crime, not crimes of violence against people.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Pete George – ta. I was just writing the below when I noticed yours. I might point out Scoop has actually been paying proper attention on such things.
…
FWIW at this point I think many of you (and various media) are ENTIRELY WRONG about the defence they used.
They were claiming “Claim of Right”, a rather surprising defence which amounts to “I thought it was legal guv”.
http://www.netlaw.co.nz/crime.cfm?PageID=153
If only the reporting on this case were clear, nobody would be able to claim such a defence in similar circumstance in future, because they’d've been told. As things stand, I hold great hopes for it.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Also noting
a) from the netlaw link, defence seems to only apply to matters of fact – ignorance of the law remains no excuse
b) according to the solicitor general (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1003/S00266.htm) that defence would be the only possible appeal – if it were successful that would make the verdict the judge’s ‘fault’.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
It’s worth referring to a couple of posts on the thread started yesterday that is running in parallel to this one.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/03/waihopai_three_acquitted.html#comment-672935
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/03/waihopai_three_acquitted.html#comment-672953
March 18th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
If I were one of the accused in this case I would have rejected the not guilty verdict, which is based on the belief I made some sort of mistake, and have had the judge’s dismissal of the “greater good” defence argued on appeal. Because that’s the only basis on which a person of principle would take such an action, and therefore that person shouldn’t be satisifed with a not guilty verdict based on anything other than an upholding of that principle. But the accused in this instance seem just happy to have “got away with it”.
On the flipside of that argument, I’ll look forward to everyone coming back here in 2020, when PM Keith Locke has officially opened the Taliban Embassy in Wellington in a move he says will “encourage greater understanding between our two great peoples… and hopefully stop you blowing our arses to Kingdom Come”.
The people who wreck that particular edifice will not, thanks to the learned judge in this case, have a defence of “necessity” or “greater good” available to them. Never mind acting on your conscience, we must all follow the black and white letter of the law at all times. So of course the “Taliban Three” will be roundly condemned for not so doing.
And in the unlikely event we’re ever invaded, anyone joining the resistance will also, no doubt, be found not to have any defence of acting acording to conscience and will thus be summarily punished by the courts of Vichy NZ.
It’s a bit like freedom of speech, this issue… it’s entirely possible to disagree with what they did (as I do, in this particular case) while supporting the principle under which they did it.
March 18th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
If the Waihopai 3 successfully argued that the interruption if an intelligence gathering stream may have saved lives, then that assumption should have been challenged in court.
Intelligence Gathering is done for a variety of reasons. Identifying targets is one such use. But we cannot forget that Terrorist groups have targets too. Identifying those can and does save innocent lives. If this interruption caused a salient piece of information that would identify a terrorist target to not come to light, then one could just as easily argue that these 3 caused the death of innocents, should that attack come to fruition.
Good Intel can also prevent wider conflict. Was that in the mind of these 3 when they carried out this wilful damage?
I think the prosecution in this case should hang their head in shame for failing to properly argue the merits of the crown case in light of the defence put forward.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Simply amazing left-wing muddleheadedness.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
“the perpetrators had made a genuine mistake and had believed they had a legal defence.”
there must be a few tax accountants pondering that one.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Earlier references in this thread to this decision potentially justifying crimes against the person are incorrect, because “claim of right” is not inherent in the definition of assault (or murder, as it happens).
“Claim of right” is built into the every statutory definition of the crime of intentional damage – in my view, the Trial Judge HAD to allow the argument to be made – it was purely a question of FACT whether a claim of right was made out on these facts – a job for the jury.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
How so, Sonny? I’m saying let’s leave aside, for the sake of argument, the principle against which they felt they were fighting (Waihopai, in this case) and examine their initial justification (the “greater good”) and ask whether it was appropriate that a judge has, if the legal analysis starting to flow is correct, ruled that out as a future defence for pretty much anyone.
I happen to think the Ploughshares people were wrong because the level of threat posed by Echelon isn’t high enough to justift their actions and the connection between the data it gathers and the deaths of innocent Arab civilians too tenuous. In fact (albeit not having heard all the evidence) I’d probably have been inclined to find them guilty if on the jury.
What I’m concerned about is a judge (of the District Court, no less) seeming to have effectively removed the “greater good” as a defence for anyone, anytime, who takes some action believing it to be for the greater good.
In short, I think it’s a valid defence, ought to have been allowed so as to preserve it for future defendants, but wouldn’t have met the test to let this particular group off scott free.
If you think that’s left wing, you’re overlooking quite a lot of small-l libertarian thinking.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Anyway, as they said, they believe they’re answerable to a higher moral authority than the law.”
They would, being good Catholics. Off to the box for confession and a few coins in the plate and off out to repeat the same shit next day in time for next weeks sin confessions. That’s the catholics for ya.
Keeps the cash rolling nicely.
What disingenuous hypocrites.
And worse I bet they all expect the benefits of being NZ citizens, you know health dollars, retirement benefits etc despite the fact they have just blown away a couple of million dollars. Perhaps their beliefs will be such that they return all such state payments.
Now that would be principled.
But of course not Catholic.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
I disagree with the actions of the Ploughshare people but don’t really care that they weren’t convicted, I don’t think that on it’s own will change much. But I think “greater good” is a useful discussion to have.
The best good that may come out of this case is for “greater good” to be clarified so anyone that cares about it knows the legal position. I’d like to see an appeal for that. What happens to the Three isn’t very important, what the law means is.
March 18th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Huruld, front page:
what the fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuckewsifwflkwefnqlfaqdgrej
March 18th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Would that be the same primary school in Otaki where the children wrote letters to Michael Lhaws?
March 18th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Results of a poll on the front page of Yahoo!Xtra NZ –
Not surprising really.
The average NZer in the street has more common sense than the idiots hearing the case.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
It’s obvious the average type of NZer that participates in a YahooXtra poll doesn’t know the law Fletch.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Pete, what law? That if you damage somebody else’s property or government property you should be prosecuted?
They know the law very well and can see that it hasn’t been upheld.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Try reading through Graeme Edgeler’s posts on yesterday’s Waihopai thread Fletch.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I have to wonder about the jury. Seeing as the have to have an unanimous verdict.
I wonder if one or two far left activists slipped through and held the others to ransom who just wanted to go home.
By the way, it has been reported these people (and I use that term loosely) attacked the base with sickles, what happened to their hammers?
March 18th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
The more i look at it the more it seems to be a Pyhrric Victory, no doubt the government is going to drop the hammer on Jurys and have all the public support it needs to do so.
Well Done.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
the Waihopai 3 should have been found guilty and sentenced to at least a haircut and a fucken good scrub with soap
March 18th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
And the judge sang – “wai hope I never, wai hope I never have to seeee you againnnn”
March 18th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
/thread
March 18th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
rm -rf
March 19th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Clearly there are some informed and clear thinkers on this blog, albeit outnumbered by mere opinionated fools.
It doesn’t surprise or disappoint me at all that 3/4 of NZers are surprised and shocked by the verdict. Among other things the msm coverage has been very ordinary, and shy of facts.
However my vision is to pursue active participation in such actions by less than 1% – that would be enough to throw a spanner in the machinery of war and bring it crashing to a halt. So to know that even 15% of NZers are sympathetic is good news.
As for numbers, I have to wonder how numerous the right really is in NZ. After all you didn’t have even one member of the jury, which puts you at less than 8%. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was more like .2% or .25%. You make a lot of noise, but it just doesn’t signify.
Still, you are amusing, and I think you should be preserved and kept on display for entertainment purposes.
Bwah hah hah hah hah!
March 19th, 2010 at 2:50 am
Bryla (40) Says:
March 19th, 2010 at 12:05 am
However my vision is to pursue active participation in such actions by less than 1% – that would be enough to throw a spanner in the machinery of war and bring it crashing to a halt. So to know that even 15% of NZers are sympathetic is good news.”
I would say that, in a general sense, that is fairly blinkered and short sighted; did it occur to you that sometimes war can be the lesser of two evils?
March 19th, 2010 at 3:07 am
Hypothetical situation: ploughsharers don their sandals and skip off to vandalise Waihopai again. Shuts down communications. While the facility is down, a call is made between two terrorists which uses explicit terminologies rather than code words. Due to the overall stupidity of the CIA (see: Abdulmutallab) they fail to connect the dots which would have been blatant if they picked up this phone call. A bomb goes off at the Football World Cup final, killing 61 people and wounding 227.
Are the ploughsharers ultimately indirectly responsible for this atrocity, and should they expected to kill themselves to atone for their naive stupidity?
March 19th, 2010 at 7:11 am
“I have to wonder how numerous the right really is in NZ. After all you didn’t have even one member of the jury”
interesting claim Bryla, Apart from the obvious question of how you know this?, But what you are admitting is the left will ignore the requirements of justice, and will give verdicts based on political objectives
March 19th, 2010 at 7:43 am
The speed at which the jury reached a verdict suggests there wasn’t a lot of debate or dissenting views.
Bryan, you make the same mistake that some others do here (eg Patrick) – you try to equate the result with left v right. There probably aren’t many on the extreme left or right, most are somewhere closer to the middle, and on the law of averages that is likely where most of the jury were too.
It’s interesting that the Three and supporters are extreme pacifist Christians, but there are also Christians (including on Kiwiblog) who are very pro war, pro capital punishment, pro corporal punishment. But I’ll bet you there are also a lot of Christians somewhere in between.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:01 am
More than a few years ago, a group of Tuhoe were blocking access to some part of the Ureweras, I don’t remember exactly which. And there was much grumbling from the grumpy old men down at the local.
Then they moved on to discussing spa pool fencing, and how onerous it was, and all three admitted to just ignoring the regulations, “fuck’em” was a favoured expression.
I chimed in at that point and said, “So it’s OK for you rich white men to indulge in a little civil disobedience, but not those uppity Maori, right?”
There was a long silence. Then the bravest soul replied with succinct wisdom: “Shut the fuck up, Luc.”
I enjoyed that one.
Civil disobedience is a time honoured practice with many successes to it’s name. The Waihopai act was damage to property, with no threat, actual or implied, to any persons. It’s not terrorism.
Usually, such groups look forward to the trial as their stage on which to parade their beliefs and reasons. In this case they got lucky, as have other such groups in many countries. But if I were them, I wouldn’t go back.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:19 am
…..Basically you are cowards and blowhards who think that holding an opinion is the same as knowing what you’re talking about…..
Yvette, just shut up and do it – then face the consequences. But of course you won’t. You don’t have the courage
Gosh – he doesn’t sound like any Christian I’ve known – apart from the ones who rail about hellfire and damnation, but I’ve not heard such in decades.
….I’ll pray for you.
Well that sounds a bit more Christian. In fact it’s the sort of thing that normally sends the likes of Bonkers, Jeff83, LRO and co into fits of rage, and I don’t think I’ve seen anything from them where they’ve got stuck into his guy the way they do Kris K. I wonder why?
You might find like souls in the irrelevant and powerless Tea Party…..
…..Given that the war on terror is phoney, nothing but a justification for the schoolyard bully
Ah – of course. He’s actually a hardline, old lefty using Christianity as a cover. That probably made sense when he got started 40 years ago or so. Nowadays…..not so much.
Defence lawyer Michael Knowles:
They had a belief in a higher law, a law for protecting people.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a leftie who was not suffused with such. More Nietzschian than New Testament, in that there has always been “higher men” who were informed by a “higher morality”, than that of common society. The irony here is that a vast number of bodies have been planted in the ground thanks to that attitude.
March 19th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Luc, wasn’t the Rainbow Warrior supposed to be “damage to property, with no threat, actual or implied, to any persons”?
Was it terrorism?
March 19th, 2010 at 8:24 am
1) Spa pool fencing and running round with firearms practicing to overthrough the yolk of the whitemans oppression of the tangata whenua through violence – what a vacuous comparison.
2) The Waihopai idiots got away with it and now have significantly raised the bar for all future acts of civil disobedience that may be *slightly* more relevant to New Zealanders than some half arse protest against the great satan. Nice one guys, you’ve fucked it for everyone.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:35 am
I’d have more respect for your simplistic statement if you were willing to also throw a spanner in the machinery of war in some of the totalitarian states rather than the democratic states that tolerate such civil disobedience eg:
*North Korea (NK refugees reporting that NK security apparatus conduct live experiments on living men, women and children).
*Iran (reported yesterday or so that a 20 year old anti-govt protester will be sentanced to death for throwing a stone during protests).
* Zimbabawe (a total basket case, need I have to even justify that one)?
Clearly your biases will ensure you take the easy route.
PS wanna answer my questions I put to you yesterday?
Alas, since human nature is basically f**ked, you are spot on again.
(BTW – I’ve discovered at last the (blockquote) & (/blockquote) tags, just substitute the ( ) for > < (for if I had used just now in this example it would have actually created a blockquote).
March 19th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Good one!
So you meant (for anyone interested in the formatting) – “BTW – I’ve discovered at last the <blockquote> & </blockquote> tags.”
March 19th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Upon hearing this morning, that these c**ts worked with Iraqi refugees, I can only conclude that they are not retarded but just pure evil.
Think about it, for every story they heard of American soldiers coming into someones house to search for weapons and speaking rudely. The would have heard hundreds of Saddam torturing their cousin or Al Qaeda in Iraq blow up kids friends on a school bus.
March 19th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Pete George, mate, the French intelligence agents used a bomb on the rainbow warrior, and they killed a man doing so. hardly nonviolence. You can’t use a bomb without knowing their is risk to the life and limbs of others.
Nonviolence activists plan their actions carefully, and strive to confine any risk to themselves. When Peter Murnane cut the electrified fence he thought that risk to be minimal, but that he took it makes him courageous in my eyes.
I guess one of my thoughts is that the most extreme and foolish views here come from folk who choose to remain anonymous, and whose life story and exemplary actions one cannot therefore examine. What have you done to put your beliefs into action?
March 19th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Bryla, you could also call Jihadists who blow themselves up people who put their beliefs into action and courageous but it doesn’t make their actions right.
March 19th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Cheers Fletch for showing the correct example (I feared if I did, it would have created another real blockquote thus hiding the html code, but somehow you did it)!
Edit: oh er, see my example above, it didn’t come out correctly! Nevermind people should be able to get it from yiur example!
March 19th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Bryla, it seems to me you have a total lack of ability to think for yourself.
Case in point – you use two phrases with exactly the same meaning to laud your heros and attack your opponents.
Stand up for your beliefs and opinionated mean the same thing except one has positive connotations and one has negative.
March 19th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
This is far too late and nobody is going to read it, but – anyway – don’t commentators realise that it was a smart move on the part of the jury to return a not guilty vedict and thereby deny these lunatics the satisfacton of martyrdom?. If they’d gone to jail the hunger strike would have begun the same night and the jail would have been beseiged by sympathetic protestors. As it is this thing will die a death within a week. You see!!
March 19th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
consequences are just that.
The jury committed the crime of not using their common sense.
but then without common values you can’t have common sense can you?
March 19th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Brian Smaller (2525) Says:
March 18th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
As usual Brian said it better and more coherantly
March 19th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Lastly, A mate rang me to ask what I thought of this and my reply is :
If the belief defense must stand then why just for property?
If it is true and fair then it should stand for both property and people or else it isn’t true and fair.
Personally I can accept their sincerely held belief but still think the natural consequence of their natural actions must be conviction and subsequent sentencing.
that brings the problem of a nutter.
A nutter thinks what he believes is true so ergo it is fair and true for him.
Now the god bothers haters on this blog would reason that is what they are saying about the god bothers
But that is what the Islamist warners are trying to say, they the Islamists truely beleive that they are doing right.
so whats the difference between and Islamist and the ploughshares people (apart from no one got hurt this time)?
March 19th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Bryla, just to clarify my post yesterday about how intelligence plays a part in tracking/targeting Jihadist’s etc.
Despite my posting(s), I, like you, detest killing. The ideal would be of course, for people to work together and use peaceful means to achive the greater good for mankind (ditto the earth and all living creatures etc).
But I am a realist. Not everyone shares these ideals (I’m thinking dictators, crackpots, thugs, fanatics etc).
Where we seem to diverge is how we deal with these types of people.
I support UN sanctioned (and sometimes when the UNSC are posturing, non UN sanctioned) efforts to enforce peace with a gun.
You, because of your ideals, to which you are entitled to, prefer non-violent efforts. Fine.
Except it is pretty clear that you support the easy path, that of physical destruction of “western” infrastructure only it seems. The perception then is, you have a bias. You also give the west a handicap.
The other thing is, what do YOU do to support the people in places like Iraq etc? Alas you can’t really go over there and spout your ideals, even if it is well intentioned, because in some (but not all) cases there will be some people who do not appreciate further Christian meddling in their (Islamic) affairs. You will be perceived as being yet another westerner (naturally not military or Govt) but a westerner, Christian at that, who perhaps not ought to be there.
So what do you do then?
Do you suggest the easy solution then (a la Robert Fisk) which is for Westerners to withdraw and leave the locals to themselves? If so, how does that reconcile with the fact that then, for example, women will be treated as second class and there primarily for the men? Granted not in all cases, but certainly in some. How do you feel then that kids can be called to arms and be used for fighting and thus be killed? That women and girls are used, abused and killed?
We know you prefer the easy way out eg protest against the US military exercises in Australia, protest against bases etc. But how do you, in your capacity, do something practical for say the Iraqi people to bring peace between themselves? As usual, in these situations we are looking at generations of inter-tribal warfare, which won’t go away and the killing won’t stop amongst themselves if you somehow succeeded in your wildest dreams to force the US and the west to lay down their arms?
March 19th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
“Bryan, you make the same mistake that some others do here (eg Patrick) – you try to equate the result with left v right.”
Pete George – you’re now the resident Wyatt Earp here? shooting from the hip? Read what I said – Im not equating Left V Right – I’m challenging Brylas claim
March 19th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
niggly, thanks for the considered response.
What can I say? I was born in Australia. I act in Australia, for democracy and peace in Australia, and to keep our government accountable.
March 19th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
In other words Bryla – you really couldnt give a flying fuck about what happens to the average Iraqi or Afghani civilian, your sole purpose is to be a bugbear against the US! At least you are honest.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Bevan, honest enough not to misrepresent what people say.
March 19th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Bevan, honest enough not to misrepresent what people say.
Just interpreting your own words there Bryan – even blind people can see the shit your shovelling.
What can I say? I was born in Australia. I act in Australia, for democracy and peace in Australia, and to keep our government accountable.
Your words there Bryan, your words.