"The Terrorism Files"

888 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 32 33 34 35 36 Newer→ Last

  • Sara Noble,

    Kyle - I can go out leaving your comment on rape sitting there. I take it you have completely missed all the stuff about rape being primarily violence rather than sex - that the sexual aspect is merely a tool that effectively expresses the violent subjugation of the victim.

    I think it makes little difference if the instrument of penetration is penis, fingers or anything else. An imposed cavity search by a male police officer on a female inevitably carries with it implications of violence and sexual humiliation.

    I won't carry on this kind of discussion with the heartless. It makes me sick.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • Sara Noble,

    Can't - after Kyle - I...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • blindjackdog,

    I won't carry on this kind of discussion with the heartless. It makes me sick.

    Heartless and mindless. Good on you Sara: I don't think anyone else is reading, and these creeps really aren't worth the effort.

    Since Nov 2007 • 39 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    But the police/media/public (re)actions bespeak the disturbing levels of underlying racism within our society, whether you're inclined to notice it or not.

    Personally I'm not opposed to the idea that individuals and institutions in our society are, to some extent, racist, and I'm also not opposed to the idea that this made the events of October 15 different in Ruatoki than in other places around New Zealand, though I doubt that was as much racism, probably more 'Tuhoe-ism'. I think a side-by-side comparison of Ruatoki and Wellington or any other place is pretty simplistic, as there's more factors involved than 'race' in the minds of the police.

    But I don't believe that the possibility of racism invalidates any of the evidence that the police collected before October 15, including video evidence. And I think the frothing at the mouth about the police gets a bit much given how much worse the events of that day could have been (try transplanting the same situation to the USA and see how many people end up as bodies), and in the context of having a good read of the plans that some of these individuals were starting to form, with 'us' and our society in mind. It's like a big cast iron cauldron calling a one cup kettle black.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6227 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    I was making an insinuation? Sorry, I must have missed it. I just saw you bringing out the "you're with us or against us" thing and went "hey, I said just that to somebody else recently..."

    And that's just what you were doing. Is it all just point scoring is it?

    You didn't answer tyhe cherry picking charge I see.

    But I don't see anybody making them here

    A S was quick to do exactly that.

    bollocks

    Ah, charming and eloquent logical argument I see.

    FWIW, Asher's argument is intemperate and "us verus them" - "with us or against us" if you like, but he/she/it does state that one has a legal and constitutional right to remain silent and that is the core of their argument. Should that be taken as a sign of degeneracy?

    That's not to say that people can't raise genuine concerns about civil liberties surrounding the recent arrests

    You forgot the 'but" - and everything before the "but" is bullshit. Oh hang on, there was a "but"... Civil liberties issues are not incidential objections - they are utterly crucial.

    Thatcher...Pinochet...There are certainly circumstances where refusal to disavow somebody's actions does reflect on your own character and fitness

    Arbitrary association to avoid the obvious Godwining. Yes, there are plenty of examples of changing the subject in order to score cheap but irrelevant points.

    eople being arrested on the basis of quite specific evidence

    Some may have been, others haven't. The charges to everyone -all sixteen are related to what's on the warrants and those are firearms charges. If I do some quick maths, that comes to less than five people per gun recovered and over 2.5 million dollars per gun - it must mean some pretty heavy firepower - perhaps ex-Soviet artillery? Evidence, you say - and where is the trial and the cross-examination by defence counsel? All we have seen are accusations.

    Just trivbial, incidental civil liberties issues, worthy of derision, eh?

    And Sara:

    I'd far rather be watching one of the movies you suggested. Thank you!

    Don't, they're depressing. Watch The Sound of Music or something.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    Bah, four per gun out of, what, 17?

    It's late and it's been too much of Scotland's most famous export - and I don't mean golf.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Kyle - I can go out leaving your comment on rape sitting there. I take it you have completely missed all the stuff about rape being primarily violence rather than sex - that the sexual aspect is merely a tool that effectively expresses the violent subjugation of the victim.

    You're reading a whole heap of intent into the actions of a police officer, who might have actually been doing a clinical job of cavity searching someone (if indeed a cavity search took place). You've got this male officer committing sexual violence, that's making a whole heap of assumptions.

    Yes, if a male officer did a cavity search on a female, that's a big problem and very inappropriate. That doesn't make it rape though. That makes it a cavity search conducted by the wrong person.

    An imposed cavity search by a male police officer on a female inevitably carries with it implications of violence and sexual humiliation.

    I'm sure it does. That doesn't necessarily make it rape though.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6227 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    I'm sure it does. That doesn't necessarily make it rape though

    Ever heard of "sexual violation"? It's classified as a crime. More than just "inappropriate"

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Ever heard of "sexual violation"? It's classified as a crime. More than just "inappropriate"

    Yup. But the word that was used was rape, not sexual violation.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6227 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    quite specific evidence

    What part of "inadmissible" don't you understand - or do you not care?

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    Yup. But the word that was used was rape, not sexual violation.

    Ah, that's all right then. Sorry.

    The it's-not-quite-as-bad-as argument. Irrefutable, that is.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    The it's-not-quite-as-bad-as argument. Irrefutable, that is.

    No that's not my argument. I was simply agreeing with your point that sexual violation is a crime and it's more than just inappropriate, which is all that you said.

    My point was if you're going to argue it's rape, argue that, sexual violation is not necessarily rape, though certainly all rape is sexual violation.

    My argument is there's nothing inherent in a cavity search that automatically makes it a sexual violation either, if intent of the searcher is part of your concern. It's possible for a cavity search to be sexual violation, but it's also possible for it not to be.

    You need to leap from 'a cavity search apparently took place' to 'rape/sexual violation took place', and the only way you can do that is if 'all cavity searches constitute rape/sexual violation'. And if they do, then NZ customs have got some serious navel gazing in the near future.

    And, if you're going to quote me, try and keep the context, since y'all so big on everyone else having to do it. I said it was "very inappropriate". If it actually did happen, then I'd imagine that's how the police would view it too.

    G'night.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6227 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    And if they do, then NZ customs have got some serious navel gazing in the near future.

    Maybe they do...

    If it actually did happen, then I'd imagine that's how the police would view it too.

    Your faith is touching. I can imagine pixies and elves, but I don't believe in them.

    "very inappropriate"

    Let's not mince words. It's "very inappropriate" to serve red wine with fish too. You do agree that sexual violation is criminal.

    OK, let's do some leaping to determine exactly where the moral line is drawn:

    "Your honour, my client did not ejaculate."

    "Your honour, my client did not achieve erection."

    "Your honour, the plaintiff consented."

    So where does the line get drawn, since the exact placement of that line is so important?

    Now those defences get used routinely in court, but I suggest that the key word might be consent. Supposed - I repeat, supposed intent is not a serious defence. Admittedly, in cases where a serious crime is suspected, a search may be necessary and even justifiable, without consent, but:

    An imposed cavity search by a male police officer on a female inevitably carries with it implications of violence and sexual humiliation.

    I'm sure it does. That doesn't necessarily make it rape though.

    And you accepted the "inevitably".

    So it's not rape, but it carries inevitable connotations of violation and humiliation... and then it doesn't.

    Which is it?

    My point was if you're going to argue it's rape

    I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth, otherwise I'll find myself wandering down the street muttering, "Pinochet, Thatcher...".

    In any case, sensitivity over this issue is called for. To - if this is the case - have a man conduct an act on a young girl that inevitably entails sexual humiliation without a female officer present and without a damn good reason is just plain stupid if not utterly vile.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    I'm sure being cavity searched, if that's what actually happened, is pretty unpleasant. It's not rape however, rape is sexual. I'm not sure you should go waving 'rape' around if that's not what happened

    Kyle, Rape is not the same thing as sex. Sex is something people share. It is a depth of intimacy. Rape is the violation of personal boundaries. Rape is violence! Do you get it?

    It's understandable that the police see the need to be tooled up when they execute search warrants, sighting the TSA, or even misuse of drugs and fire arms act. What's in question is, are we going to tolerate any deviation from the law by these heavily armed police. I think the answer is hopefully no. They have been entrusted by us not to abuse people with the power differential bestowed upon them.

    Now on an entirely different subject. The inadmissible and circumstantial evidence (leaked stuff) . Obviously it wouldn't get a conviction on it's own. It needs the actual evidence it suggests. One of the reasons for taking evidence to court, as the genuine affidavit has affectively been, in order to get the search warrant, is to place some space between the accused and the marauding mobs. else we might get tempted to terminate our social contracts at village squares, like in the olden days.

    I kind of like conventional legal process , intelligent analytical rational prevails. However not withstanding outright lies and expert witnesses, such as anonymous witness A's and B's from remand.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2807 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    __"very inappropriate"__

    Let's not mince words. It's "very inappropriate" to serve red wine with fish too. You do agree that sexual violation is criminal.

    You're the one that started mincing words. I just think if you're going to do it, it helps to quote the person accurately.

    OK, let's do some leaping to determine exactly where the moral line is drawn:

    ...

    So where does the line get drawn, since the exact placement of that line is so important?

    I don't see the relevance of a bunch of lines justifying sexual intercourse relate to the topic at hand. As far as I know, no one's accusing any police officers of having any sort of sex here.

    So it's not rape, but it carries inevitable connotations of violation and humiliation... and then it doesn't.

    Which is it?

    My point is, sexual humiliation does not necessarily mean rape. I'm sure some people feel humiliated after an up-close-and-personal visit to the doctor. That doesn't necessarily mean that the doctor did anything but a professional inspection.

    __My point was if you're going to argue it's rape__

    I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth, otherwise I'll find myself wandering down the street muttering, "Pinochet, Thatcher...".

    OK, if you're going to jump into a conversation talking about X, and then start talking about Y, expect people to say "hey, I'm talking about X".

    Kyle, Rape is not the same thing as sex. Sex is something people share. It is a depth of intimacy. Rape is the violation of personal boundaries. Rape is violence! Do you get it?

    Yeah thanks for that. What it's not, necessarily, is a cavity search.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6227 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    As far as I know, no one's accusing any police officers of having any sort of sex here.

    Rape is not the same thing as sex.

    OK, if you're going to jump into a conversation talking about X, and then start talking about Y, expect people to say "hey, I'm talking about X".

    The basis of your argument there seemed to be that the civil liberties of the accused should not be defended because, hey, Thatcher defended Pinochet. It was a cheap ad hominem shot at best.

    I'm sure some people feel humiliated after an up-close-and-personal visit to the doctor. That doesn't necessarily mean that the doctor did anything but a professional inspection.

    Doctors have to adhere to very strict ethical guidelines and are struck off and/charged if they don't because of the nature of the power relationship that they have with their patients. If the doctor was in full combat gear and carried a bloody big gun, I'd be rather concerned to put it mildly. You cannot argue that there is not a further elevation of a coercive power relationship there. That's a false analogy.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    They have been entrusted by us not to abuse people with the power differential bestowed upon them.

    My thoughts too. We can't just imagine that they have the best of motives and intentions and behave accordingly. That doesn't mean that they're fascist pigs, but in a society where certain people are granted extraordinary powers, then they must come under extraordinary scrutiny.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Finn Higgins,

    Kracklite, you're attacking me for failing to argue your points and then utterly ignoring mine. Pick your standard and live by it, please.

    Of course people are judged on their associations. That's exactly what happens in normal human society on a day to day basis. It's one of the most normal ways that human societies enforce their accepted range of behavior. I provided a couple of profile examples of people being judged on associations, but I could just as easily have used any number of everyday situations. Drawing a line of argument between yourself and the behavior or others is a huge part of politics of any description. How else do we oppose organisations like the National Front? With guns? I would most certainly judge somebody with connections to Kyle Chapman for refusing to condemn his activities, wouldn't you? Honestly?

    As for the "everything before but is bullshit" glib throwaway, feel free to address the point anytime. All you're doing is ignoring my point based on a grammatical construction; are you really going to make me go back and restructure my sentence to not include "but" before you answer the point contained within? If so you're being rather petty. I made a very specific statement that I do have an interest in the civil liberties issues raised. I also think that those making them are destroying their chance of their arguments succeeding by being completely blind to any possibility of wrongdoing by those they are vocally supporting. If you want to claim that is bullshit because you don't like my grammar then there's little point talking to you, because you're not arguing with anything resembling good faith.

    Next up, inadmissibility. That is a legal point, and an extremely valid one in giving people a fair trial on criminal charges with state-enforced consequences. When it comes to forming an opinion on whether you wish to support people's actions legal admissibility doesn't really come into it - you just consider the evidence and the rationale behind its inadmissability together in making your own judgments.

    To get back to a rather related point given many of the parties involved, let's try mentioning everybody's friend Clint Rickards again. Found not guilty. Still happy to associate himself with convicted rapists. By your argument, we've no right to judge him - legally speaking he's as innocent as he's going to be, and we can't judge people by their choice of people to associate with. Am I on the right track, or did I miss your argument?

    As for cherry picking... sure, I was making a pretty cheap point. I'll take that on the nose, I've got the 'flu at the minute and I'm grumpy. Now I've answered your points do you want to take a crack at the substance of mine?

    Wellington • Since Apr 2007 • 209 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    The basis of your argument there seemed to be that the civil liberties of the accused should not be defended because, hey, Thatcher defended Pinochet. It was a cheap ad hominem shot at best.

    You're thinking of someone else there, who's not me. The person you're looking for in this matter is Finn.

    Doctors have to adhere to very strict ethical guidelines and are struck off and/charged if they don't because of the nature of the power relationship that they have with their patients. If the doctor was in full combat gear and carried a bloody big gun, I'd be rather concerned to put it mildly. You cannot argue that there is not a further elevation of a coercive power relationship there. That's a false analogy.

    Department of Corrections staff, Police staff, Customs NZ staff carry out these sorts of searches all the time, and sometimes it's done in the presence of armed guards, and sometimes the person being searched is restrained. I'm sure in most instances they do so very professionally, and following the ethical guidelines set down by their employers. And I can't imagine in many instances it's consensual. None of those things make it rape.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6227 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    I would most certainly judge somebody with connections to Kyle Chapman for refusing to condemn his activities, wouldn't you? Honestly?

    What has distinguished this case is the blanket smear of all involved when trials are pending based on some very murky associations created largely in some search warrants that in the end uncovered four guns. Moreover, they are certainly under surveillance still. As I've said before, anything they say may be used - and that is why evidence is suppressed and that is why they're staying silent.

    The choice they have is not between two black and white alternatives, it's between remaining silent and looking bad and saying to much and ruining someone's chance of a fair trial (if it hasn't been ruined already) and thereby appearing to justify the whole series of raids. One's bad, the other's worse.

    Truth be told, there is a lot of division in the activist community - they're not some monolith, but there has been conscious agreement among the networks that mutual finger-pointing isn't going to help anyone. They're not quite as dumb as the People's Front of Judea.

    Well, mostly not as dumb. The fact that some damned fool has got frustrated and posted the affidavit on the Internet and this document in particular seems to have come from the defence side probably has something to do with someone being a damned fool. Maybe they were angered at the fact that the Dompost already had been picking out choice quotes. The website, I hear went up long after Fairfax and TV3 received their leaked material.

    Chapman, OK, I was wondering when that would come up. I'd certainly not think very charitably of such a person, but I would not go around claiming that they must be fascists. I don't demand loyalty pledges. To refer to the unwelcome Thatcher/Pinochet comparison, some of my best friends vote Conservative... (yes, really).

    All you're doing is ignoring my point based on a grammatical construction

    Now you're arguing in bad faith. It was not a grammatical point: you constructed your argument to hold up civil rights specifically to put them down in relation to what followed. That is the point I was making. It would be the same if you said 'however" or "nonetheless" or whatever.

    consider the evidence and the rationale behind its inadmissability

    Indeed. Do so.

    Clint Rickards again. Found not guilty.

    Thatcher (by Kyle), Chapman (whoops, unintentional pun), Rickards. Who next, Napoleon?

    That's only pertinent if one takes a strict binarism of guilty/innocent and it's as reductionist and misleading as the doctor analogy above.

    It's not merely a matter of Rickard's associations. It's his admitted coercive, grooming behaviour of vulnerable young women that makes him a despicable individual. Most people think that rape has to be at knifepoint, where the alternative is clearly death, but for many women, it's because they're pushed slowly into a state of learned helplessness. Even if it wasn't defined as rape in the final courtroom verdict, admitted systematic intimidation and isolating behaviour are grounds enough to believe that "not guilty" is not the same as "candidate for sainthood."

    Add to that the fact that the trial was seriously unbalanced - that Louise Nicholas' past was brought up as a critical part of the defence, but the accuseds' pasts were suppressed, as was evidence from a prosecution witness and then the whole investigation was sabotaged by Dewar. That makes for a very dodgy trial and verdict.

    There's enough there to be reasonably sure that Rickards is not someone that i'd invite around to dinner.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    You're thinking of someone else there, who's not me. The person you're looking for in this matter is Finn.

    Sorry, I stand corrected. Flu also.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    None of those things make it rape.

    Did I say that it was rape? No. You are continuing to argue that if it is not one thing, then it must be the other of widely separated options. The doctor example was the most egregious.

    At least now you are bringing up clearly similar situations.

    Are you sure? How can you be sure? My point is not that it was rape, but that - as you yourself admit - it carries inevitable connotations. As you mention, there are often armed guards and consent is doubtful. This is where the person being searched is obviously a danger to themself and others. What you fail to notice is the power differential and the intimidation of a young woman.

    My point is that there must be extraordinary oversight for extraordinary circumstances because not only is the line between search and sexual assault very fine, the persons judging where it is - those with the guns - are not the best suited to make the call.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    because of people being arrested on the basis of quite specific evidence that they were preparing for violence. This is neither taking a balanced position or staying silent, so I think it's a pretty reasonable target for derision.

    OK, late night and too much Scotch. That's my excuse, Your Honour. Now to address that.

    I think that I've dealt with some of that above - balance is not between good and bad, but between bad and worse in the case of those remaining silent.

    In the case of the noisy ones, well they're often dealing directly with the likes of Greg O'Connor and Ron Mark at one end and Redbaiter at the extreme and plenty of angry letter-writers in the dailies shouting out "Terrorism!". Admittedly, there's not a lot of space in the middle it seems, but to say that the hysteria is all on one side, which it is not, and therefore deserves flat-out dismissal is unfair and inaccurate.

    People were arrested on specific and detailled evidence. The warrants were for firearms (not avocados) and those are the charges as they stand. Now 17 people were arrested for four guns. Something's missing here: napalm, grenade launchers, weapons of mass destruction.

    What we have seen is one side of the case in which terrorism is alleged - the evidence has not been placed under examination and which the SG says cannot be used. It is not unfair to argue here that people are being blanket condemned in public with banner headlines on the basis of deeply flawed evidence.

    I kknow that this sounds a bit like "I know something you don't", but here goes: the raid at 128 Abel Smith Street broke up a sinister cabal plotting to... discuss gluten-free food. The claims of "criminalisation of dissent", while seeming extreme, are to some degree justified due to the fact that the raids did not come out of the blue but were the latest and most extreme of attacks, false charges (which I've alluded to above) surveillance and bullying that has been going on for years. Not all of it makes the headlines, so a sudden eruption of press coverage and the activists' reaction can seem sudden, but it is rooted in history.

    There is a context there.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Finn Higgins,

    Thanks Kracklite, I think that's some progress in that we've got a lot to agree on now.

    The problem that many of us are having with the response of the activist community is less the lack of willingness to talk as the unshakable willingness to talk about the evils of others while remaining silent about the culpability of those they're defending. There are two sides to every argument, and contributing causes for every event. If you're saying that you are legally disadvantaged by discussing the actions of one side it would be a good idea to stop publically damning the other side with such force. As an example, the assertions that the Armed Offenders Squad should not have been used in the Ruatoki raids. It's impossible to have this discussion without actually talking about what the defendants were doing in the Ureweras with weapons and live ammunition, particularly those targeted by the Ruatoki raid. If what they were doing was insubstantial and non-threatening then an AOS call out should be considered a gross blunder. If what they were doing was deliberately trying to clone overseas models of training for civil unrest while talking specifically about killing police officers then I'd think an AOS call-out is the only likely or reasonable end-result, no? So are we talking about this issue or not? You can't just expect to talk about one side of the argument without people perceiving you as unreasonably one-sided. The comparative absence of people shouting one-note recitals of their own political viewpoint is one of the things about politics in NZ that redeems it considerably over, for example, the USA. I quite like that, so I'm quite keen on asking people to at least try to see both sides of the argument.

    I'm willing. If anybody has some substantial evidence of police wrongdoing then I want to hear it, I want to see it reported to the Police Complaints Authority and I want to hear their response. But trying to claim wrongdoing just because the arresting officers came dressed in black with guns is a bit off when you're totally refusing to discuss circumstances supporting why they might have come equipped like this. The context of what happened in the Ureweras is critical to judging the actions of the police, but nobody making criticisms seemingly wants to talk about that too much. And when the people making those criticisms just increase in volume every week (I think Sara's argument-free assertion of "very real ATROCITIES" is a new low for reasoned discussion in this thread) the likelihood of public opinion turning against their entire position increases.

    If you genuinely believe there are civil liberties issues to discuss then surely trying to avoid having your entire side of the debate discredited by unsupported, one-sided ranting would be a great starting point, no? I do think there are real civil liberties issues surrounding the present international environment. I don't like terrorism legislation, I'm glad to see that no terror charges have been brought in NZ yet. I don't want to see crap legislation from overseas imported here. But why is it that parliament found it so acceptable to basically laugh in Keith Locke's face when he made arguments against the TSA amendment? I can't help but keep hearing The Boy Who Cried Wolf throughout this entire debate, and parliament's response to Keith Locke was sadly like watching the little boy crying out about the real wolf while everybody laughed him off.

    Wellington • Since Apr 2007 • 209 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    Fine, Finn, thanks. Likewise, I can see important points of agreement.

    Alas, I have to go to work. I'll be back later.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 32 33 34 35 36 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.