Oppose the new terrorism law – Say No to Control Orders

The government is seeking to rush through new terrorism legislation – they have given just FOUR days for the public to make submissions. This rushed process is a serious violation of democratic process, and the law is unnecessary.

MAKE A SUBMISSION

We are encouraging people to make a brief submission to Parliament opposing the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill for the following reasons

Here are some points you can make in your submission:

  1. The government is rushing through legislation, curtailing public input into legislation that severely restricts human rights including right to freedom of movement and fair trial rights.
  2. The government says control orders are necessary because the existing Terrrosim Suppression Act (TSA) may be unable to secure a prosecution. The government was told 11 years ago that the TSA needed significant changes. Thus far, neither a Labour nor National-party led government has sought to address this. Now it is rushing through legislation to fix a hole that they haven’t bothered about for more than a decade.
  3. If a relevant person is engaged in criminal activity or poses a risk to New Zealanders then existing criminal law (for threats or acts of violence) is sufficient to prosecute them. Imposing preventative punishment on someone (such as a curfew) based on what they might do runs contrary to our justice system.
  4. The Terrorism Suppression Act already states that any person who joins a designated terrorist organisation is liable on conviction to imprisonment for up to 14 years. Such a person need not have committed any terrorism offences – they need only to “enhance the ability of” a terrorist organisation to carry out terrorism. 
  5. The government is allowing the use of secret evidence, and although it says it will assign a lawyer to look at that evidence, it still means a person may have no way of knowing what the claims against them  actually are or who is making them.
  6. The basis of terrorism designations is not neutral or objective: designations are political by their very nature – one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter so to speak. Would Nelson Mandela have been subject to a control order in his time? In some cases, New Zealand’s designations are based on politically-biased source material.
  7. It isn’t clear how much “risk” a person must pose in order to be subject to a control order. 

Clause-by-clause commentary (please note this is a work-in-progress)

Part 1, clause 3(a) – Purpose of the Act

To protect the public from terrorism.

The public should be protected from anyone engaging in threats or violent acts irrespective of whether they have a political intention or not. Existing surveillance laws & policing powers should be sufficient to allow police to monitor & prosecute these people

Part 1, clause 4 (2)

Diagram of decision-making is a guide only, suggesting that judges may have significant leeway or flexibility in making decisions. This could lead to inconsistent and arbitrary decisions.

Part 1, clause 6

Meaning of relevant person

This law only applies to people who are returning or coming to New Zealand. White supremacists who openly incite violence against Muslims from within New Zealand will not be liable for a control order against them.

Clause 7 

Meaning of engagement in terrorism-related activities

We have been assured by amendments secured by the Green Party that any foreign convictions and deportations won’t be accepted without proper scrutiny. However, the government’s designated terrorist entities – those organisations already deemed terrorist organisations and thus assigning that label to anyone associated with them – is not subject to appropriate scrutiny. As an example, the Philippines New People’s Army/Communist Party of the Philippines is a designated terrorist entity in New Zealand. Yet, as lawyer Cam Walker argues, their actions would better be understood as an insurgency. The power to define is given to the Philippines government: a government that is strongly allied to the US government and itself responsible for grave human rights abuses. Amnesty International notes that, “increase of arbitrary arrests, detention and killings by security forces and unknown armed persons of individuals aligned with the political left,” under President Duterte. Moreover, the sources used in some designations, while described as “open and unbiased” are deeply US-centric embodying the US perspectives and foreign policy priorities. In particular, the Council on Foreign Relations, cited as an ‘unbiased source’ for NZ designations, is an organisation only open to U.S. citizens (native born or naturalised) with a reputation for being neo-conservative.

(3a-c)

While the provision spells out that there is the need for actual and constructive knowledge of terrorism related activities in some generalised sense, it then goes on to say that you need not know anything actual or constructive about such activities to be subject to an order. This is very fuzzy indeed.

Part 2

Clause 11 (2)(a) The court may make a control order only if satisfied that—the relevant person poses a risk of engaging in terrorism-related activities.

What is the level of risk that the person must pose. Is it any risk whatsoever? How is this risk determined?

Clause 14(3) & 15(3)

Control orders allow the use of secret evidence “the documents to be served must exclude any information supporting the application that is not disclosable supporting information.” Despite the Green Party securing an advocate with access to this information, it is not clear that this allows a person sufficient ability to challenge such an order. This sort of secret justice is not acceptable – people must know the case against them: to be able to interrogate and cross-examine it.

Clause 24 Duration

While the clause is written that a control order cannot be longer than 2 years, it is likely that all control orders would default to two years, with the onus to challenge them falling on the relevant person

Clause 30 Standard of Proof

The standard of proof: “on the balance of probabilities” is too low when determining if a person should lose their liberties and be subject to a control order. A higher standard of “Clear and convincing evidence” would provide for a significantly more robust regime.

One thought on “Oppose the new terrorism law – Say No to Control Orders

  1. Dear friends, brothers and sisters, The Iraqi people are crying out asking for help ..There are people screaming asking for rescue and no one hears them. As Kiwi Iraqis living in diaspora – we would like to invite you uniting on Saturday 9th November 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm in Aotea Square to show support to those who are currently risking their lives in Iraq asking for human right, live in peace, anti-corruption and for the greater good of the country. Protests being held around Iraq for the past weeks have been met with violence and force; killing over 300+ innocent civilians and injuring more than 7500; thousands only in October, a group of different classes ( intellectual, educated, hard worker citizens, adults, women, children and old age people) left their houses for a peaceful protest carrying Iraqi flag but they are all killed by the shooting of security forces and their snipers. Even the wounded people who survived from the snipers, they’ve not been saved from the government and their militias. The security forces kidnapped them from the hospitals and emergency units to torture them and intimidation of demonstrators and all civilians. Their only crime is asking for basic human rights ( electricity, water, jobs, and to live in peace all together ), and they were expressing their right to protest a declining economy and their hope for a better future. The government blackout the social media, internet and also destroyed the broadcast and some TV channels with all communication ways to separate them from outside world so their stories won’t reach the world. And you can see all videos on You Tube and social media which shows the authorities responded to the protesters by real bullets, light weapons, heavy weapons with bombs and snipers by shooting the heads. Our Iraqi community as a Kiwi they need to help and protect their families and friends in Iraq by sending their voice to the world.. We and you, we could save a thousand of people from dying and we can put a steps together to change the world to a peaceful place for all people..

    I attached the Facebook link of the event below.. https://www.facebook.com/events/971434429867282/

    #Save The Iraqi People #Help us#Stop Killing us #NZwithIRAQ #KiakahaIraq

    Yours Sincerely Dr.Emad Adhami Ambassador of Peace 7/11/2019

    | | | Dr.Emad Adhami  | | Ambassador of Peace  | | Universal Peace Federation NZ | m: |  022-1577163   w:www.upf.org | | a: | 24 St Stephens Avenue, Parnell, Auckland 1052 |

    |

    |

    Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s