Archive
Ripples in History
.
.
Question: What is the difference between Free Trade and Fair Trade?
Answer, later.
On 26 December 1991, the Soviet Union was formally dissolved. Two years earlier, the Berlin Wall had been physically torn down by jubilant Berliners. (The symbolism of the Berlin Wall as divisive and an affront to the human spirit seems not to have be well understood by the current demagogue-President of the United States, who is maniacally pursuing his own version of a Dividing Wall between neighbouring nations.)
The reasons for the collapse of the Soviet system have been well traversed. But in the end, it boiled down to a simple reality: people simply no longer believed in, or cared about, the Soviet brand of authoritarian “socialism” and apathy reigned (as related to me by Hungarians in the late ’70s and early ’80s).
As the former Soviet Union broke apart and it’s bulwark of Eastern European nations looked westward for their future, the fallout from the demise of one of the three great super-powers created ripples that would last for decades. Some of the unintended consequences are still not fully widely appreciated.
The United States, for a while, was hailed as the “the sole global superpower“. Writing in 2012, Mikhail Gorbachev said;
This event led to euphoria and a “winner’s complex” among the American political elite. The United States could not resist the temptation to announce its “victory” in the cold war. The “sole remaining superpower” staked a claim to monopoly leadership in world affairs. That, and the equating of the breakup of the Soviet Union with the end of the cold war, which in reality had ended two years before, has had far-reaching consequences. Therein are the roots of many mistakes that have brought the world to its current troubled state.
Declarations of an “American victory” were somewhat premature. In reality, with the rise of the Chinese economy and a resurgent Russia, the 21st Century would be anything but American.
The break-up of the former Soviet Union was also hailed as a “signal” to humanity that the experiment of collectivisation and state ownership of all means of production was a failure. As Indian Marxist, E.M.S. Namboodiripad wrote in 1991;
Today, however, talks are going on that not only have the socialist experiments in the USSR and Eastern Europe failed, but world socialism has collapsed. Adversaries of the socialist movement argue chat, far from the Soviet Union being the starting point of humanity’s transition from capitalism to socialism, the socialist countries in Eastern Europe including the Soviet Union have begun their march from socialism to capitalism. From this they go on to add that the theory of Marxism-Leninism itself has failed.
We Marxist-Leninists are above all realists and, as realists, we concede that the recent events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are a major setback to world socialism. We are therefore engaging ourselves in the process of a deep examination of the reasons why these developments took place and whether the trend that manifested itself in these developments can be reversed.
But there were other strands of fallout. The term “socialism” became – as the word “fascism” was after 1945 – a disparaging epithet to throw at one’s political rival. Post-Soviet Union, “socialist” and “socialism” was equated with failure.
Socialism could no longer be seen as a credible alternative to the fad of neo-liberal, free-market, globalisation sweeping the world. Championed by Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in the US, it reached New Zealand’s shores in the mid-1980s.
The NZ Labour Party – supposedly a social democrat/socialist party for the working class – implemented radical liberalisation of trade, banking, commerce, labour laws. Economic “reforms” went hand-in-hand with social reforms such as the 1986 Homosexual Law reform in 1986, de-criminalisation of prostitution/solicitation in 2003, and the marriage equality act in 2013.
The Labour Party had been well and truly captured by apostles to Thatcher and Reagan. It could no longer conceivably be called a social democratic or socialist party.
Aside from the short-lived Alliance Party (which imploded in 2002 over New Zealand coalition government’s decision to participate in the invasion of Afghanistan), the only other Parliamentary parties that feasibly represented left-wing voters were the Mana Movement, led by MP Hone Harawira, and the Green Party. The Mana Movement itself was destroyed after an unholy alliance in 2014 between Labour, National, NZ First, and the Maori Party to support the Labour Party candidate, Kelvin Davis.
Which currently leaves the Green Party to represent the Left of Aotearoa New Zealand’s political spectrum.
The Green Party itself is currently under attack from both ends of the Body Politic in this country.
Some media pundits and the Right are calling for the Greens to return to their “environmental base” whilst the Left are decrying the Greens as not left-wing enough.
.
.
Meanwhile, the rise of populism and the far right paralled the spread of neo-liberal “reforms” around the world.
In 1998, only two nations in Europe – Switzerland and Slovakia – had governments made up in part by populist parties.
By February of this year, the number of European nations with populist parties in coalition governments had increased to more than eleven. (More, if countries like Russia and Ukraine are included.)
Europe’s populism has been matched with Trump in the United States; Erdogan in Turkey; Duterte in the Philippines; Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, etc. Throughout the world, populist parties – mostly (though not always) of a right-wing persuasion – have been on the rise.
The most obvious causes for the rise in right-wing populism has also been well-canvassed;
Most have tapped into a backlash against immigration and a globalized economy that many people feel has left them behind..
[…]
The common thread dates back to the 2008 financial crisis, which opened the door for many populists. Rising inequality and the perception of an unjust — if not corrupt — response to the crash eroded trust in the ability of established leaders to address shifts in the global economy, including technological change and the rise of China.
In Hungary, right-wing populism has taken on a distinct air of neo-fascism;
The biggest advances have been made in central and eastern Europe. All four so-called Visegrád countries are governed by populist parties including Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz in Hungary – where populist parties secured 63% of the vote in this year’s elections – and Jarosław Kaczyński’s Law and Justice in Poland.
Both parties only started showing their true colours – populist, culturally conservative, authoritarian – after they were first elected. They are now attacking core liberal institutions such as the independent judiciary and free press, increasingly defining national identities in terms of ethnicity and religion and demonising opponents, such as the Hungarian-born Jewish financier George Soros, in language reminiscent of the 1930s.
The public backlash against immigration, globalisation, with a concomitant loss of well-paying jobs, and the flow of wealth to the top 1 Percent is well known, understood, and documented;
.
.
What is not well understood is why voters have generally turned away from traditional left-wing parties and policies, and increasingly voted for right-wing (and often far right-wing) populist parties.
In Europe, the backlash against orthodox neo-liberalism/globalisation resulted not in the election of a left-wing government – but in Brexit. In choosing to shun the European Union, British voters by a small majority literally walked away from the continental bloc.
Whether consciously or sub-consciously, this blogger contends the public view the Left as having failed the ultimate test. The former Soviet Union – a super-power in the 20th century rising from a feudalistic monarchy to becoming a nuclear-armed, space-faring nation with global influence and aspirations – failed. And it failed dramatically with the whole world watching.
Since 1989/91, the televised spectacle of the collapse of the former Soviet Bloc has imprinted itself in the psyche of most of the world’s population. The message was made abundantly clear as the Berlin Wall came down; the Red Army retreated from Eastern Europe; and President Gorbachev passed laws making his Soviet Presidency redundant: the Left were unable (or unwilling) to staunch the neo-liberal/globalist orthodoxy.
Indeed, in almost every country, neo-liberalism/globalisation had ‘captured’ supposedly social democratic or centre-left parties such as the Labour Party in UK; the Democrats in US; Labour in Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia, etc.
Thus the parliamentary wing of social democratic/centre-left offered no solutions. They were seen by the voting public as part of the problem.
If Nature abhors a vacuum, the same applies to the Political Environment. The fall of the former-Soviet Union created a political vacuum on the established Right-Left continuum.
That political vacuum would soon be filled as people sought solutions to what many perceived as an attack on their national identities; falling standard of living; unfulfilled aspirations; unresponsive traditional political parties, and the rise and rise of a tiny wealthy elite.
So it came to pass. The vacuum was filled, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, by populist parties and demagogic leaders who offered quick-fix, simplistic solutions. Cue: the trumpets of nationalism, racism, intolerance of minorities, and the emboldening of even worse extremism on the far-right and alt-right.
To compound the worsening political climate, the Left continued to make itself largely irrelevant to the everyday struggles of working and middle class New Zealanders.
A cursory look at blogposts on The Daily Blog, for example will quickly reveal that up until recently (17 April, to be precise) most blogposts were fixated on the issue of “free speech” and the Green Party. Green Party MP, Golriz Ghahraman, to be concise.
Meanwhile, out in the Real World…
… teachers, mid-wives, and medical professionals were on strike for better pay.
… the environment continued to be polluted out of existence.
… greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise.
… mental health continued to be in crisis.
… savage covert cuts to disability funding were planned.
… homelessness was still a ‘thing‘.
… our security apparatus failed us spectacularly by spying on the wrong people.
… the coalition government buckled to property speculators.
For many on the Left, though, the priority was “free speech”.
If ever there was an instance of a public “Meh!” moment, this was it.
Just as the GCSB, NZSIS, NZ Police, and Uncle Tom Cobbly were all distracted by Greenpeace, environmental activists, journalists, bloggers, Maori activists, Christchurch Earthquake survivors, et al, instead of keeping an eye on white supremacists/neo-fascists – the left-wing blogosphere was seemingly distracted by it’s own Shiny Thingy.
The recent furore on the issue of “free speech” and the Green Party’s call to address hate speech appeared to suggest that Aotearoa New Zealand was about to become a quasi-Stalinist state with bloggers and journalists rounded up and despatched to re-education camps on Stewart Island. The unhealthy obsession with the Green Party – Green MP, Golriz Ghahraman, to be precise – drew anger usually reserved for the likes of Don Brash, Mike Hosking, Duncan Garner, et al..
Although, with considerable grim irony, some on the Left were quite happy to protect the “free speech” for the likes of Southern, Molyneux, Brash, et al, whilst launching tirades against Ms Ghahraman.
There remains an ongoing systematic vilification of Ms Ghahraman instead of addressing the issues surrounding “free speech/hate speech”. Some of the vitriol heaped on Ms Ghahraman took on sinister under-tones of misogyny and racism.
That some of the personal abuse has appeared on left-wing forums is especially troubling.
Yet, despite hysterical screams of outrage that the Green Party was advocating stifling “free speech”, a closer examination of their proposal was anything but.
In a recent post on social media, Ms Ghahraman posed a valid question;
“You’re not allowed to harass, or to make up lies that harm an individual. It’s against the law.
However you are allowed to spread hate and lies about a group of people based on their religion or gender, without consequence.
[…]
So why are individuals protected from defamation, or harassment, but whole groups of people aren’t?”
The capitalist system is built on the primacy of individualism, property ownership, and reputational interests (which has a direct bearing on an individual’s commercial activities).
To protect that fundamental underpinning of capitalism, the rights of the capitalist individual was elevated above all else. Including above the needs of society itself.
In October 1987, British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher – architect of Britain’s neo-liberal, free-market “reforms” – was famously quoted in an interview saying;
“And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first…”
Western law reflects the capitalist precept that the rights of individuals are recognised – but groups of people are not. (Class-action lawsuits are a rare exception, usually reserved for physical loss, such as mechanical failures, financial malfeasance, medical botch-ups, etc.)
Under the capitalist system, social groups are a nullity under the law.
Recent high-profile public defamation lawsuits have centered on Matthew Blomfield, Earl Hagaman, and Colin Craig.
All three cases involved lawsuits claiming defamation; suffering because of harmful untrue public statements, and sought awards for damages.
The case of Mr Blomfield successfully suing far-right blogger, Cameron Slater, was recently commented on The Daily Blog. Comments posted after the main article generally approved of businessman, Matthew Blomfield’s victory.
Yet, the right to sue does not extend to groups based on religion, ethnicity, gender/sex, etc.
That privilege is reserved solely for individuals. Those individuals are usually wealthy, white, and not women.
That was the point Green MP, Golriz Ghahraman was making. Or trying to make, as the issue was drowned out amidst a hysteria that veered well into moral panic.
It is salient to note that “free speech” advocates remain mostly silent on this issue.
Free speech is not absolute. A person can be hauled before a court and sued for considerable sums of money if found guilty of defamation.
The legal system protects the rights of individuals. Groups – not so fortunate. Because as pointed out above, capitalism is about the Individual. Groups – not so much.
At the beginning of this blogpost, I posed the question: What is the difference between Free Trade and Fair Trade?
Free trade is unfettered. It protects and serves the interests of corporations. The goal is to maximise profits for individuals (shareholders) at the expense of all else.
Fair trade serves the interests of communities, as well as individuals in those communities. The goal is to better the lives of people, but not at the expense of all else (eg, the environment, workers’ rights, etc).
The Left prides itself on the point of difference from the Right in that we act for the collective good. The primacy of the Individual, at the expense of the greater good, is not something we generally look favourably upon.
We want our trade to be fair. Should we expect less for our public discourse?
It is a contradiction to our much vaunted progressive values that we extend the right to Individuals to legally defend themselves in a Court of Law against defamation and harm – yet deny that same right to groups who might also suffer defamation and harm.
We talk the talk when it comes to collective action for the greater good. We demand the right for workers to act collectively and join unions. We demand adequate taxation to pay for public education, healthcare, housing for the poor, environmental protection, support services for the disabled, etc, etc.
Yet, when it comes to walking the walk to extend the right to legal protections for groups – some (many?) on the Left balk at extending the same legal rights extended to Individuals – usually wealthy businessmen or politicians in positions of power.
The irony is inescapable; that some on the Left seem wholly comfortable with wealthy businessmen being privileged with a legal right to defence against harmful speech that entire groups of people are not.
If we, as a society, are willing to have defamation laws available, they must be available to everyone, groups as sell as wealthy individuals. The law must be for all. Or not at all.
Those days of privilege can no longer be tolerated.
.
.
.
References
CNN: Fall of the Berlin Wall – On 29th anniversary, it’s a different world
Norwich University: Exploring 5 Reasons for the Collapse of the Soviet Union
Noam Chomsky: Barack Obama and the ‘Unipolar Moment’
The Nation: Is the World Really Safer Without the Soviet Union?
E.M.S. Namboodiripad: ‘An Experiment that Failed’? (alt. link)
Huffington Post: Trump Knocks Socialism And Bernie Sanders Does Not Look Pleased
NZ Herald: Prostitution decriminalised, brothels to be licensed
Scoop: Why The Alliance-Left Rebelled
Fairfax media: Winston Peters backs Labour’s Kelvin Davis
NZ Herald: Election 2014 – Hone’s call to arms after Winston backs Kelvin
Fairfax media: Kelvin Davis blasts Mana Party (alt. link)
Mediaworks/Newshub: Lloyd Burr – The Greens have lost their way
The Daily Blog: If you think that the NZ Green Party (who are just as wedded to neoliberalism as Labour is) are your new political home, you are delusional
The Guardian: How populism emerged as an electoral force in Europe
Bloomberg: The Rise of Populism
Wikipedia: Right-wing populism
Vox: Forms and sources of inequality in the United States
The Irish Times: Conor O’Clery – Remembering the last day of the Soviet Union
Radio NZ: ‘No mandate’ for capital gains tax – PM
Fairfax/Stuff media: Secondary school teachers to strike, citing lack of patience with contract negotiations
Radio NZ: Midwives to strike next week
Fairfax/Stuff media: Resident doctors call back planned pre-Easter strike
Mediaworks/Newshub: New Zealand’s ‘dirtiest industry’ blasted over environment report
Climate News Network: Human carbon emissions to rise in 2019
Noted/The Listener: Youth mental health is in crisis and NZ is failing to keep up
NZ Herald: Limited showers, no meal prep – ‘Ruthless’ plans to cut disabled care revealed
NZ Herald: New report reveals the sharp end of homelessness in Wellington
Mediaworks/Newshub: Jacinda Ardern announces Royal Commission into security agencies after Christchurch attack
Twitter: Golriz Ghahraman – Hate speech – 8:47am 17 April 2019
Margaret Thatcher Foundation: Woman’s Own – interview – 31 October 1987
Justrade: Prof Jane Kelsey & Jim Stanford
Additional
Green Party Aotearoa: Golriz Ghahraman speech in response to the Christchurch mosque terror attacks
Fairfax/Stuff media: MP lacks credibility in urging hate speech law
NZ Herald: Political Roundup – Outlawing hate speech and hate crimes
NZ Herald: Christchurch mosque shootings – Does New Zealand need hate speech laws after terror attacks?
Other Blogposts
Pundit: Doesn’t hate-speech need to include some hatred?
The Standard: Reflections on Free Speech and Public Discourse
The Standard: The Green Party on the Mosque murders
TDB: Hone Harawira – Blaming black boys for a white boy massacre
TDB: Recognising Hate Speech When You See It.
Previous related blogposts
National – the Party of free speech?! Yeah, right.
“Free speech” – The Rules according to the Right
The Christchurch Attack: is the stage is set for a continuing domino of death?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 23 April 2019.
.
.
= fs =
Tom Scott and Aramoana’s Long Shadow
From Tom Scott’s collection of cartoons, “Life in New Zealand” – his tribute to the Aramoana massacre on 13 November 1990 where a crazed gunman shot and killed thirteen people.
.
.
The next one is a Public Service announcement to explain to “gun rights” enthusiasts what the purpose of weapons is:
.
.
= fs =
A shameful response to Turkey’s generosity at Gallipoli
.
– Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, first President of Turkey (b. 1881 d. 1938)
.
When President Atatürk uttered those words* in the plaque at the top of this page, it was an act of humanity, love, and generosity that few other leaders of a nation have demonstrated. Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela spring to mind, but the list is depressingly short.
Consider the compassion of the man. British Imperial forces made up of Australian and New Zealand soldiers landed on Turkish soil in April 1915 in a doomed eight month invasion that cost 250,000 Allied casualties, including 44,000 dead.
The Turkish defenders also suffered 250,000 casualties, but with a higher number killed: 87,000.
When we in Australia and New Zealand cry, Lest We Forget our fallen soldiers, we should also never forget President Atatürk’s comforting words.
And not just words either. Turkey has walked-the-walk. Every year, thousands of Australians and New Zealanders make a pilgrimage to the shores of Gallipoli.
The Turkish government and people not only tolerate this annual “re-invasion” of thousands of foreigners on their soil, commemorating an invasion that took the lives of thousands of young Turkish men, but assist with infra-structure from everything from road signage in English to facilities for the thousands who attend;
.
.
.
With this Turkish generosity, the Dawn Service proceeds every year;
.
.
.
You have to ask yourself one simple question: would we be so benign?
Would we be so welcoming to thousands of foreign young people; government officials; and representatives of their military , to commemorate the dead soldiers of an alien invasion force that had landed on our shores, killing many thousands of our own troops?
In case anyone thinks the answer is a simple ‘yes’ – it is by no means “simple” at all.
Afghanistan war veteran, Simon Strombom, from the Titahi Bay branch of the Returned and Services Association (RSA), had planned to invite Newlands Mosque imam, Mohamed Zewada, to say a brief prayer at its dawn service on Titahi Bay Beach. The prayer would have lasted about sixty seconds, in rememberance of the fifty murdered people, and others injured, at the Christchurch mosques on 15 March.
The response was an apalling torrent of resentment, abuse, and threats that went from the intolerant;
.
“Anzac Day came about to recognise all those who went overseas and served their country and returned, and those who never returned. That is the significance and the only justification for Anzac Day, and I feel it should stay that way.” – Dave Brown, (former manager) Porirua RSA
“The Titahi Bay Club, well, you’re completely disrespecting New Zealand culture on a day that is uniquely shared between us and Australia.” – Brendon Walton, New Plymouth
“Dawn service is to honour the Anzacs. Anything else can be done at civic services.” – Peter Downie, (Malaya war veteran) Cambridge
“We shouldn’t mix the two events. We have traditionally been a Christian country in terms of our services and that type of thing. Obviously we are a multicultural country now so it’s up to individual RSAs, but they are two separate events.” – Graham Gibson, Auckland RSA president
“I was, to be quite honest, I was pretty disgusted. These people – and again, I’m trying not to be nasty about it because that’s not my intent – but New Zealand has been very, very welcoming for all people’s, all races, all beliefs and all religions which is absolutely fantastic, but we can’t step away from our tradition. A terrible tragedy has just happened and I feel for the people that died but Anzac Day is not that day for them – it is a day for our guys.” – Lee Sutton (former RNZAF)
“I mean we’ve just had a global recognition of that last Friday so I don’t think there is a need to do it again on Anzac Day.” – Bob Davies (former New Zealand Army)
“It’s going to be a huge police presence, security is going to be a major issue, so from our perspective, while we respect exactly what happened and the feeling of the community, this is Anzac Day, and it’s a different purpose.” – Pete Dawson, Christchurch RSA president
.
… to outright threats;
.
.
The threats became so severe that Stromberg consulted with Police and eventually decided against inviting the imam to give his one minute prayer.
Sometimes the threat of a terror attack is sufficient to achieve desired outcomes by the intolerant and fanatical. (Meanwhile, free speech advocates were nowhere to be heard or seen during this assault on our much-vaunted multicultural values.)
Whilst a rabid, vociferous minority (hopefully, a minority?) spewed their toxic racism, other social media commenters understood the inconsistancy of our people attending ANZAC services en masse in Turkey, a muslim country;
” #ANZACDay has nothing to do with Muslims…..right??? Except #Gallipoli, where #ANZAC soldiers fought, is in a #Muslim country. Where #ANZAC troops were trying to invade a #Muslim country. On behalf of the colonial power of the UK.”
Porirua Mayor Mike Tana also pointed out the rank hypocrisy of opponants to the imam’s one minute prayer;
“We go to Turkey and say our prayers, perform our haka and sing our song and we are welcomed by people in a predominantly Muslim country.
The most significant thing I can think of was Atatürk allowing people into Anzac Cove to remember our people. If there’s an example of kindness, it’s that.“
I do not believe for a moment that the hostility and threats expressed against the proposed prayer by an imam would have corrupted our precious ANZAC ceremony. No more than the thousands who visit Gallipoli in any way create harm to the people and threaten the social thread of Turkey.
In 1915, we were warring with Turkey.
One hundred and four years later we are friends with that nation and they welcome us to their shores to commemorate our fallen ancestors. Turkey offers us the charity that we profess to value as a so-called Christian nation.
I witnessed very little Christian charity from the bigots who attacked Stromberg’s invitation to the local imam. In fact, it was the same intolerance and hate that they accuse Islamist extremists of.
Those bigots, I believe, are a noisy, unpleasant minority. Like fat blowflies.
Most New Zealanders would not fear the End of the World had the imam uttered his one minute of prayer. Civilisation would not collapse. The sun would still rise tomorrow. And we would have been a better nation; a more tolerant one.
We are better than those bigots. In fact, we’ve seen it with our own eyes.
In the years and decades to come, our Day of Infamy on 15 March 2019 will be remembered. Just as we now remember the attack on Parihaka. It will be a defining point in our history: we were tested, and I believe – despite all the scabs and warts – we emerged knowing ourselves a bit better. We are tolerant, in the main, and we do show compassion.
Despite everything, the Kiwi Way of giving others a Fair Go survives.
We should be damned proud of that.
And just as important, we have shown the world what the road to tolerance, compassion, and love looks like. Muslim and non-muslim alike, we locked arms – literally – in unity. We grieved together as a nation. We have a Prime Minister who caught the world’s attention. An act of barbaric violence was met with love and forgiveness.
After the darkness of 15 March, the willingness of people to forego hate and vengeance shone through. It seemed a collective, spiritual response reminiscent of the Christmas Miracle of 1914.
Not bad for a little nation at the bottom of the world.
.
[* Postscript: There is some debate whether or not Atatürk ever said those words. Like characters in the Bible, and other famous figures in the past, there will always be contentious views who-said-what throughout history. My story focuses on the sentiment expressed through those words, regardless who uttered them. – Frank Macskasy]
.
.
.
References
NZ History: The Gallipoli campaign
NZ Herald: Muslim prayer at Anzac Day service upsets RSA veterans
Radio NZ: Muslim prayer dropped from Anzac service after threats
Fairfax/Stuff: Muslim prayer at Porirua Anzac Day service scrapped over security concerns
Twitter: Stories from the Sea – 4 April 2019 1.57PM
CNN: One week after Christchurch shootings, hundreds form human chain around New Zealand mosque
The Guardian: The Christmas miracle
Radio NZ: Christchurch mosque attack survivor Farid Ahmed – ‘I have chosen love and I have forgiven’
Sydney Morning Herald: ‘Johnnies and Mehmets’ – Kemal Ataturk’s ‘quote’ is an Anzac confidence trick
Related
NZ Herald: Paul Little – RSA has had enough of support for New Zealand’s Muslim community since attacks
Other Blogs
Bowalley Road: Shadows Of The Past.
Liberation: John Moore – Anzac Day cultural wars
The Standard: This Is Who We Really Are
Previous related blogposts
15 March: Aotearoa’s Day Of Infamy
The Christchurch Attack: is the stage set for a continuing domino of death?
War – the line between rememberance and glorification
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 8 April 2019.
.
.
= fs =
The secret closed trials of Soviet Russia. (And Aotearoa New Zealand)
.
.
History throughout the 20th century is replete with authoritarian regimes using closed, secret trials to persecute dissidents. Closed, secret trials give a veneer of legal “respectability” to an autocratic regime that wants to do away with its critics, but without giving too much away to the public how they do it.
Or what the defendant might say in his/her defence.
The British conducted secret trials with their “Star Chamber“. From the late 15th century to the mid-17th century, the Star Chamber was a weaponised judicial system to serve the interests of the powerful elite.
Soviet Russia under Stalin perfected the system into an ‘artform’. Trials were secret before public show-trials were made for public consumption.
Often many of these “state enemies” were military officers, party leaders, and functionaries who had fallen “out of favour” with the ruling clique or somehow threatened the status-quo.
Other dissidents – intellectuals, academics, trade unionists, scientists, etc – engaged in nothing more violent than a ‘ war of words’ and ‘contest of ideas’ with the regime. Autocratic regimes are not noted for tolerating a contest of anything, much less ideas that threaten their legitimacy and monopoly on power.
Thankfully, nothing like closed secret trials happen here in New Zealand, right?
Bad news, folks. We are about to have one. It will involve evidence given in secret, in a closed trial.
And the defendant will not be informed of the evidence against him.
On 28 August 2017, Daily Blog administrator/owner, Martyn Bradbury reported that he has been targetted by a Police search into his banking activities following the release of Nicky Hager’s expose, “Dirty Politics“.
.
.
Martyn stated;
I was applying to extend credit to keep the blog afloat and I kept getting declined.
The extensions of credit weren’t extravagant and the manner in which the declines occurred just seemed odd.
I had followed the Nicky Hager case closely where Police had sent out warrantless requests for information and had obtained that information illegally and had even written a blog myself at the time of how the process of obtaining that information by Police could damage peoples credit rating and had even hypothesised that the Police could abuse this by targeting activists they didn’t like out of spite.
I don’t know why, but I felt suspicious and so wrote to the Banking Ombudsman and asked for access to my banking files to see if there was any 3rd person interaction.
The Banking Ombudsman replied early this year, and to my shock, I found out that the Police had, as part of their 2014 investigation into Nicky Hager, sent every bank in NZ a request for information claiming ‘Computer Fraud’.
The material released showed that before I was declined on my credit applications, each one had been referred in the first instance to the Banks computer fraud unit because the Police request red flagged my account.
Once I had discovered this, I requested information from the NZ Police into why they had secretly included me in the Nicky Hager investigation. They responded that while that had sent the requests, they wouldn’t tell me why.
Following police refusal to disclose why they had been secretly investigating him, the stress took a serious toll on his mental health. Police had effectively convicted Martyn a “computer fraudster” without the usual trial process.
Martyn took matters further;
I sent all the material I had from the Banking Ombudsman including the Police request and response to the Privacy Commission and lodged a compliant regarding the Police actions.
The Privacy Commission have just finished their investigation and found that not only did the Police breach my privacy, they also breached my civil rights by effectively conducting an illegal search.
The Privacy Commissioner found in Martyn’s favour;
Earlier this year, blogger Martyn Bradbury made a complaint to our office about a request from Police to his bank for information about him. We investigated that complaint, and recently sent him our final view on the matter.
Among other things, we concluded that Police had collected his information in an unlawful way by asking for such sensitive information without first putting the matter before a judicial officer. Our view is that this was a breach of Principle 4 of the Privacy Act, which forbids agencies from collecting information in an unfair, unreasonable or unlawful way.
Our investigation, as with all our investigations, only addressed the facts of this case. We concluded that Police action in this case constituted an interference with Mr Bradbury’s privacy.
The “judicial officer” that Privacy Commissioner John Edwards referred to is a Court judge.
In November 2017, Privacy Commissioner John Edwards issued a guidance statement “on releasing personal information to law enforcement agencies”. The Commissioner said,
“A number of different areas of our work have demonstrated the need for better information to be made available to companies and individuals about the circumstances in which personal information can be released and used for law enforcement purposes.”
Martyn took that decision to the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT). He said, “they will process my complaint against the Police for breaching my privacy and civil rights through unlawful search. It’s not important to like or dislike my work, but I think we can all agree that allowing the Police to conduct secret investigations into activists and political bloggers that then damage their reputation negatively based on spurious grounds isn’t acceptable in a liberal democracy“.
Among the cases taken by the HRRT was a prosecution on behalf of businessman Matthew Blomfield against right-wing blogger Cameron Slater. The hearing for case was completed three years ago. (Blomfield won.)
On 12 June 2018, Police admitted liability in their October 2014 unlawful search of Nicky Hager’s home. They made an apology and paid “substantial” restitution for considerable harm caused to the journalist.
.
.
David Fisher from the NZ Herald reported;
Investigative journalist Nicky Hager has accepted a police apology and payment of “substantial damages” after the unlawful search of his home during the investigation into the hacking that led to the Dirty Politics book.
The settlement revealed police had sought information claiming Hager was suspected of criminal behaviour, including fraud.
“Police accept that they had no basis for such allegations,” the settlement document read.
“Police apologise unreservedly for these breaches of his rights and have agreed to pay Mr Hager substantial damages and a contribution towards his legal costs.”
Martyn Bradbury was not so fortunate. Police refused to admit liability for their illegal search of Martyn’s bank accounts. He was forced to pursue his case further;
“…now that (Nickey Hager’s claim] has been finally settled, here is my statement to the NZ Police regarding my case against them for dragging me into this pus pit…
“You shredded my credit rating to every major bank in NZ by claiming I was a computer fraudster, caused me huge personal anguish and seized my banking records all for a case against Nicky Hager that you have now admitted you were wrong in proceeding with in the first place. I had nothing to do with hacking Cameron Slater’s computer and yet my case still sits in front of the Human Rights Review Tribunal despite the Privacy Commissioner recommending my rights have been breached.
It’s time to settle my case now.”
…once the abuses of power have been settled, and the damages paid, THEN we should start asking how many other people have been caught out by this and who set the Police on this politically influenced investigation in the first place.”
In March this year, despite a massive caseload and under-funding that was hampering their mandated role, the Human Rights Review Tribunal announced they will finally hear Martyn’s case. The hearing is scheduled to take place in July and expected to last three days.
On 31 March, NZ Herald’s David Fisher published a story outlining impending Martyn’s case before the Human Rights Review Tribunal;
.
.
Fisher also reported the extraordinary demand from Police that key evidence be presented in secret;
“Police indicate at this stage that it will seek to invoke the “closed” hearing process in relation to information relevant to this claim.”
According to Martyn, neither he nor his lawyer will be able to hear evidence presented at the HRRT hearing. In emailed statements, Martyn told this blogger;
…The NZ Police intend to hold part of the trial in secret using secret evidence I am not allowed to see. Part of the trial will be open, part of it closed and held in secret.
My Human Rights Review Tribunal court case into how the police illegally seized my bank records as part of their failed Nicky Hager case finally was granted a hearing to proceed and the Police announced that they would be demanding part of the trial is closed and held in secret using secret evidence I can’t see or challenge.
As stated above, this is all but unprecedented in Aotearoa New Zealand’s legal history.
A day after David Fisher’s story, Thomas Beagle from the NZ Council on Civil Liberties condemned the use of secret evidence in closed courts;
Let’s be clear about what secret evidence is. It’s not evidence that can’t be reported in the media, and it’s not evidence where the judge clears the court of all people not directly participating in the trial.
Secret evidence is evidence that the defendant, the person accused of the crime, is not allowed to see or hear, and therefore cannot challenge. The use of secret evidence makes a mockery of our justice system.
[…]
How can we trust the people keeping the evidence secret? While the courts may assert their independence from government, to the defendant they’re just another part of the government apparatus that’s going to put them in jail without the chance to defend themselves.
The only other (known) use of secret evidence took place in early 2018 when a secret trial, in unusually strict security, took place in Wellington’s High Court.
Thomas Beagle was scathing at the time;
The right to a fair trial is a key part of our justice system and this must include the right to see and test the evidence against you. It’s impossible to rebut evidence when you don’t even know what it says. It’s hard to even appeal when the judgement against you omits critical details that the decision relied upon.
Appointing an advocate and letting the judge see the information is all very well, but as far as the defendant is concerned it’s just one part of the state telling her that she can trust other parts of the state. This is no comfort when it’s the state acting against you in the first place.
[…]
We’re told the secrecy is for “security reasons” but secret trials with secret evidence are a much more significant threat to our security and liberty.
We need to stop accepting the use of secret evidence in our courts, it has no place in a free and democratic society.
Judge Dobson, who adjudicated the original 2018 secret trial was equally disturbed at the secrecy, calling it “an anathema to the fundamental concepts of fairness“.
In his more recent article, Thomas Beagle listed only four laws in Aotearoa New Zealand that permit the use of secret evidence:
- Health & Safety at Work Act 2015 has schedule 4 concerning the use of secret evidence in labour disputes with employees of agencies handling classified information.
- Immigration Act 2009 where sections 33-42 and 240-244 are for the use of secret evidence in immigration decisions.
- Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013 has sections 101 – 113 for the use of secret evidence in offences concerning intercepting communications for the spy agencies.
- Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 where section 38 is for the use of secret evidence in offences under this act.
It is unclear how Martyn’s illegal seizure of his personal bank records is permitted under any of those four Acts.
Even worse is the realisation that it is not Martyn who is defending himself against criminal charges. It is the Police who are on trial for mis-using their powers by breaching a person’s privacy without due regard to the laws of this country.
The police over-stepped and mis-used their powers of search and seizure. It was an illegal action, as Privacy Commissioner John Edwards stated with searing clarity, “that Police had collected his information in an unlawful way”.
Against this backdrop of over-zealousness at best and cynical illegality at worst, that Martyn is now expected to trust any evidence that the Police will offer at the HRRT hearing? Evidence that the Police will use to defend themselves? Evidence that Martyn will not be permitted to determine the validity of?
The Police misrepresented their case when they seized Martyn’s bank records. We will have no way of knowing if they will again attempt to misrepresent their case at the HRRT review.
This is absurd. It is also disturbing.
As Judge Dobson pointed out, the use of secret evidence in closed trials is anathema to the concept of a fair trial. As Thomas Beagle stated, “it has no place in a free and democratic society”.
So why are we, as a nation, permitting it?
On 24 March, this blogger wrote on the matter of the alleged Christchurch shooter’s impending trial;
Yet, conducting [his] trial in secret is also not a solution.
Secrecy breeds suspicion. It would give birth to a host of mind-numbingly tedious conspiracy theories. Salient information about his actions would be lost. It would create dangerous legal precedent.
If the alleged terrorist and mass-murderer of fifty innocent people has the right to a fair and open trial – on what grounds is the same right denied to a left-wing blogger who has committed no crime whatsoever? Remember, it is the Police on trial, not Martyn Bradbury.
This blogger will be sending this story to the Minister for Justice and Justice spokespeople from National, Greens, and NZ First.
But especially this story will be brought to Andrew Little’s attention. The secret trial of Martyn Bradbury is being done under the Minister’s watch.
Not a very good look, is it?
Time to put a stop to this Kafkaesque fiasco, Minister Little.
.
Postscript
This story emailed to the following:
- Justice Minister Andrew Little
- National’s Justice spokesperson, Mark Mitchell
- NZ First’s Justice spokesperson, Darroch Ball
- Green Party spokesperson, Golriz Ghahraman
- Radio NZ
- Stuff Fairfax
- NZ Herald (David Fisher)
.
.
.
References
Wikipedia: Star Chamber
Encyclopaedia Britannica: Purge Trials
Privacy Commissioner: Statement clarifying Martyn Bradbury’s privacy complaint
NZ Law Society: Privacy Commissioner issues guidance on personal information and transparency reporting
Justice Dept: IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2019] NZHRRT 13
NZ Herald: Huge delays at Human Rights Tribunal as cases pile up
NZ Council for Civil Liberties: Secret evidence is unjust and should be banned
Radio NZ: Hearing shrouded in secrecy at High Court in Wgtn
NZ Council for Civil Liberties: Secret evidence unacceptable
Additional
NZ Herald: Hunt for Rawshark sees police rapped again for ‘unlawful’ search of banking records
Other Blogs
The Standard: Bomber Bradbury wins privacy complaint against Police (28 August 2017)
The Daily Blog: Bryan Bruce – Good Cop. Bad Cop
The Daily Blog: My case against a secret NZ Police investigation that breached my privacy and my civil rights (28 August 2017)
The Daily Blog: My statement to the NZ Police now they have settled the illegal persecution of Nicky Hager (12 June 2018)
The Daily Blog: The Human Rights Review Tribunal FINALLY will hear my case against the NZ Police ( 7 March 2019)
The Daily Blog: Secret police trials using secret evidence in NZ – welcome to my Kafkaesque nightmare (31 March 2019)
Previous related blogposts
The Christchurch Attack: is the stage set for a continuing domino of death?
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 4 April 2019.
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
