Yay – the Greens realised the terror bill wasn’t for identity politics grandstanding and actually had serious civil rights implications for all…
The Government’s anti-terrorism bill looks set to pass as the Green Party has swung in behind it, leaving National’s demands in limbo.
The Terrorism Suppression Bill was set to be introduced this week, but it was delayed after the Government lacked the numbers for the bill to pass; the Greens called it too tough while National had called it too weak.
Justice Minister Andrew Little and National leader Simon Bridges blamed each other over the failure to negotiate bipartisan consensus, which is common on national security issues.
But the impasse has been broken by the Green Party, which said it would now support the bill after the Government agreed to make changes.
…yay, the Greens fixed a problem they started! It’s fantastic that they realised their Identity Politics tantrum was actually eclipsing some genuine civil liberty concerns…
The Prime Minister is rejecting a Green MP’s description of a law that would impose restrictions on returning New Zealanders involved in terrorism as “dog-whistling”.
Ghahraman is worried that the legislation employs foreign nations’ definitions of what terror is. She said countries like Iran – where she was born – consider feminists and political activists as terrorists.
“We are literally doubling down on oppression that foreign nations might be employing to define dissidence as terrorists, and we’re not employing New Zealand law in this… There is no place for it.”
Ghahraman said what’s “frightening” about the new law is that New Zealand would be relying on evidence collected by “foreign agencies that may have employed torture and we know that’s not going to be reliable information”.
“We know that they may be relying on convictions that are completely unsafe, or are actually targeted at political dissidence rather than actual terrorists.”
Ghahraman said the proposed law panders to “that tough on crime, war on terror language that especially in a post-Christchurch New Zealand has no place here”.
“We know that it will rile up fear and anxiety about something that isn’t a problem… We do need terrorism to be a crime, but we need to try it in appropriate circumstances.”
…unfortunately, once we strip out all the identity politics virtue signalling, we still have legislation that completely misses the criticism of the proposed law…
like with anything the bloody Government suggests, it’s not until you have a deep dive into the fine print that you start seeing a law that has a terribly large amount of worrying holes in it.
So you will be guilty of future terror acts that you don’t know anything about and it seems to rely on lots of secret evidence that you as the accused won’t be able to challenge.
Worst of all, the evidential standards for this are, let’s say, woeful…
…balance of probabilities? That’s the evidential threshold we are seriously considering here? The same evidential threshold in civil disputes?
The changes the Greens have managed to get Labour to adopt are great, but surely the fact the entire thing hangs on the evidential threshold of balance of probabilities is the true civil rights issue here?
If that problem isn’t resolved all the safeguards to not target feminists fleeing Iran are meaningless.