Terrorist Training Camps in New Zealand

[Hepcat]

I've been intending to post this here for a while:

Anti-terrorist operation leads to 17 arrests in New Zealand
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2191831,00.html

NZ police criticised over anti-terrorism raids
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/18/2062648.htm

Police and minister reject criticism of police raids
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=19273&cid=15&cname=Politics

Now what is my view on this? Personally I think Tame Iti is a nutcase. In the last 30 years the NZ government finally owned up to more than 150 years of mistreatment of Maori. Yet he doesn't accept this, he would rather stir up as much trouble between Maori and Pakeha as he can. Firing a shotgun at the NZ flag and threatening members of the Waitangi tribunal (a group set up to compensate Maori for loss of land by returning it or if that's not possible then monetary compensation). I don't know any Maori who respect him and all Maori I know believe he is just giving Maori a bad name and causing trouble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tama_Iti

So when he is discovered hoarding weaponary I really don't see how he can expect any different than to be arrested. Although I can't help but wonder why the government felt the need to enact anti-terrorism laws when they could have been arrested under the ordinary law anyway.

This article is worrying me:
The Maori Party co-leader has moved to clarify his claim that this week's police raids have set Maori-Pakeha relations back 100 years.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200710181901/sharples_clarifies_race-relations_claim_re_raids

And something else worrying me is this:
NZ signs up to US terrorist database
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4241514a10.html
"It's a good thing if it improves the security of New Zealand and New Zealanders. There are bound to be some human rights concerns but the public good comes first."

Amnesty International executive director Ced Simpson said he could see the benefits of access to the US database but it was all too easy for countries around the world to label people as terrorists.

Maybe I'm worrying over nothing, but I don't want us to end up with anti-terrorism laws allowing people to be deprived of their rights since we don't need anything like that.

So what do people here think?

[Beirut]

"There are bound to be some human rights concerns but the public good comes first."

That's priceless!

"My children's happiness is paramount but I beat them every morning anyway."

[Husar]

I'm with Beirut, that has to be one of the worst reasons for such laws ever. :dizzy2:

[Gregoshi]

So it is true that There's More Than Sheep in New Zealand (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=93508)...

[naut]

@ Gregoshi: :laugh4:

Beirut hit the nail on the head. If it was laws in regard to America, I could kinda understand. But, terrorist threats in New Zealand would have to be minimal at most. Ordinary law would more than cover for the arrests

The response by the Maori party seems a bit disproportionate.

[Hepcat]

@ Gregoshi: :laugh4:

Beirut hit the nail on the head. If it was laws in regard to America, I could kinda understand. But, terrorist threats in New Zealand would have to be minimal at most. Ordinary law would more than cover for the arrests

The response by the Maori party seems a bit disproportionate.

Yeah, Beirut is right. I don't believe we need to get swept up by the terrorism hysteria which seems to be so much in fashion at the moment.

And as for the Maori party, it is far from a united opinion. Many Maori are of two minds about it, one, yes Tama Iti is a troublemaker but then isn't classing Maori activists as terrorists just a bit insulting? It does kind of remind me of the 1863 NZ Settlements Act which meant that any Maori the government deemed as "rebels" or as opposing the Pakeha rule could be arrested and have their land confiscated without trial.

If the government is going to take a step towards something similar to the very things that they revoked then there are some problems.

I was really expecting more of a response to this topic, but maybe I scared everyone off with all the links.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I was really expecting more of a response to this topic, but maybe I scared everyone off with all the links.That could very well be the case. That, and, well speaking for myself, I don't know that much about the internal politics of NZ. I know that you do a lot of sheep and have many promiscuous girls. (err...or did you guys have the first and do the latter? Dang, can't remember.)

And you killed the subject by being reasonable and moderate about it: "yet...although..." "worried...terrorists, yes....but...depriving of rights".

You should be more Daily Mail about it. Pick a side and then be sensationalist and unreasonable: 'Flags desecrated! darkies are terrorists! We need gunz!'. Or 'Police brutality! Rights deprived! US lapdog!'
That works.

[Watchman]

Louis, the voice of uncomfortable truths. :sweatdrop:

[Hepcat]

That could very well be the case. That, and, well speaking for myself, I don't know that much about the internal politics of NZ. I know that you do a lot of sheep and have many promiscuous girls. (err...or did you guys have the first and do the latter? Dang, can't remember.)

And you killed the subject by being reasonable and moderate about it: "yet...although..." "worried...terrorists, yes....but...depriving of rights".

You should be more Daily Mail about it. Pick a side and then be sensationalist and unreasonable: 'Flags desecrated! darkies are terrorists! We need gunz!'. Or 'Police brutality! Rights deprived! US lapdog!'
That works.

Ha, yeah. That makes sense. I just thought I'd try presenting both sides of the argument so people would maybe understand it a bit better and be more confident about having an opinion on it.

I'll try to be less reasonable about everything and more extremist in my next political topic. ~D

:bow: