Submission on The Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill
November
10, 2019
This Bill represents another episode in a sad
litany of reactionary ‘anti-terrorism’ measures since 2001. In so many
cases, both overseas and in New Zealand, basic democratic and human
rights standards have been set aside to respond to situations that are
almost infinitesimal in relation to the ‘normal’ instances of crime
and violence occurring in society. Such a manufactured crisis has
resulted in a steady expansion of the powers of ‘security’ agencies
and the developing framework for future human rights abuses under more
authoritarian governments.
Specifically, the Bill presents serious problems
for a fully democratic society as following:
1.
As in previous legislation, defining
‘terrorist-related activities’ is entirely dependent on the
orientation of the specifier.
a.
Note, for example, that recently
California has listed the National Rifle Association as a terrorist
organisation;
b.
Note that in many countries active
opposition to the government of the day is treated as ‘terrorism’;
c.
Would a New Zealand citizen who took
part in protest against the Hong Kong government be prosecuted under
this law?
2.
NZ law must continue to be based
absolutely on the premise that no one is deemed guilty until convicted
in a court of law. This Bill violates this fundamental principle.
a.
Note that the majority of ‘terrorists’
captured and sent to Guantanamo Bay were later released (sometimes
years later) without being proven guilty.
b.
Note that in the Zouai case, ‘guilt’
based on erroneous overseas evidence took years to overturn.
c.
Note that John Key was happy to have a
NZ citizen killed in Yemen by drone attack with no investigation into
criminality. Condemning citizens for unsubstantiated
overseas activity ‘without the level of evidence needed for a
criminal prosecution’ is a gateway to governmental abuse.
3.
This Bill represents a trend of
ever-expanding powers for security agencies in the absence of any real
‘threat’. No person has been convicted of a ‘terrorist’ threat in this
country since French agents murdered a Greenpeace activist. Compared
to serious crimes of violence in this country ‘terrorism’ is a
nonstarter – but necessary to justify the hundreds of millions of
dollars spent on ‘security’ and to justify Andrew Little’s
subservience to the Five Eyes establishment.
4.
The process of this Bill, in itself, is
a blatant demonstration of disdain for democratic and human rights
integrity. There is no necessity for urgency and the lack of time
given for considered submissions is a disgrace.