Reclaim the Night returns to Wellington

Wellington Reclaim the Night 2009

Reclaim the Night is an international event putting the issue of women’s safety from male violence on the agenda for this night and every day.
We march to demand our right to be free from the fear or reality of rape, of sexual harassment, of domestic violence, of stalking.

In Aotearoa/New Zealand
􀁹1 in 3 women will experience physical or sexual violence from a partner in their life
􀁹99% of sexual violence incidents reported to the Police are perpetrated by men
􀁹95% of them on women
􀁹A woman is killed in a domestic violence incident every 3 ½weeks
􀁹92% of protection orders are taken out by women
􀁹1 in 3 women report sexual harassment in the workplace

This year the Wellington Reclaim the Night march addresses:
“The culture of violence towards women”
and is focused around being safe in our city;
in our homes,
at work,
while out exercising or walking,
going clubbing or out for a drink with our friends

When: Friday the 27th of November, 6.00pm

Where:
Assemble at the front of the Wellington Railway Station for speakers including Labour’s Lynn Pillay on the changes to ACC for sexual violence survivors
Performance by the Real Hot Bitches (tbc)

Who: All self-defined women and their children

After party:
Ivy, Dixon Street from 8pm with performances from…
Edwardene Tanaki, Tyree Robertson
Mahinarangi Maika, Rachael Wright
Freya Eng, Palace This!
And others…

Let’s celebrate being safe in our city
Questions, comments?
www.reclaimthenight.blogspot.com
vuwsa.womens.group@gmail…com

 

Invitation to Explosive Expression Art Auction and Exhibition

Dear friends,

You are warmly invited to: *Explosive Expression* – Creative Resistance to the State Terror Raids of October ‘07

Art Auction 7pm, Saturday 17 October, Thistle Hall, Cuba Street,
Wellington – to view all the 65 artworks go to
www.October15thSolidarity.info/artauction
or visit Thistle Hall, Cuba Street, Wellington, 12-6pm every day this week.

The ‘Operation 8′ raids on houses in Te Urewera and around Aotearoa targeted indigenous rights, environmental, anti-war and union activists. 18 people still face politically motivated charges. Funds raised from the
auction will support those affected by the raids.

If you are in Wellington, we invite you to share in a week of events
commemorating the 2007 ‘terror’ raids:

*Friday 16 Oct, 6pm:* Meet the artists and hear about their creative
resistance at Thistle Hall

*Saturday 17 Oct, 12-4pm:* *Political screen-printing *workshop for youth at Aro Valley Community Hall sponsored by a Creative Communities grant

*Saturday 17 Oct, 7pm*: AUCTION NIGHT with food, drinks, and all of these amazing works for sale

*Sunday 18 October, 1-5pm: **Documenting our communities* workshop with local filmmakers at Aro Valley Community Hall sponsored by a Creative Communities grant

:: Articles

1. Putting on a show of resistance
By KATIE CHAPMAN – The Dominion Post

A confiscated police flag and a self-portrait by Maori activist Tame Iti are among more than 50 artworks being auctioned to mark two years since the “terror raids”.

Iti will officially open the Explosive Expression exhibition tonight at Thistle Hall Gallery in Wellington, with the final auction on Saturday.

He is one of 17 people facing charges after the 2007 police raids, which resulted in the arrests of 18 people in Bay of Plenty, including at alleged military-style training camps in the Ureweras, under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

They were charged with more than 300 firearms charges, including
possession of guns, Molotov cocktails and ammunition.

One person had the charges dropped, and 10 had charges reduced after a preliminary hearing last year.

Volunteers were setting up the exhibition yesterday. Artist and organiser Graham Jury said the aim was to raise awareness about the raids, as well as mark the anniversary.

“We need to take a stand against this ongoing process.”

An exhibition was a way to celebrate freedom of thought after the raids, and art was a traditional form of protest, he said.

“We’re concerned about the terror raids targeting people whose main
crime has been to express contrary opinions to the Government.

“We’re celebrating creativity in art in the face of encroachments on
our freedom of speech.”

The show was also a chance to raise funds for those facing charges,
with the proceeds going towards legal fees and helping the families.

Iti’s self-portrait, showing red eyes peering from a dark background,
is expected to be popular, as is a confiscated police flag, with the words “rules and violence” spraypainted on it.

The work, No Reverence for the Badge, is by an artist using the
pseudonym “Rob de Rich”. It is unknown how he or she got the flag.

Other works range from paintings and photography to fabric works and
jewellery.

Challen Wilson contributed an installation to the exhibition, and used
the theme of honour. “Honour ourselves, honour each other, and honour
our spirits.”

Former MP Nandor Tanczos will host the auction.

2. Proposed powers ‘bordering on police state’
By MAGGIE TAIT – NZPA

On the second anniversary of controversial police raids, political activists today told MPs a new bill allowing police greater powers to
search and monitor could stifle freedom of speech.

Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff also raised concerns and recommended a raft of beefed-up safeguards to better protect people.

Parliament’s justice and electoral select committee is considering the
Search and Surveillance Bill which is based on a 2007 Law Commission
report and also brings together police powers which are scattered
through numerous statutes.

It gives police and other law enforcement agencies increased powers
such as the ability to compel people to answer questions, clone
computer information and makes changes to searches and surveillance.

Several activists, arrested by police in the past, referred to the October 15, 2007 controversial police “anti-terror raids” at Ruatoki in the Eastern Bay of Plenty and Whakatane, Palmerston North, Auckland and Wellington when appearing before the committee today.

Activist Annemarie Thorby made an impassioned submission to MPs saying the new bill gave police powers to search without warrant any arrested or detained person, or if authorities had concerns about safety or felt their investigation would be compromised.

“They can just go straight in, they don’t need a judge’s permission,”
she said.

“It’s a nightmare, it’s bordering on a police state.”

MPs emphasised the bill focused on criminals, but activists were worried it would apply to them.

Ms Thorby said the bill removed the right to silence; allowed surveillance without warrants in some circumstances; expanded excessively what information police could require a suspect to give and gave police search powers they could use for “fishing expeditions”.

Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said law enforcement needed to be
balanced against invasion of privacy and while she supported the bill, she felt better safeguards were needed.

She said people should be notified, even if it was after an investigation was completed, if they had been watched.

Warrants for searches of people’s computers, including remote searching if people held information on websites, should be as specific as possible.

Another safeguard was needed around orders requiring people to produce information to authorities.

“Production orders potentially make a vast amount of information available to enforcement officers. There need to be adequate controls,” she said.

“I think the confidence that your papers and your communications which now may be held electronically are secure from intrusion, is going to be an essential part of freedom of speech, liberty and people’s right to feel their personal information will be kept secure.”

Ms Shroff said family members’ privacy should be considered. Issuing
officers should be required to be precise about what would be covered
by the orders, only judges should be able to issue the orders and there should be reporting for instance to Parliament on how they had been used.

“Safeguards applicable to search warrants such as notification and
reporting should be applied to surveillance device warrants and
production orders and we can’t see why there should be lesser
standards applied.”

Asked about concerns raised, Justice Minister Simon Power said the bill had not raised human rights issues when vetted but he was interested to hear what the select committee decided.

:: DONATIONS

If you would like to make a donation, check out
www.october15thsolidarity.info/donate
for details of the various funds.

:: RESOURCES

The www.October15thSolidarity.info website is regularly updated. The
website aims to be multilingual and gives background information
aswell as updates on legal proceedings. There are poster, newsletters
and leaflets available here:
october15thsolidarity.info/en/node/236 A new leaflet has just
been printed with a circulation of 2000! You can download it here:
october15thsolidarity.info/sites/default/files/drop%20the%20charges20A4.pdf

:: LINKS

www.October15thSolidarity.info | www.indymedia.org.nz | www.tuhoe.net
| www.gpja.org.nz | www.civilrightsdefence.org.nz | www.aotearoa.maori.nz

 

10-20% Pure New Zealand

I recently found this great video on the Standard.

It raises a very good point that New Zealand’s inaction on climate change will damage our reputation and our international branding. This could have a big impact on our Tourism sector which represents almost 10% of our GDP, because it is branded on the 100% pure image.

 

 

I live in Wellington, and so do you.

Bill English is still protesting loudly that because he’s only claiming as much as a backbencher for living somewhere he doesn’t actually live, we cannot expect any more from him. He’s simply and demonstrably wrong.

While I have no issue with him identifying Dipton as his home, (I still feel that way about London to a degree, and I haven’t lived there in over a decade) it is plainly not where he is actually living. Accomodation allowances are designed to offset the costs of MPs who have no residence in Wellington, and would have to rent one.

If Bill English wants the pressure to come off, he should admit he lives in Wellington, and was never entitled to take the allowance in the first place, stop taking the backbencher-level accommodation supplement, and repay the rest of the money he wrongly claimed. If he’d do that, I’d willingly forgive him the lies, the obfuscation, and the blatant attempts to disguise his living arrangements because he made the situation right and made clear that MPs are only entitled to additional pay when they face additional difficulties in serving the country. I’d even defend that he had no need to step down from anything, if he did it very quickly- as far as I’m concerned he’s probably procrastinated more than he has rights to if he expects people to believe he did not intend to rort the taxpayer, but just because I dislike him doesn’t mean I fancy the idea of anyone else in his party trying to be finance minister. (and presumably failing even worse)

Being an MP is not a career. Every term you are re-elected, and it is a privilege every time, as it entitles you to do a great service for the country. MPs do not need competitive pay with the private sector, they need pay that takes into account the stress and expenses of being an MP, and their current remuneration is perfectly adequate, many would say without all the allowances we add on.

This is the disconnect: Bill thinks he’s entitled to the allowance because it is legal for him to take it, and it is legal to take it because MPs like him have set the rules based on the mistaken presumption that being an MP is a career. I think he’s not entitled to it because he lives in a house with his name on the deed, in Wellington, for most of the year, and thus does not need the additional money. The Nat’s “reform” of ministerial allowances does not address this matter, and highlights the need for a truly independent body that sets the pay and allowance rules for MPs in a transparent, fair, and non-partisan way, ensuring MPs can do their jobs if they have additional disadvantages compared to other MPs, but neither excessively punishing nor excessively rewarding them.

 

I admit it, I was wrong.

Suffice it to say I don’t think I need to detail the new joke of an “emissions trading scheme”¹ here, but I do want to say I feel pretty stupid defending the Māori Party all these times and having them betray their own constituents, the country, and the future with a law designed to pay polluters to damage our climate when it is clear the planet cannot take this sort of treatment and remain the welcoming place it is today. I had thought maybe they were just trying to edge out Act by being an undemanding coalition partner, but this isn’t strategy. This is stupidity, plain and simple.

As far as I’m concerned, signing on to something like that is pretty much indefensible, especially seeing a grand coalition on the ETS seemed much more likely than just leaving it to die, and probably would’ve resulted in an ETS that might almost have been worthwhile. The Māori Party has a lot of proving itself again to do if it wants people to believe they can ever work with parties of the left after the repeated capitulations to completely failed policies that we’ve witnessed. And that’s even discounting questions of whether they’re truly representing Māori anymore, or just the relatively few wealthy elites that probably voted for National anyway.

As for National- well, it appears even shooting for the centre doesn’t stop them from shelling out over $1200² million to subsidise polluters and giving out tax cuts to people who don’t need them while at the same time firing productive and loyal employees just to gut the public service, refusing to enter good-faith negotiations on pay for teachers and health professionals, refusing to fix the leaky homes which their own failed attempt at deregulation created, and many more opportunities to actually lighten the load on hardworking kiwis during the recession. What utter hypocrites.

¹It’s not actually an emissions trading scheme because the amount of carbon credits available is not capped, extra subsidised credits will be added for “productive” polluters³. And even if the amounts of credits were capped, it’s still not an emissions trading scheme if you artificially cap the price of carbon credits like the government proposes to do. This doesn’t even guarantee a net drop in emissions, let alone reaching any target- even the government’s pathetic 20% one.
²See comments.
³An oxymoron if ever I’ve heard one. Pollution is by definition wasteful, and pollution that threatens the climate isn’t likely to make something that outweighs the value of the damage it will do.

 

Let’s ALL do the Double Dipton

No Right Turn and The Standard both have blogs today on John Key’s announcement of the “reform” of Ministerial accommodation expenses.

So I decided to crunch some numbers – based on the 1 January – 30 June 2009 Ministerial Expenses return, but adjusting for Sir Double Dipton’s agreement to pay back at least part of the money he was rorting for living in his own Wellington home.

The annual expenses for the affected Ministers’ accommodation:

Yes, Key’s “reform” will end up costing the taxpayer an additional $55488 a year – and that money will not even be spent on accommodation expenses. It will end up in Ministers’ pockets, and tax free to boot.

 

Get back in your box, Judith

Lloyd’s List’s Last Word opines:

DON’T you get heartily sick of namby-pamby, bleeding-heart liberals and their stick-in-the-mud notion that containers are primarily a means of shifting cargo between world ports, rather than keeping criminals under lock and key?

Last Word understands that in New Zealand, Judith Collins — a politician who, we understand, rejoices in the title of corrections minister, which probably isn’t as saucy as it sounds — is planning to bang up cons in Rimutaka Prison in surplus boxes.

A new unit will provide beds for 60 inmates at a cost of NZ$63,000 ($43,000), which is substantially less than conventional prison accommodation.

Ms Collins is looking to cut costs further in future and is considering proposals to make prisoners do the conversion work themselves.

But hand-wringing do-gooders such as Peter Williams, president of the Howard League for Penal Reform, has blasted the scheme as bringing about “tin shanties and slum prisons”.

He has even called for them to be air-conditioned in summer and heated in winter. What does he think prison is — a holiday camp?

The move has also been slammed by Maritime Union of New Zealand general secretary Trevor Hanson, who says: “New Zealanders needs secure jobs, not jail cells.”

We at Lloyd’s List can have no truck with such social worker sentiment. Given that containers are regarded as the last word in luxury by stowaways, they are more than good enough for Kiwi crims, especially if container lessors can flog worn-out units to the New Zealand government at suitably inflated prices.

Judith Collins is off to Gdansk, one of Europe’s largest ports, next week, ostensibly in her capacity as Veterans’ Affairs Minister to attend commemorations to mark the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II.

But given that Collins is also Corrections Minister, this seems too good an opportunity for her to pass by.

What’s the bet she will also be hanging around Gdansk’s port looking for a cheap deal on some of these:

 

I’m a westie too, but this is seriously tacky

UPDATE: Well, at least it matches the coat.

 

I’m W(r)ong about almost everything

ACC Minister Nick Smith was conveniently absent for Parliament today when questions were raised by Green and Labour MPs about the proposed changed to ACC counselling for sexual abuse victims. So Associate Minister Pansy Wong was left to carry the can.

7. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: How will the proposed changes to the treatment of sensitive claims meet the legal requirements of the ACC scheme to provide “for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury that has, as its overriding goals, minimising both the overall incidence of injury in the community, and the impact of injury on the community”?

Hon PANSY WONG (Acting Minister for ACC) : ACC’s proposed changes to the treatment guidelines for mental injury resulting from sexual abuse are based on a comprehensive 5-year programme of clinical research commissioned by the corporation. The Massey University school of psychology undertook this research with a team comprising 23 researchers and an advisory committee of 13 people. A multi-method approach was taken, utilising quantitative and qualitative analysis, literature reviews, questionnaires, and focus groups. The research team included specialists in survivor advocacy, psychology, counselling, education, migrant resettlement, indigenous issues, and the mental health of children and older people.

Well, that’s the only bit she got right. Pity, though, that she didn’t actually read the report from the Massey University School of Psychology.

Hon David Parker: Will the Minister release the medical and scientific evidence that the Minister has relied upon to conclude that the current clinical pathway for the treatment of victims of childhood sexual abuse is not satisfactory, and why were the professional bodies of the current treatment providers excluded from meaningful consultation?

Hon PANSY WONG: I am very pleased to table the report by Massey University commissioned by the corporation, Sexual Abuse and Mental Injury: Practice Guidelines for Aotearoa New Zealand. It was somehow totally forgotten and neglected by the previous Labour Government.

The Minister says nothing significant actually. The Massey University report (PDF 1.115 MB))was released in March 2008, and actually suggests increased flexibility because of the different victim responses of child v adult sexual abuse and the different victime responses of single instance of abuse to systematic abuse. It does not recommend restrictive regulation, as the Government is proposing – actually it would imply greater flexibility is required.

Sue Bradford: How does the Minister reconcile the proposal to impose an arbitrary cap on ACC funding for counselling for victims of sexual abuse with the statement by the Prime Minister in a recent speech to the Sensible Sentencing Trust that “where New Zealanders do become victims of crime, National will give them the support and respect they deserve.”?

Hon PANSY WONG: Indeed, this is a new guideline. It has been proposed because it is not fair or right for victims to have one-size-fits-all treatment, so this proposed treatment takes into account tailored treatment for survivors whether they are women, men, children, adolescents, Māori, Pasifika, or ethnic.

But the proposed guidelines, unlike the former regime that relied on clinical judgment of the treatment provider, are a one-size fits all treatment regime, with a claimant being required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances – a very high test in law – to get extended counselling beyond the guideline norm.

Lynne Pillay: Can the Minister reassure childhood sexual abuse victims that the proposed ACC cuts will not detrimentally impact their quality of life; if so, how?

Hon PANSY WONG: Indeed, all those have been taken into account because this Government is committed to improving the life of survivors and—

Hon Members: Rubbish!

Hon PANSY WONG: This is a very serious issue. The Opposition might feel agitated and not want to know the real reasons, but others might. According to this study, victims’ traumatic ordeals should be seen as a complex life experience and not as a disorder or life sentence. That is why the best-practice treatment is being implemented.

But best-practice treatment is not being implemented. This regime sets a limit of maximum 16 sessions of therapy, with “exceptional circumstaces being required to gain greater entitlement, That is not what the Massey University study recomended, other than for one-off instances of adult rape or sexual asault – see p.80 of report linked to above.

Sue Bradford: Why is the Government requiring victims of sexual abuse to see at least three different health professionals, and does the Minister think it is easy for victims to go over their traumatic experiences, over and over again, with strangers?

Hon PANSY WONG: Indeed, the clinical research conducted by Massey University is not asking victims to relive their traumatic ordeals. This is tailor-made clinical treatment that takes into account each survivor’s personal circumstances.

The report isn’t, and the Associate Minister is correct in that regard. But she is obfuscating and lying. The Massey University report doesn’t recommend victims of sexual assault have to relate the experience to three different health professionals before cover and entitlements can begin. It is the proposed Government policy that does that.

UPDATE: There has been a partial backdown.

Dr Kevin Morris, said last night that the proposal would be modified in response to feedback before it comes into force on September 14.

“The provider/assessor split – we won’t be taking that because I don’t think that’s going to work,” he said.

“Individuals having to disclose to a number of different people – that has always been a problem in this area. We have no intention of trying to make it any worse than it is. We are quite keen to improve that.”

He said the agency also had no intention of removing a client’s right to choose their own therapist.

How embarrassing for the Associate Minister who denied only a few hours before that the original proposal would require disclosures to additional health professionals!

 

It’s like…

…a really pathetic emissions target, or something, after you’ve already put the already inadequate Emissions Trading Scheme on hold on review.