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

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

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

I’m a republican.  I always have been – Although I shy away from the word these days because of the connotations it carries in a world dominated by American culture.  I find the idea that people can be born into positions of power and privilege while others are excluded repugnant.  But, having said that I’m a little bit in two minds about Keith Locke’s bill on republicanism being pulled from the ballot.  I’ve come to the conclusion that, interesting as they are, debates about the head of state, the flag and even entrenching the constitution are not likely to make a significant difference to people’s lives, or to the state of the planet. I think I’d rather have seen any of the other Green MP’s bills drawn than this one. I haven’t read all of them but from their titles they all appear to address issues I consider more urgent. (especially Kevin Hague’s Fisheries Precautionary Approach Amendment Bill)

On the other hand this republican bill probably has the potential to generate the most debate of all of them.  That could prove a distraction for parliament and, as Ari noted in his earlier post:

Distraction from what, exactly? The only thing they seem to be doing is cutting funding to things. I’m perfectly happy for the government to be distracted from that.

So, yeah, let’s waste some time rather than have this Parliament continue to use its time trashing the environment and sabotaging our social framework. let’s spend several months talking about whether Prince William and Kate will come to visit us if we snub them like this, or whether Colin Meads would wear a rugby club tie if he were president, or whether we suffer from colonial cringe because we let the English pick up the bill for our head of state. What will happen to our women’s magazines? Will Buckingham Palace loan us some beefeater hats for our new head of state? What will Australia think? I’m all for having all these debates for the next three years rather than having John Key’s government debating and deciding on ACC, emissions trading or mining.

This is really just appallingly outrageous from ACC Minister Nick Smith.

“If my doctor told me that I was terminally ill and I had 30 days to live, with the ACC rules the way they are, I’d be finding myself a train to throw myself under on the 29th day because my family would be treated so much more generously,” he said.

Smith has subsequently (under orders from John Key, presumably) offered an apology. But this is a Minister out of control.

How can John Key have confidence for Smith to hold the ACC portfolio when Smith says that, if terminally ill, he would throw himself under a train to get his family ACC entitlements? This is Cabinet Minsiter admitting that he would himself rip off ACC.

The reality is that National is proposing to disallow any entitlement to the families of suicide victims – even though their mental state was so deranged that they had no rational perception of what was happening in reality when their lives ended.

That stinks, and is discriminatory in terms of the Bill of Rights Act (i.e discrimination on the grounds of disability).

If Smith’s vile Bill can eventually get the numbers to be introduced to Parliament (and frogblog and The Standard suggest there is a problem there), then I would hope Attorney-General Chris Finlayson will report, as is statutory duty, that it is in breach of the Bill of Rights Act.

But, given that he is a senior National Party Minister, who knows whether he will follow the path of integrity, or Nick Smith’s path of lies, obfuscation, and duplicity.

A challenge for Chris Finlayson, who is one of the few National MPs I still have much respect for.

Keith Locke’s Head of State (Referenda) Bill was drawn from the ballot for members bills today. (Press release is here) The Bill is a simple minimalist approach to setting up a republic which sets up a referendum on whether to rename the Governor General to President, and if so, whether to directly or indirectly elect the President. It also clarifies that the Treaty of Waitangi remains in force.

Republican support has been steadily growing recently, and as I recall the last poll on the matter had about 40% support for a republic. It’s possible that this bill could actually succeed in constitutional reform if it passes.

While I don’t see any justification for National to vote against the bill given their stance on an MMP referendum, I’m not expecting any support from either National or Labour just yet. It will be interesting to see what happens here, and I don’t really think that voting to set up a referendum can hurt any political party. Of course, that’s not stopped them from being incredibly cautious on this issue before.

Nick Smith is both ACC Minister and Climate Change Minister.

Yesterday in Parliament he was asked a patsy question about ACC by National backbencher Michael Woodhouse:

Michael Woodhouse: What reports has the Minister seen on not fully funding accident compensation, and returning it to a “pay as you go” model?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The problem with “pay as you go” is that the costs of today’s accidents are passed on to future generations…

Okay, fair enough, you might say.

But his approach when it comes to climate change is somewhat different:

The Standard reports:

A newly released government paper shows that by 2050 government debt will be $54-$73 billion higher than it otherwise would be due to National’s subsidies for carbon polluters.
…
Make no mistake. National’s subsidy to polluters today will be paid for by our children and grandchildren in the decades to come.

I wonder which Nick Smith will front up in Parliament today.

Thought for the day:

If you or I steal money, it is theft. We get taken to court, and get fined or go to prison.

• When MPs do it, it is an “accounting error“.
• When Cabinet Ministers do it, it is “not a good look“.
• And when banks do it, it is a “contingent liability“.

Interesting! As Double Dipton would say, it’s all about perception.

Nick Smith, following Bill English’s example, has apparently gone apoplectic about a media report concerning his Parliamentary expenses.

Eddie at The Standard rightly complains about Smith’s behaviour towards the media. But there may be more to the story than that.

Nick Smith claims:

I had to spend $152,000 to make it usable…

re his electorate office.

I don’t dispute that. But who paid the $152,000? Was it Smith personally? Or was at least some of it from a different Parliamentary budget from the one that pays for electorate office rents?

You see, each MP gets an annual allocation as an “expense allowance” (PDF, bottom of page 5) of $14,800 a year – I think it was somewhat less when Smith bought his Nelson office.

Now, that’s not a huge amount of money. But it can be used, and is used, for modifications and fitouts of electorate offices. And if there is capital expenditure charged against the allowance, only the depreciation will be charged in any given year.

So charge the cost of the fitout, improvements and chattel purchase on Nick Smith’s electorate office against that allowance, over the 13 years since he bought it, and it is possible it could all have been paid for almost entirely by a Parliamentary budget, rather than by Smith himself.

I’m not suggesting he did this – just that he could have done it.

Which surely has to be an argument for greater transparency re MPs’ expenses.

Nick Smith could take a lead in transparency re Parliamentary expenses here. He could front up and declare what he personally paid for, and what was paid by the various Parliamentary service budgets, for the electorate office he owns.

What are the chances he will?

Donkeys dyed to look like zebras

Marah Land Zoo in Gaza City can’t afford a zebra. It’s all because of the Israeli blockade of the Gaza strip. Apparently it would cost $40,000 to smuggle a zebra in through the tunnels under the Egyptian border.

So the zoo dyed black stripes on two white donkeys to make them look (a bit) like zebras. The Arabic word for donkey is حمار, while zebra is حمار وحشي (i.e. “wild donkey”). So I suppose it is not a complete fraud.

I do have some concerns about the animal welfare implications of dyeing a donkey though. Actually, I have some animal welfare concerns about having a zoo at all in a location that is effectively a war zone subject to frequent Israeli air strikes.

All very sad.

At least the Palestinian children, most of whom live in abject poverty because of the Israeli blockade, got a rare treat from it I suppose.

Photo: Reuters/Mohammed Salem

Press release is here. I’ve hoped the party would do this for a while; not because I think it was a rort, but because I think it looks suspiciously like one even when MPs are at pains to make sure they’re not ripping off the taxpayer. This should set everything straight, I hope.