Police out of control

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Arthur Allan Thomas has been re-interviewed by police investigating the 1970 murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe, one of New Zealand's best-known unsolved crimes.

Mr Thomas spent nine years in prison for the killings, but was then pardoned.

The Weekend Herald can today reveal that in the past few weeks, Mr Thomas, two of his brothers, his sister and her husband have been interviewed by police - and some have been asked to provide alibis.

This is clearly a case of Police harassment.

A rifle belonging to Mr Thomas' brother was taken away by police for testing.

Officers have told the family that they still believe Mr Thomas' rifle was used to shoot the young couple at their Pukekawa farm in June 1970, despite his being cleared of the double murder.

His family say they are horrified that the police are still pursuing and "harassing" them, instead of finding out who really killed the Crewes.

Good point. Instead of looking for the real killer/s, the Police are intent on trying to save face by pursuing a guy they had stitched up.

The problem is there's no proper Police accountability in New Zealand. Arthur Allan Thomas has been cleared of the murders and should therefore be left alone to get on with his life. But instead of doing the right thing, the Police are determined to pin the murders on him or his family when there is no evidence showing that they were involved.

Another recent case that shows the Police are out of control is their decision not to pursue charges over the GCSB's illegal spying. Despite the law being clear, the Police are claiming that there was no intent to break the law and this somehow makes it OK. There was obviously intent to break the law, because requests were made for the illegal spying to be undertaken.

Then we have another story from this week whereby the Police broke a confidentiality agreement with the mother of Halatau Naitoko, a new father they killed in a shootout in 2009. He was an innocent victim who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The agreement the Police broke also threatened Ivoni Fuimaono with three months jail time if she revealed the name of her sons shooter. This shooting is not an isolated case and Police in New Zealand are never held to account for accidentally or intentionally taking somebody else's life.

So who is meant to have oversight? Firstly there is the Independent Police Conduct Authority, an organization specifically set up to protect the Police from prosecution. Take the case of them refusing to investigate the Police ignoring evidence that clearly shows Malcolm Rewa is guilty and Teina Pora was wrongfully convicted. If the Police had acted upon the evidence from one of Malcolm Rewa's victims, more than twenty rapes and perhaps a murder would not have occurred.

These are not isolated cases of Police incompetence and corruption. Although this is not a criticism of all police officers, as many of them do a fine and difficult job; how is it possible for rogue cops to harass, beat, kill and stitch up people and get away with it? How are they able to be involved in high speed car chases that lead to death and never be at fault? We called off the chase just seconds before the accident... Yeah right!

The Police aren't being held to account for their illegal activity by the IPCA or the Minister, Judith Collins. She will be actively involved in the harassment of Arthur Allan Thomas and his family. Instead of accepting that he was pardoned, Collins is determined to ignore the courts ruling and believes she is a law unto herself. Unfortunately that arrogance is infecting the entire Police force, an infection that must be remedied before the public can have faith in our guardians of the peace.

Citizen A with Keith Locke & Simon Prast

Russel Norman vs John Key

PM stokes fears over deep sea drilling

Today, NewstalkZB reports:

PM allays fears over deep sea drilling

The Prime Minister's adamant the public's not going to be muzzled over deep sea drilling projects.

The Government's considering a law change that would make application for offshore exploratory drilling non-notified.

A law change which essentially means the public won't know about where and when seismic testing is taking place and exploratory wells are being drilled. They also won't be allowed a say in any decision making. If that's not muzzling the public, I don't know what is.

But John Key doesn't think that locks people out of having a say on such projects.

"This is at the exploratory stage and if eventually they go to full exploration, then that will go through the normal process with normal consents and public input."

This subsequent law change is of course because the government has realised their "Anadarko Amendment" to make protesting at sea illegal will simply be ignored. There are many New Zealander's who are strongly opposed to deep sea oil drilling and will risk prosecution to stand up for what is right.

Instead of listening to the people of New Zealand, the government is trying to win the argument by removing people's access to information. They are trying to remove people's right to peacefully oppose dangerous industries that have proven disastrous to the environment on more occasions than I would like to number.

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

Environmentalists say the exploration stage is risky with a danger of spills. The Deepwater Horizon disaster took place during drilling a deep exploratory well, killing 11 crewmen and sending millions of barrels of oil gushing into the sea for 87 days.

A study by Scandinavia's largest independent research organisation SINTEF shows more than a third of blowouts take place during exploratory drilling.

Clearly oil exploration isn't the benign industry that the government is making it out to be. It is a highly dangerous and risky enterprise and therefore something the public should be notified about.

Why isn't this decision going though a parliamentary select committee? By ignoring proper process and trying to limit the public's say on such decisions, the government is once again acting undemocratically. They therefore don't deserve to govern.

Head meets brick wall

Today, the Office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor reported (PDF):

Promoting the use of evidence in policy formation across government

As a priority, I have engaged in the promotion of quality scientific evidence in policy formation and its evaluation. This has been developed much further over the last year. The Office completed a survey of 17 public service agencies to critically assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding the use of research-derived evidence in their work. I have analysed these results and presented my findings and recommendations to you in a draft report scheduled to be released in September 2013. In short, policy responses that are grounded in local needs and values and that are evidence-informed will stand a greater chance of success in effecting positive change for New Zealanders.

Wanting the current government to take an evidence based approach is admirable, but I doubt it will happen. National is full of ideologically driven policy that when compared to what the evidence shows, falls flat on its face. Government MP's also have a number of vested interests that ensure the evidence is ignored.

Here is a case in point. Sir Peter Gluckman's previous report (PDF) was all about climate change and what New Zealand should be doing. He succinctly states that:

There is unequivocal evidence that the Earth’s climate is changing, and there is strong scientific agreement that this is predominantly as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

However Gluckman's observations and recommendations are being ignored by the Prime Minister. By pushing ahead with a deep sea oil drilling program and expanding New Zealands fossil fuel industry in other damaging ways, the government is ignoring the risk that climate change posses.

National is determined to build more highways when there is no evidence of any positive economic return compared to the astronomical cost. They clearly have no consideration for the additional greenhouse gas emissions their policies will cause.

That's because John Key is essentially a climate change denier. There is no real indication that he's changed his opinion from when he scoffed at the idea, as displayed in this video from before he became Prime Minister:

Police misinterpreted the law

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

Police today released their decision following an investigation into Dr Norman's complaint into the Government Communications Security Bureau's (GCSB) illegal interception of the communications of New Zealanders.

The police found that Kim Dotcom and his associate Bram van der Kolk were illegally spied on, but as GCSB staff did not act with criminal intent, no one would be held accountable.

Read the letter sent by police to Dr Norman here

Assistant Commissioner Mike Rusbatch's letter to Dr Russel Norman states:

Although the inquiry focussed on issues specifically related to the offence against section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961, it also considered offences in a wider context including section 216C and 107 of the Crimes Act 1961, with reference to the GCSB Act 2003.

Section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961 (PDF) states:

Prohibition on use of interception devices

(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (5), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who intentionally intercepts any private communication by means of an interception device.

Mike Rusbatch

Subsection (2)(b)(iiia) states that a person is not liable if their intercepting of a private communication does so pursuant to, and in accordance with the terms of, any authority conferred by or under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 (PDF).

That's the bit the Police think lets the GCSB off the hook. They have in fact misinterpreted the law. The GCSB Act 2003 did not confer any authority to the GCSB to illegally spy on New Zealand citizens. That's why the government is currently changing the law. However these changes should not apply to a criminal act that occurred prior to those amendments.

It is for the courts to decide whether the GCSB intended to illegally spy on Kim Dotcom and his associate Bram van der Kolk. The Crimes Act 1961 specifically states that illegal spying is an offence and the GCSB Act 2003 did not confer authority to the GCSB to breach the law.

When the Police are intentionally misinterpreting the law in order to not prosecute the GCSB, people need to start asking some serious questions about Police corruption. Because by all intents and purposes that's exactly what this looks like.