Chch activists find new target for protest

19 DECEMBER 2001

A new bill before Parliament in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York has provoked alarm in many quarters, being described as sinister and chilling. Geoff Collett reports. Christchurch's activist community has found a new target for its well-honed protest and agitation skills – a proposed new law variously described as sinister, chilling, and one of the most draconian in decades.

Many of the city's veteran protesters are prominent in the lobby against the Government's Terrorism Suppression Bill, which is now working its way through Parliament, and has attracted the opposition of an array of human rights, civil liberties, trade union, and protest organizations.

Their arguments are myriad, but one of their more prominent members, University of Canterbury lecturer David Small, sums up three central concerns.

The bill bestows greater powers and less accountability on State agencies "that have systematically abused the powers they already have"; it has sweeping definitions of a "terrorist act", which could affect many ordinary protest activities; and its safeguards against abuse of its powers are "totally inadequate".

The bill, originally called the Terrorism (Bombings and Financing) Bill, is the Government's response to a United Nations Security Council resolution after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, demanding anti-terrorist measures by UN member States.

Intense debates are under way in the US and Britain over their legislative backlashes against terrorism, measures including sweeping new powers of detention, information gathering, and monitoring of financial information.

A feature of those debates has been the governments' determination to force the legislation through as quickly as possible.

In New Zealand, the Government also tried to get its new bill into law before Christmas, without the normal public submission process, citing the timetable set by the UN. It backed down in the face of protests once the implications became clear, and is now allowing the bill to go through the normal select committee process, with it expected to be reported back to Parliament in early March.

Amnesty International was among the voices protesting against the initial haste and the potentially sweeping and unchecked powers the bill carries.

Amnesty's concern is that human rights not be lost sight of in the rush by governments to "be seen to be doing something" after the New York attacks, says executive director Ced Simpson.

Some "very significant" changes are needed to the Terrorism Suppression Bill before it should proceed, he says.

One of the select committee members, long-time activist and Green MP Keith Locke, calls the bill one of the most draconian in decades.

Concerns include the power it gives the Prime Minister to designate terrorists, the influence it gives international intelligence agencies over that designation process, and the potential for prosecutions to be carried out in secret.

Christchurch-based campaigners such as the Anti-Bases Campaign, the Action, Research and Education Network of Aotearoa (Arena), and Gatt Watchdog consider that under the bill their activities could easily be defined as "terrorism" by an unsympathetic Government.

They are not placated by its clear statement that it would not cover strikes and lock-outs, or "any protest, advocacy, or dissent that is lawful, or that is unlawful but peaceful".

Nor are they won over by Labour MP Graham Kelly, who chairs the select committee considering the bill and who promises the concerns are being heard.

"It's understandable that people look at the worst construction on how this might affect people," says Mr Kelly. "I'm pleased that they're raising those concerns with us because we don't want to stifle dissent."

There is no shortage of that "worst construction" being offered.

Mr Locke says: "If you look back at any significant protest in New Zealand history, virtually all the organizations involved in those protests could, under the legislation, be designated terrorists."

Arena's executive director, Leigh Cookson, points out that anti-globalization activists have been campaigning against the proposed Hong Kong-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement including "rarking up opposition" to it in Hong Kong – action which could fall foul of the legislation's definition of terrorism as including causing economic damage or disruption.

Murray Horton, a long-time activist on many fronts, identifies New Zealanders' contact with a wide range of international solidarity and independence movements as another fraught activity were the bill to be passed in its present form.

Ms Cookson says the bill needs to be seen in the context of a wider agenda of other recent law changes strengthening the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB).

The argument, which is being heard from activists and civil libertarians around the Western world, is that State intelligence agencies are grabbing the opportunity of the "war on terrorism" to strengthen themselves immeasurably.

The Terrorist Suppression Bill's opponents are unanimous that they are not being paranoid. They say the legislation must be looked at with its worst construction in mind. The State has already proved itself capable of taking a harsh stand against New Zealanders fighting for passionately held beliefs.

Dr Small highlights his own cases, against the SIS for breaking into fellow activist Aziz Choudry's Christchurch home, and the police for a subsequent raid on his own property.

That showed, he says, "that the SIS and police regularly and routinely engage in activities against people on the basis of their political beliefs and not any potential for them to be committing crimes".

Dr Small denies being naive or disingenuous about the threat the bill is meant to be all about.

"I accept you need to have legislation to do what you can to prevent that kind of activity happening. I want that legislation to be there," he says, but to his mind the Terrorism Suppression Bill goes much further than New Zealand needs or wants.