Terrorist/criminal human rights

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

The last thing a NZ resident should be doing is considering the wrongs of the British situation before sorting out your own. Living in glass houses throwin stone perhaps...

So I'll assume, Fredrik, that you consider yourself to have sorted out Britain's problems - having yourself opined at length about Zimbabwe's...

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

New Zealand ( North and South Island ) is still in the main in non-Maori hands.

The Treaty of Waitangi "gave" Maoris "ownership" of land that was theirs prior to white settlement;

Pretty much. And the Crown through her various agencies pretty much completely ignored it.

quote:

the Tribunal was set up in 1975 to redress Maori complaints that the Treaty was not being adhered to by the Pakeha.

But as you almost certainly know, when the Tribunal was originally set up, it couldn't hear historical complaints. This was later changed and gave the Tribunal a great deal more relevance to the concerns and grievances of Maori.

quote:

So, we have a Tribunal set up to look into breaches of a Treaty that the Whites chose to interpret in a manner that suits them.

If a Tribunal cannot have binding powers, it is toothless and so devalued.

As I have already pointed out, it is not devalued, or toothless, because it's recommendations have been followed in every instance - although I may be wrong....can you point to an instance where it's recommendations have not been followed?

quote:

It should be constituted as a Parliamentary Select Committee, as a Judicial Enquiry or some other body that would have legally binding powers.

And, to paraphrase your good self - we would then have a Parliamentary Select Committee or Judicial Inquiry set up to look into breaches of a Treaty - by Whites who would choose to interpret in a manner that suits them.

Exactly how do you imagine that a Select Committee or Judicial Enquiry would establish the mandate of those Iwi, Hapu or Whanau who take their grievances to them? Do you, perhaps, make the common mistake of assuming the Maori people to be a homogenous racial group?

At the moment the Tribunal hears some grievances that have been brought by one Iwi against another Iwi - with no mention of the Crown in the grievance. I don't see that a Judicial Inquiry or Select Committee could be convened for every such grievance. This is one good reason that a non-political body such as the Waitangi Tribunal was set up. There was never a chance that the matters could be sorted out in the life of a single government.

Also, the Tribunal allows all parties to an historical grievance to employ their own historians and present their own historical findings in any Tribunal process. I can't see that a Select Committee or Judicial Inquiry could do this and retain any credibility with Maori. There would be no balance.

quote:

As per your usual style, you feign to ignore the substance of an argument and dissemble.

Where have I dissembled? I have not disguised or concealed anything. Your accusation is what lacks substance.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
So I'll assume, Fredrik, that you consider yourself to have sorted out Britain's problems - having yourself opined at length about Zimbabwe's...

I'm sure that Fredrik has done as much as any other Dane to sort out the UKs problems.

This does not prevent him from having an opinion about Zimbabwe, which I suspect must people view as being in a bit of a mess.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

Where have I dissembled? I have not disguised or concealed anything. Your accusation is what lacks substance.

My point is that the Maoris have had their land taken from them by settlers.

M

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

I'm sure that Fredrik has done as much as any other Dane to sort out the UKs problems.

This does not prevent him from having an opinion about Zimbabwe, which I suspect must people view as being in a bit of a mess.

Ahhh, so you don't mind me having an opinion about the UK then? Even about its messes?

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

My point is that the Maoris have had their land taken from them by settlers.

I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, the Crown, in their apology to Ngai Tahu, actually used the word "unconscionable" with respect to the wrongdoings of the Crown toward that Iwi.

I'm sure that I never implied that the Maori people were not ripped off - royally ripped off - as it were... It is quite impossible to know anything about the history of the colonisation of New Zealand and still think entirely well of the colonising power.

My point was that the process of reconciliation undertaken by the Tribunal has probably gone a long way to avoiding violent protest - because there is an awful lot about which Maori can be agrieved.

I'd suggest that this is similarly true of the Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Ahhh, so you don't mind me having an opinion about the UK then? Even about its messes?

Not in the slightest.

What I do find irritating is the patrician tone you adopt from the other side of the planet, telling us how bad we Brits are and how its all our own fault. The fact is that the vast majority of Muslims living in the UK are decent, law-abiding citizens who are trying hard to dostance themselves froma terrorist minority.

I raised the Maori issue as a reminder that not all is well in your part of the world which sees continued injustices. People in glass houses, as Fredrk mentions above.

Developing that issue, its worthy of note that the indigenous population of NZ have not felt the need to engage in terrorism. Germany and Japan where both occupied following WW2 and there was no terrorist uprising against the occupying powers.

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

What I do find irritating is the patrician tone you adopt from the other side of the planet, telling us how bad we Brits are and how its all our own fault.

I've never, in fact, stated or even implied that I thinks the Brits are a bad lot or that it's all your own fault. I was talking about human rights and the criminal justice system.

quote:

People in glass houses, as Fredrk mentions above.

Fredrik's attempt to deflect an opinion he doesn't like fails because Britain is on the world stage, just like very other nation - just more so. The fact is, I can say what I like and so can he. When a person stops playing the ball and starts on the player - well, it's a sure sign that they're either losing the argument or that they lack character.

Fredrik is Danish.

I read this

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Bloody hell! I don't remember the Arabs having a partition over parts of Europe or the UK!

Or any Arab nation invading a Western country because they have arsenals of, and are developing, weapons of mass destruction!

The foreign policies of Western nations over the past century are most definitely and inextricably part of the problem. They have definitely provided motives for terrorism. That's not putting terrorism at the feet of Western governments - but to suggest that foreign policy, and presence abroad, of Western Nations hasn't contributed but is just a problem is, simply, ludicrous.

and this

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
In fact, some foreign policy of Western Nations is not excusable. If some Western Nations admitted to that, and started making amends for it, then some terrorism might be prevented.

as an implication that is all our own fault.

Mike

I said:

"inextricably part of the problem"

"of Western Nations hasn't contributed"

"then some terrorism might be prevented."

You said:

"an implication that is all our own fault."

The inference you drew is not reconcilable with the statements I made.

Deane

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

Fredrik is Danish.

So Danish Fredrik's attempt to deflect an opinion he doesn't like fails because Britain is on the world stage, just like very other nation - just more so. The fact is, I can say what I like and so can he. When a person stops playing the ball and starts on the player - well, it's a sure sign that they're either losing the argument or that they lack character.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

The inference you drew is not reconcilable with the statements I made.

Deane

Well, I drew it, so it is.

FWIW, I fully expected you to point out the caveats in your posts.

M

Mike

From your posts I draw the conclusion that you are soft on terrorists. What's that you say? The inference I drew is not reconcilable with the statements you made? Well, I drew it, so it is.

Be fair - it's absolutely clear to any impartial reader that Deane is not saying that it's all our fault. If you expected Deane to draw your attention to his caveats, you must know that anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

Fredrik is Danish.

So Danish Fredrik's attempt to deflect an opinion he doesn't like fails because Britain is on the world stage, just like very other nation - just more so.

Far too many twists and turns for me, and I suspect most of the rest of us here.

I *think* you are saying that a Danish resident of the UK is is not allowed to find the tone of posts made from New Zealand somewhat annoying because Britain has not sorted out Zimbabwe.

quote:

The fact is, I can say what I like and so can he.

Indeed; you say what you like and so do I.

I find your tone patrician / condescending; you don't like me saying that.

Unlucky!

quote:

When a person stops playing the ball and starts on the player - well, it's a sure sign that they're either losing the argument or that they lack character.

You keep saying this; your comments cannot be seperated from you; you made them, why moan if people find them annoying?

You are feigning injury because I take exception to what I perceive to be your supercilious tone.

M

If you weren't allowed to comment because there was something wrong with your own backyard, this place, in fact every place would be very very quiet.

Now....how about this all gets back on track yeah?

Mike

That's fine, if the only contribution you are able to make to this thread is to point out my deficiencies - go right ahead.

You're a great guy, I really like you and the world would be a dull place without you.

Deane

Deane,

Indeed I would advocate you saying whatever you like and defend your right to say it. However, your geographical searation from the actual events necessarily reduces the relevance of your opinions as they apply to another nation than the one you live in.

Just as my opinions of events in New Zealand are surely less informed, valuable, or relevant than yours would be. This is one those examples where one opinion truly is more valuable than another - and in both directions I am sure.

Fredrik

So Fredrik, being closer to Iraq than I am, what's your opinion on Britain's involvement in the occupation of that country?

Do you think it might have contributed at all to Britain's becoming a target of terrorists?

As opinion polls showed at the time, I was in the majority of people [in UK] in thinking that it was a bad idea. I did not and still do not understand why Mr Blair thought it would be a good thing, especially as we have some of the best Arabists in the world in the Foreign Office, and elsewhere, who predicted that toppling Husein would lead to general anarchy and possibly civil war there, as well as certainly risking opening up Iraq to the infiltration of Al Quaeda. Hussein was no friend of Bin Laden, and was not in any way linked to Al Quaeda. That dubious privelege belongs elsewhere in the days of Hussein.

Sadly Blair thought better than of taking heed of what appear to have been rather prescient advice from real experts, let alone the gut feeling of the British people, which was of the same view in the main. I am certain that it has only fueled the terrorism threat, but I am equally sure that the threat will consequentially last, not till we have withdrawn, but inevitably till a generation of newly radicalised Islamists terrorists die out in perhaps thirty or fourty years.

I hope that answers nicely your straight question with a straight answer. Fredrik

So we agree, Fredrik? Britain's occupation of Iraq has fuelled the terrorist threat?

If so, then our opinions are the same, and mine is as relevant and valuable as yours, despite my geographical separation from actual events.

It does appear that we agree about the way the terorist threat has been altered by the Invasion. Whether that makes my opinion as significant as your's [in this instance] is hardly my call to judge! [Smiley]!!

Where my view [and that of voting UK citizens generally] is certainly more relevant than yours is how I want the government to deal with it as it affects the lives of UK citizens of all creeds and cultures. I have a vote in the next general election, which unless you are an Ex-pat UK citizen with retained voting rights in UK you almost certainly do not. In that sense my view certainly has more significance than yours, and there is a real responsibility to ensure that I do the best to help elect a new governement whose policies help make the UK a safer and better place, whether by more astute foreign policy decisions, or considerations of the best way to deal with the terrorist threat as it excists today, for whatever reasons, by carefully selecting the candidate for whom I cast my vote.

For the little it is worth, I applaud the reticence to join in the Invasion shown by your governement...

ATB from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
So we agree, Fredrik? Britain's occupation of Iraq has fuelled the terrorist threat?

I think you mean..."fuelled the continuation of the terrorist threat". Once again Deane you have your sequence of events mixed up.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

I think you mean..."fuelled the continuation of the terrorist threat". Once again Deane you have your sequence of events mixed up.

Thanks Rasher. Your diction is much more polished than mine.

From an article:

quote:

The verses of the Qur’an that condemn suicide as one of the gravest sins are unequivocal. “He who kills himself will be awarded the same torment on the day of judgment: that he should continue to kill himself in Hell, in the same manner as he killed himself in the mortal world.” For an unsuccessful suicide, Abu Huraira quotes Mohammed: “He who wounds himself (with suicidal intent) will spend eternity in the infernal world inflicting the same wound on himself.”
It is clear that the London bombers – hypnotised, brainwashed or just demented – had no sanction from Islamic scripture and may now be sitting in hell, rather than enjoying the fabled 72 virgins in paradise.

Remembering that these terrorists believe that their acts are in the name of God, they cannot be regarded as evil, just misguided (in our view). If they themselves are not evil, then because they are carrying out evil acts means that there is an organisation behind them that is. (I know this is obvious but bear with me here).
If these people are easily led, surely they could as easily be influenced the other way. This leads me to believe that the leaders of the local communities hold the key to turn things around. All this talk of this taking a generation to sort out, or 15 years at least, might be unnecessarily bleak if the leaders of the local communities were given every support and were aided in every way possible. That, of course, means by all of us. It's just like NI all over again.
(I really don't get the 72 virgins bit. I mean....how naive is that! To do what with exactly? What happens when they are no longer virgins? Surely they don't really believe this BS!)