Zombie Democracy – Apartheid Fort NZ

Welcome to the World's Deadliest Tourist Attraction – The Final Destination!

Archive for October 16th, 2009

New Zealand IS a Fascist State!

Posted by te2ataria on October 16, 2009

sent by pious pakeha T.C.

New Zealand is more than Just a Police State: It’s a Fascist Police State

A ridiculous poll, answered by mostly pathetic people, is posted on a main yahoo forum asking the usual readers to comment on whether “New Zealand heading for a police state.”

Why, NOOOO! Whoever gave you that idea???

There’s just one reader, railrev59, who doesn’t seem to have his head stuck between his legs:

Probably most people on this site are too young to remember the waterfront workers’ strike of 1951, but the simple fact is that NZ has been a police state since the legislation of that time – which, I believe, has never been repealed.

Anyone who doesn’t remember, here’s link
http://www.worldsocialism.org/nz/auckland/waterfront.htm

Or see bottom of the page.

NZ heading for a police state?

Newstalk ZB October 16, 2009, 7:15 am  http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6225235/nz-heading-for-a-police-state/2/

Civil libertarians are unhappy about proposed new search and surveillance laws and claim they could lead to a police state.

Parliament’s justice and electoral committee is considering the Search and Surveillance Bill, which will bring all such activities under a single piece of legislation. It widens the provision for searches without a warrant and increases covert investigative powers of agencies such as the Commerce Commission.

Civil Liberties spokesman Michael Bott says the law is supposedly about human freedom, but endorses a reduction in the right to silence and the use of the coercive power of the State to extract information from people still presumed innocent.

He claims the legislation will result in an authoritarian society and predicts New Zealand will increasingly become a police state with a government which is not concerned about protecting individual New Zealanders.

Mr Bott says the Government should be ashamed of the legislation.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6225235/nz-heading-for-a-police-state/

Related Links:

The New Zealand docks dispute

For five months since the 17th of February, 1951, New Zealand was in the throes of one of the longest and bitterest Trade Union struggles in its history.

The struggle commenced with the lock-out of the Waterside Workers (Dockers) and the imposing of the “Waterfront Strike Emergency Regulations” and their amendments, 1951. The miners, the Wellington freezing workers, the New Zealand Federated Seamen’s Union struck as a protest against the Emergency Regulations.

The miners, freezing workers and the federated seamen had no wage dispute and they ignored the advice of their Union National Officers to remain at work. On February 8th the employers of waterfront labour offered 4½d. an hour wage rise following the Arbitration Court award of a 15 per cent increase.

On February 10th watersiders at Wellington and at New Plymouth ceased working overtime as a protest against the employers’ offer. The workers claimed that 4½d an hour was only 9 per cent increase in a forty-hour week and that their ability to work overtime had been included when the wage rise was computed. The employers argued that the rise offered was exactly in line with the 15 per cent Arbitration Court award.

The employers began dismissing men on the 15th of February for refusing to work overtime. Workers alleged that they had been locked out and stated that they were willing to work the forty-hour week. Employers replied that refusal to work overtime was a breach of the agreement. On February 19th the Government issued an ultimatum calling on the watersiders to resume normal work including overtime and to place their wage claim before the Waterfront Authority, failing that, the Waterfront Commission would be suspended.

The same day, the waterside workers saw displayed on the engagement boards a notice to the effect that if they were not prepared to work overtime they were not to lift their discs (sign on for work). Meetings of watersiders at all ports on that day rejected the Government ultimatum. The workers claimed that the position was an “open lock-out by the employers” and a “calculated attack” on Trade Unionism and the forty-hour week.

The Prime Minister of New Zealand declared a state of emergency on February 22nd. The Government issued sweeping emergency regulations on February 23rd, giving power to suspend all awards, use members of the armed forces on the waterfront, extend the powers of the police, deal with any person who incited or aided the continuance of the dispute, place all union funds in the hands of the receiver, etc.

A Waterfront Strike Notice was issued ordering all watersiders back to work on Monday, February 26th, or to suffer a “declared strike” under the regulations. On that Monday, meetings of watersiders in all ports rejected this ultimatum. The following day the Government ordered servicemen on to the waterfront at Wellington and Auckland, and the New Zealand coast seamen walked off all ships being worked by servicemen.

Some Wellington Harbour Board employees were suspended for refusing to assist the servicemen, and meetings of seamen, drivers and others were held everywhere. The Trade Union Congress called on the Government to resign. The Federation of Labour affiliations recommended the calling of a compulsory conference between the disputing parties. Over a thousand workers employed on hydro-electric plants at Waikato ceased work.

All Waikato underground mines and some West coast mines were idle. The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants instructed all branches not to handle any material on the waterfront that was normally handled by the watersiders. Freezing workers at Ngahauranga, the Gear Meat Workers at Petone and at several other centres stopped work. The Golden Bay Cement Works closed down. The Government de-registered the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union on February 28th, and the Parliamentary Labour Party called on the Government to arrange a compulsory conference between the parties.

On March 1st receivers moved into the Waterside Workers’ Union offices throughout the country. Bank accounts amounting to £20,000 were taken over. The Federation of Labour announced that it had done “everything that it could be expected to do within reason”, the Union could only blame itself for its position. On March 5th all mines in the Greymouth district had come to a standstill. The Wellington Drivers’ Union took a ballot and decided not to work with the troops at the waterfront. By April 10th the Government had used everything in the bag to force the watersiders back to work.

Emergency Regulations, all the Anti-Trade Union legislation brought down by the Labour Government with a few embellishments by the present Nationalist Government. It was made an offence to discuss the Emergency Regulations at any meeting, even the leader of the opposition was refused permission to do so. But the watersiders, the miners, the freezing workers and the seamen stood firm. On two occasions members of the Watersiders’ Union were sent cards to sign if they wished to return to work under the new conditions and as members of new Unions that had been registered, but very few took advantage of the offer. The majority showed remarkable determination to preserve their Union and to support their elected representatives.

The Government refused to negotiate on any grounds that would enable the old Union to return on a National basis or to negotiate with any deputation that included the old Union’s president and secretary, H. Barnes and T. Hill. If the workers had been prepared to sacrifice these two, a settlement might have been brought about. These two men were branded as the trouble makers and the old Communist bogey was thrashed until it became a joke. It was a Communist plan, cried the Government, and the watersiders were dupes. Seventy-five per cent of the members of the old Union were ex-servicemen from the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars and it is ironical that these men, who supposedly went away to destroy the Nazi monster in the last war, should return to face another one with similar earmarks as soon as they demanded a little more of the wealth that the working class produces, in order to maintain their already miserable living standard, or a little of the “new order” that they were promised whilst they were fighting their masters’ enemies.

They have the new order, but it is worse than the old one. Socialists have maintained through both wars that the common enemy of the workers in every land is Capitalism and not their fellow workers of a different nationality. Throughout the struggle the Parliamentary Labour Party in New Zealand sat on the fence, and the Labour politicians were subtle as usual.. At first they made no complaint against the Emergency Regulations or anti-Trade-Union regulations which their own party had used when it was the Government. Mr. Nash, the leader of the Opposition, said at a meeting in Hamilton that “he was in favour of applying regulations in any easy and not in a rigorous way as long as this did not tend to prolong the strike”, and that the Labour Party “would have had no hesitation in using its powers to ensure that essential supplies were delivered to hospitals and homes”.

He said that he did not like to see freedom of speech curtailed or officials given the right to open private correspondence. Neither could he agree to the clause in the regulation which made it an offence to give food to assist watersiders’ wives and children. (Evening Post, Wellington, 30.3.1951.) The Labour politicians claimed that they were neither for nor against the locked-out and striking Unions, but with the unflagging determination of these Unions to continue the struggle, the Labour men took the opportunity to get in and reap the spoils of the workers’ fight.

The Import Supply Bill was debated in the House of Representatives, 26.6.1951, and the Labour Party politicians used the chance to debate the industrial situation generally. They expressed concern at the state of the country, urged a settlement of the strife and, with an eye to the future, they put in a good case for themselves. The Government speaker, in reply, quoted from a pamphlet entitled “Statements concerning recent disputes affecting waterfront work” issued by the Minister of Labour in the past Labour Government. Therein the cause of the waterfront disputes was attributed to the attitude of “Barnes and Hill” on the various waterfront Commissions, and to the machinations of the Communists. This dispute gives the Labour Party a good weapon with which to fight the next election. It will be able to adopt the attitude of “we told you so” and to blame the Nationalist Government for all the workers’ problems.

The Federation of Labour played a vile part in the dispute, giving the Nationalist Government every aid to crush the watersiders and their allies. Even the Labour Party had to snub them. Thus is demonstrated the futility of compulsory unionism to the workers. When the National Government brought in its Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, there was in it a threat to compulsory unionism. The officials of the Federation of Labour immediately dashed to the rescue and convinced Mr. Holland of the value of compulsory unionism, pointing out that “the Federation has yet to find any sections of the employers who object to its continuance” (Southern Cross, 3.11.1950). Without compulsory unionism the officials would lose their mainstay and the power they wield. They have now proved its value to the Government. Lack of knowledge and apathy of the members is of great assistance to these leaders of the Federation, as it is to all leaders.

The promise of support from the railwaymen seems to have been lost in transit and the strikers have rather a poor opinion of their brothers on the railways who failed to comply with the resolve “not to handle any material on the waterfront normally handled by watersiders”. The Government precipitated this struggle at a bad time for the employing class in New Zealand. It was at the height of the exporting season, thereby costing them an immense sum. The determination of the men, the active part played by the young members who were getting their first taste of such a struggle, and the support of wives who went out to work to help their menfolk continue the fight, are deserving of the applause of workers everywhere. On July 11th the seamen, cooks and stewards who had been on strike in sympathy with the watersiders, returned to work and the National Council of the Waterside Workers’ Union recommended branches in all ports to return to work.

The New Zealand Government is to seek an early dissolution of Parliament to test public opinion on its handling of the dispute. The leader of the opposition has charged the Government with fascism, dictatorship, opening mails, tapping telephones, suppression of free speech and freedom of assembly and other actions foreign to democratic government. This is denied by the Prime Minister (Manchester Guardian, 12.7.1951).

The outstanding lesson to be learned from this working-class struggle in New Zealand is that working conditions bitterly fought for and won through struggle on the industrial battlefield over the years can be wiped out, comparatively speaking, in a few minutes by those who control the political machinery. The political weapon is the dominant one and whilst it remains in the hands of the capitalist class no amount of struggle will free the workers from the yoke of capital. The same determined and heroic effort as our New Zealand fellow workers have recently waged, if directed towards gaining control of the political machine with a view to ending the wages system would solve all their economic problems. If only they would raise the cry, “Abolish the wages system” instead of making a modest demand for a tiny wage increase, then they would be heading towards a system free from lock-outs, strikes, poverty, atomic wars, ill housing, dictatorship, over-work and the host of other evils which beset them.

(This account of the recent New Zealand struggle has been compiled from information and material supplied by Comrade R. Everson of the Socialist Party of New Zealand.) OVERSEAS SECRETARY, SPGB (Socialist Standard, September 1951)

 Source: http://www.worldsocialism.org/nz/auckland/waterfront.htm

Posted in freedom of assembly, New Zealand docks dispute, New Zealand Federated Seamen’s Union, New Zealand government, opening mails, Sidney Holland, suppression of free speech, tapping telephones, Waterfront Authority, Waterfront Commission, Waterfront Strike Emergency Regulations, Waterside Workers | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Aisling Symes and Fictitious Filipino

Posted by te2ataria on October 16, 2009

sent by a local reader [edited by TEAA]

Do You Really Believe The Police Crap

  • Why Does New Zealand Police Farce Treat the Public As If  They Are Mentally Challenged?

  • Isn’t it interesting that the racist police’s choice of “Asian Suspect” circled one of the poorest and least represented Asian races [NO offense intended] to avoid backfire?

Aisling SymesMr Davey, why did you let me drown?

Previously you read:  Aisling Symes: Tragedy of Negligence and Incompetence

Aisling Symes, 2, a victim of her parents’ negligence and the epic police incompetence. Instead of searching the next-door property, where they might have found her alive, NZ Police trumped up a bizarre scenario saying they believed she was abducted by an Asian woman. Their top officer, Inspector Davey, went as far as telling members of the public: ”There are several ethnicities encompassed in the generic descriptor ‘Asian’ – Chinese, Korean, Thai, Japanese, Indian and several others – and we’re very keen to hear from anyone who thinks they might know who this woman is.”

Remember how the “Asian Suspect” was described?

She was in her 30s, about 165cm tall with a medium build, long straight black hair and reportedly wearing black socks with black sandals. …  She was wearing a black crew neck top, with three-quarter length sleeves, three-quarter length blue jeans, black leather sandals and black socks. … The woman had a black and grey medium sized dog on a lead.  …  She was directly behind the missing child. … She was last  seen at 5.30pm with an Asian  woman. … Police begin a search.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2934078/Police-worried-about-missing-girl-2

The word ‘black’ was repeated 7 times in the description of the female Asian [Chinese, Korean, Thai, Japanese, Indian and several others,] who is wearing a double servings of leather sandals and socks!

It’s interesting how the racist police forgot to include FILIPINO in their list of “several ethnicities encompassed in the generic descriptor ‘Asian’.”

Inspector daveyI make NO apology for NOT doing what you think I should have done. I have a higher, divine duty to save my people from the “Asian Plague!”

DO YOU BELIEVE THIS POLICE/ MEDIA BS?

Revealed: Secret of Aisling suspect

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10603535

The mysterious Asian woman seen with Aisling Symes was mentally unwell and has a history of trying to lure children into cars with lollies.

Was the “suspect” ever arrested, charged with or even cautioned with on a single incident of  abduction, attempted abduction, or any related crimes she committed previously?  Did she suffer from the same mental disease [sic] that afflicted the Japanese male,  Mr Masashi Hayama?

The Herald has learned the woman was from the Philippines, had a dog and fitted the general description given by the 9-year-old who saw her approach the toddler just after 5pm last Monday week.

Did Aisling Symes take a tour of the area before going back to the neighboring house where she was drowned? Isn’t it remarkable that a 9-year-old could provide such detailed description of the “suspect?”

When a large-scale search did not find the 2-year-old, police believed she might have been the victim of an “opportunistic abduction.”

How many other 2-yo kids have ever been abducted by Asian women in

a) Longburn Rd,
b) Henderson,
c) West Auckland,
d) New Zealand ?

On Monday night, Aisling’s body was found in a stormwater pipe close to the house of her deceased grandparents in Longburn Rd.

Police then said they had located the Asian woman, but refused to identify her.

Isn’t RACISM the act of stereotyping billions of people, accusing them of committing a crime, which their sole “suspect” didn’t even commit? What did Inspector Davey really had in mind? Lynching a dozen Asian women before he rescued Aisling from a Chinese opium den?

Detectives spoke to the woman on Tuesday night, and Mr Davey said police were “satisfied she’s unable to help us further”.

Couldn’t she have lied? How and on what basis were they “satisfied” that she hadn’t abducted Aisling Symes, at least temporarily, and didn’t drown her?

He refused to discuss the conversation and said the woman was no longer part of the investigation.

That’s it? A baby is killed because he didn’t look thoroughly where he should have, and he now refuses to answer question? This police state has no capo?

“We had to cover all possible scenarios, including abduction, and tease out all lines of inquiry, including sightings of an Asian woman in the area.”

Wasn’t your first job to look in all the places that little 2-year-old fall and invariably drown, before considering the least probable causes, for which you had to create a Fictitious Filipino?

Mr Davey said police valued their relationship with the Asian community, but locating the woman was “a necessary part of trying to find Aisling”.

Have you ever wondered what little Aisling’s thoughts might have been, or how she was begging someone to pull her out of the drain before she drowned?

AislingI was there, right under your feet, begging you to come and save me, Mr Davey!

Mr Davey said police valued their relationship with the Asian community, but locating the woman was “a necessary part of trying to find Aisling”.

Exactly, at what stage of the investigation [sic] did the background information on the “Asian Suspect” become available?

Mr Davey, you may think you have brownnosed your way out of this one, but what will you do the next time we catch you picking on Maori or Asians?

BUT you could, for a change, act honorably:

Resign, Mr Davey, or better still, put yourself and the rest of your gang out of this embarrassing misery!

Then again, that’s a tall order because YOU were born void of courage and lacking in honor!

Related Links:

Other Links

Posted in Aisling Symes, Asian abductor, Inspector Davey abduction case, institutional racism, Longburn Rd, NZ racist police, racism in new zealand, Radio New Zealand, suburb of Henderson, Tourist Deathtrap, usual suspect | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »