The mooted retrospective changes to cover flaws in surveillance laws are in danger of raising even more concerns about the power of legislators to change laws to trap those that would otherwise go free in a democracy. The changes, we are told, are required because otherwise some serious criminals already on charges might go free. That in itself is a breach of freedoms, the changing of the law is not to 'catch' terrorists that might otherwise go free, in fact the 'broken' law was used 'reckless(ly) as to whether their (the police) actions were lawful or they carried out covert surveillance knowing that it was unlawful.'
In the scheme of things the Tuhoe raids were against what we were told were terrorists attended with a 'trust us' type attitude of investigators who leaked information that might have made some nzers feel that indeed terrorism was a present danger in NZ. Since then the Supreme Court has dismissed evidence against 13 of those arrested because the evidence to be used against them was unlawfully obtained and did rise above the necessarily high threshold of its value, or that of the public interest, that might have allowed the Court to use it's discretion to admit the evidence despite it's unlawful collection.
One thing we can be sure of is that the Courts rightly would have admitted the evidence if it stood as absolute proof of acts of terrorism, there is no doubt about that. Something else that 'waters' down the value of the evidence being far less than proof of terrorism is that the Government don't seek to include the 13 former 'terrorists' in the net of the proposed retrospective legislation. Suddenly what is revealed is that 'anonymous' dangerous criminals, ostensibly more dangerous than terrorists for whom laws have been melded to catch, are not the 'prize' after all. The prize is in fact is another 'trust me' objective, an unknown number of alleged offenders, on an unknown number of charges and of who there is no indication that other evidence lawfully obtained against them is not enough for prosecutions, we are asked to trust that there is not sufficient other evidence apart from that unlawfully obtained. Additionally, the legislators express no faith in the Courts to apply a test to the necessary evidence against these mystery individuals, to determine whether it might be admitted despite the manner of its collection.
So we move from one darkness to another, terrorists become terrorists no more and the new bogey man is unknown but dangerous. So dangerous in fact that he, she or they are elevated above the primary concern of the lawmakers - those who might reduce the country to anarchy, civil war and acts of terrorism. So we are asked to move from one frightening beast (suddenly made docile) to another without hesitation that the public might not say 'hold on, what about all that other bs?' and instead swallow was is in fact an erosion of their freedom.
Where might this take us? To secret lawmaking for sure, also to retrospective lawmaking on the basis of false pretence where retrospective lawmaking becomes the norm to a time when faith in the law might be reduced overnight in Parliament on grounds we are not availed to and which are not subject to public notification, submissions and debate - a type of executive power gone mad.
Other questions arise, the 13 now rendered harmless 'terrorists,' were held on illegally gathered evidence, surely they should be compensated as of right because lawful detention, restraint or imprisonment cannot be on the basis on an unlawful act by the authorities. Additionally, sceptical as I may be - why do some of their number remain on charges that will not be heard until after the election, also when does the discretion to dismiss charges that are not heard in a timely manner get exercised?
Time for calmness to prevail, because the lawmakers have failed there should not be haste exercised in remedying the law, certainly not retrospectively and certainly not on a 'trust me' basis that has already once failed.
No comments:
Post a Comment