Editorial: Dissent and democracy

New Zealanders, like Westerners elsewhere, are not as gullible as they once were, The Dominion Post writes. They have, over years, learnt to their cost that some of their leaders give assurances that time proves unsustainable. Duplicity understandably breeds cynicism.

So it is not surprising that some are sceptical as to why police would be interested in surreptitiously monitoring animal rights, anti-war, climate-change and pro-snail activists, utilising a regretful bumbler based in Christchurch. This democracy tolerates dissent, surely?

Yet weekend newspaper articles say that police officers from the Special Investigation Group have carried out surveillance and used at least one paid informer to gather information about planned protests. Some in the groups affected, as well as human rights lawyers and Green list MP Keith Locke, are furious. Mr Locke is demanding a formal inquiry; lawyer Tim McBride calls such surveillance "outrageous".

Their reaction is to be expected. New Zealand's isan extraordinarily easy-going populace, which largely subscribes to the theory of "live and let live". Many who would never join a protest group themselves are relaxed about those who do, though are often laughingly dismissive of the "isms" that motivate them.

But, as the country has seen in the past 14 months, some who get involved in protest action purportedly have other aims. Were that not the case, a score of people would not be facing court action next year after the police raids of October 2007. Some still regard the police action as ludicrous, believing the so-called "guerrillas in the mist" were no more than idiots playing games. Nonetheless, most of those first arrested now face firearms charges.

Police intelligence, no doubt assembled in a more sophisticated way than the ham-fisted manner in which SIG members seem to have gathered information from their Christchurch "plant", will properly be tested when the charges reach court.

After some of the information gathered by police was published by The Dominion Post last November, opinion on the police action shifted somewhat. At least some of those who thought police had over-reacted to information gleaned from surveillance conceded that police were right to be concerned.

Against that backdrop, it is hardly surprising that they continue to keep an eye on people who authorities believe warrant some oversight. Those involved are naive to expect otherwise. And, in a post 9/11 world, the public expects police to take a precautionary approach. They would be derelict to do otherwise.

Police Commissioner Howard Broad defends the SIG actions by saying the threshold for interest in protest groups is when police have been alerted to "some real risk" that someone might intend violence. Police Minister Judith Collins is satisfied police are acting within their responsibilities.

Police chiefs know that, in a democracy, they can do their job only with the tacit permission of those whom they police. The public, for its part, expects the constabulary to keep them safe while not being heavy-handed. Unfortunately for Mr Broad, it is a fine line to tread.

Newest First

Oldest First

Mike   #1   05:26 pm Jan 28 2009

Police have been using informers ever since the police were first formed - what's the problem? That those being informed upon are middle class tree huggers and not beer swigging poor trash? Does that make them immune from breaking the law?

I don't think so......

Ad Feedback