Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Crown to appeal Zaoui case

This recently in my in-box from Margaret Wilson

"The Crown will be appealing the Court of Appeal decision Attorney-General v Zaoui.
It is important that the test to be applied by the Director of Security when issuing, and the Inspector-General when reviewing, a security risk certificate is clarified.
The Court of Appeal issued declarations stating that the test of "threat to national security" is a very high one, on the basis of an assumption that if such a certificate was confirmed against Mr Zaoui he would be sent back to face persecution.
It was never the intention of the Crown to return Mr Zaoui to a place of persecution, regardless of the outcome of the review by the Inspector-General. Any decision by the Minister of Immigration would take account of New Zealand's international obligations, including its obligation not to deport people to places where they face torture.
In light of this fact, it is important the test to be applied be clarified by the Supreme Court".

I haven't been following the case all that closely, but I do want to know why the Government is so afraid of Zaoui being sent back to face persecution when the Government was happy to persecute him here? I also want know why the Government is so careful to abide by international obligations when they were happy to break so many of them while Zaoui is here in NZ. Isn't that double standards? Anyone wish to comment on that?


Anonymous said...

two things

1. the govt screwed up and he's innocent.
2. they can't tell us for that would disclose what they don't want us to know, about what they know or how they or someone else knows.

as for this, they have to go through all the steps because his lawyers know what they are doing and are doing the best for their client.
that doesn't mean he is or isn't guilty.

as far as I'm concerned my position is clear and always has been.
we subscribe to a system and put resources into it.
our people are dedicated and work very hard with the resources they have.

therefore we shouldn't degrade debase or nulify that system by allowing others in out side of it.
it sends a message to those inside the system you're 2nd class and to those out side who have resources come on boys try it this way.

as for Zaoui per se
He is not a navvy
He is following a plan ( and had help whether here and there before or just there I don't know)
in which he deliberately chose to break our laws.
and he came and did that via a safe haven..
that tells me all I need to know about him.
we don't need that kind of person here.

He's like that USA billionaire who arrogently knew our laws on drugs but broke them anyway.
the one who made a donation of 50k and got off.
he should have got 6mnths and deported.

as for Zaoui send him back next week to malaysia a "moderate" muslim nation
do that to all illegals who come with false papers or rip them up.
do it for a year and watch them stop coming.

we properly resource the refugees we do let in.
so that they aren't on the dole 3-5 yrs later.

we also properly discuss openly iin public the real costs medical etc of refugees.
also the family repatriation aspects namely numbers of family members on average and the real costs for education medical both immediate and ongoing.

this subject can be cleanly dealt with, transparently and with the right attitude, no rednecking or liberal limp wrist.

lastly, if he's innocent, Zaoui still deliberately broke our laws.
He is a criminal no matter what some bunch of nice people say.
He deliberately broke the law.

He also broke the laws of France, Belgium and Switzerland who are not dictatorships neither are they beholden to Algeria.
personally I'd trust those three countries over our refugee boards or whatever it is called who said he was genuine.

Anonymous said...

The government should admit that the SIS
screwed up over an erroneous security risk
certificate, convene an internal inquiry into
SIS procedures and risk evaluation, release
Ahmed Zaoui, and compensate him for unjust

I am seriously at odds with the government over
this one.


Anonymous said...

Incidentally, Mike, France has been propping up the
corrupt Algerian junta for several years, regardless
of its human rights record. The hapless Algerian
public are caught between their murderous regime
and the equally murderous al Qaeda affiliate, the
Armed Islamic Group, which is unconncected to the
moderate Islamic Salvation Front, which opposes
terrorism and endorses the democratic process.


Greyshade said...

Any breach of NZ law by Ahmed Zaoui carries a considerably lesser penalty than the time he has already served. Under normal circumstances they may have been grounds for denying entry BUT (under NZ law and the Refugee Convention) are "trumped" by his lawfully established refugee status. The "crimes" he was charged with in France, Belgium and Switzerland and all unclassified evidence against him were put before the Refugee Authority and were rejected by it in granting that Refugee Status. To date there is nothing to suggest that the Security Risk certificate was based on any substance other then these matters.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the SIS are putting their position in and loyalty to the international brotherhood of secret services ahead of their duty to honestly assess threats to New Zealand. It was this same shadowy brotherhood that assured the world Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction and (in the case of the French service) conducted the only terrorist homicide on New Zealand soil.

Anonymous said...

Yeah France is the big bad wolf.

and Switzerland and Belgium just did as they were told, naughty people.

and anyone who just arrives on our shores illegally we should let in and ignore those in the queue.

get real.
If the wicked Algerians are really after him does he honestly think they won't just wait for him to get out of jail and when enough time has elapsed.
right here at the checkout at New World.

after all we live in a benign environment don't we?