On June 3 last year, the Christchurch Press reported on an alleged assault in Christchurch on an IDF soldier on holiday from the genocide in Gaza:

“According to police, the man confronted the Israeli visitor in a public space, and yelled that he was a “child killer, a murderer, and Israeli scum”. It is alleged he punched the man before he was restrained by other members of the public.

“Police commented he seemed proud that he had skinned his knuckles in punching the victim.

“Duty lawyer Phillip Allan took issue with police’s comments about it being a “hate crime”, and the allegation that the man was a racist because of the comments he had made about the Israeli Defence Forces’ actions in Gaza.

“‘Many people have strongly held views about the crisis in Gaza and the Israeli military’s actions there. Those people include judges, lawyers, police officers, and upstanding members of the community. They would all take issue with the idea that they were [called] racists because they held those views,’ said Allan.

“Allan said the man had no issues with Israelis, or Jewish people, but he did have issues with the actions of the Israeli military.”

The alleged assailant was denied bail after police argued hard against it.

Behind the scenes
There was no follow up in New Zealand’s mainstream media but on December 3 last year Ynetnews reported the outcome of the case and the shocking behind the scenes story:

“A New Zealand man has been sentenced to two years and four months in prison for assaulting an Israeli tourist in Christchurch last year, in an unusually severe punishment for a street attack.

“The conviction, announced this week by New Zealand’s Justice Ministry, came after months of diplomatic and police coordination that began when the victim, 29-year-old Yuval Shekel, filed a complaint the day after the incident. Shekel had been traveling in New Zealand with his girlfriend following more than 200 days of reserve duty in Gaza and Lebanon.

“According to Shekel, the assault occurred in a Christchurch bar after a local man asked where he was from. ‘I said I was from Israel and felt something strange in the air,’ he recalls. The man then asked whether he had served in the army — a common question for travellers abroad — and, seconds later, punched him in the face.

“Bystanders restrained the attacker, who shouted antisemitic slurs, including that Shekel was a ‘baby killer’, before fleeing the scene. Police did not arrive before he left.

“The blow shattered three of Shekel’s teeth, requiring hospital treatment and months of dental reconstruction. ‘It was a nightmare of a week,’ he said. ‘I’ve been in recovery for three months, and my teeth still haven’t fully healed. And the humiliation stays.’

“After Shekel filed a police report, his father contacted the Israeli Embassy in Wellington. Embassy officials, who said they were shocked by the case, alerted the Israel Police attaché in Asia visiting New Zealand at the time and pressed local authorities to pursue the suspect. New Zealand police later took Shekel’s full testimony and opened a criminal investigation.

“The attacker was arrested and charged under an expedited legal proceeding. Prosecutors sought a seven-year sentence, but the court handed down a term of two years and four months — still considered severe for a first-time assault conviction.

“Shekel said he felt justice had been done. ‘You can’t give up when Israelis are attacked abroad,’ he said. ‘The embassy and the Israel Police really can help. It’s hard not to feel ashamed that we’re Israelis sometimes, but we have to remember there are people who hate us.'”

Direct pressure from Israel
So the New Zealand police recorded the complaint of assault the day after it happened and were presumably following their normal processes when they came under direct pressure from the Israeli Embassy and Israeli officials to do more.

What followed was “months of diplomatic and police coordination”, “pressing local authorities to pursue the suspect”, an “expedited legal proceeding” under which police sought a “seven year prison sentence” with the court handing down a two year four month sentence.”

It’s clear the police responded to direct pressure from the Israeli Embassy and Israeli officials to abandon their normal procedures and launch a criminal investigation which they vigorously prosecuted on behalf of a soldier fresh from a genocide.

Some important questions we need the answers to:

• Who in the police was contacted by the Israeli Embassy to apply this pressure?
• How was this conveyed to the police investigating the assault?
• Did any NZ politicians contact the police to apply pressure by “asking about progress in the case”?
• Were any government ministers or MPs involved?
• Were the police told “Israel and the US are watching us” so make sure you go hard on this one?
• Why was the usual police procedure overridden with an “expedited legal proceeding”?
• Why did the police seek a seven-year sentence for a punch by a first time offender?
• Have the police ever sought such a sentence before in any circumstances? If so give us the details of the case?
• Why have the police and the courts allowed their roles to be politicised on behalf of a racist apartheid state whose leader is wanted for trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity?

Let’s compare the police and courts response to an attack on an Israeli soldier fresh from genocide with their responses to violent attacks on Palestinians and Palestine supporters in New Zealand. A few examples:

• A Palestinian teenager speaking on a microphone was knocked to the ground in Auckland — video evidence and lots of witnesses — no action from police.
• A marshal on a march in Christchurch was kicked in the chest by a genocide supporter and knocked over — the police refused to investigate for “lack of evidence” and refused to get video of the incident from the Christchurch City Council (it took place in a highly surveilled area).
• The police prosecuted a pro-Israel thug in Wellington who punched and kicked a Palestine supporter and although the crime was proven the judge refused to enter a conviction
• In Auckland an ex-IDF soldier attacked a woman holding a Palestinian flag and flailed the pole around cutting here face. The police prosecuter and the judge tells the assailant to pay the woman $1000 but refuses to convict him and gives him permanent name suppression.
• Nine attacks against New Plymouth activists Kate and Grant Cole — car tyres slashed several times, their fence spray-painted with an Israeli flag, a rock hurled through a window, vile lies about them letterboxed around their neighbourhood the police response is to tell them to improve their home security

The rule is clear: “Hit an Israeli and it’s reported as a hate crime and you go to jail – but hit a Palestinian and the police and the courts will look the other way”.

This politicisation and corruption of the police and courts will not be surprising to many when our police and intelligence agencies are so tightly tied to the US-dominated Five Eyes network and Western colonialism.

This blatant bias of the police will be welcomed by the pro-Israel lobby whose supporters can rest assured their violent attacks on Palestinians and Palestinian rights supporters will be all but ignored while the police will go hard after anyone assaulting an Israeli soldier fresh from a spell in the genocidal IDF.

John Minto is national co-chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA). The article was first published by The Daily Blog and is republished with permission.

The ACT Party’s election promise of a referendum for Aotearoa New Zealand to redefine and enshrine the “principles” of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) is likely to dominate debate at this year’s Rātana and Waitangi Day events.

ACT’s coalition agreement with the National Party commits the government to supporting a Treaty Principles Bill for select committee consideration. The bill may not make it into law, but the idea is raising considerable alarm.

Leaked draft advice to Cabinet from the Ministry of Justice says the principles should be defined in legislation because “their importance requires there be certainty and clarity about their meaning”. The advice also says ACT’s proposal will:

change the nature of the principles from reflecting a relationship akin to a partnership between the Crown and Māori to reflecting the relationship the Crown has with all citizens of New Zealand. This is not supported by either the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty.

Setting aside arguments that the notion of “partnership” diminishes self-determination, the 10,000 people attending a hui at Tūrangawaewae marae near Hamilton last weekend called by King Tūheitia were motivated by the prospect of the Treaty being diminished.

• READ MORE: Why redefining the Treaty principles would undermine real political equality in NZ
• The kīngitanga movement: 160 years of Māori monarchy
• Putting te Tiriti at the centre of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public policy can strengthen democracy – here’s how

Do we need Treaty principles?
The Treaty principles were developed and elaborated by parliaments, courts and the Waitangi Tribunal over more than 50 years to guide policy implementation and mediate tensions between the Māori and English texts of the document.

The Māori text, which more than 500 rangatira (chiefs) signed, conferred the right to establish government on the British Crown. The English text conferred absolute sovereignty; 39 rangatira signed this text after having it explained in Māori, a language that has no concept of sovereignty as a political and legal authority to be given away.

Because the English text wasn’t widely signed, there is a view that it holds no influential standing, and that perhaps there isn’t a tension to mediate. Former chief justice Sian Elias has said: “It can’t be disputed that the Treaty is actually the Māori text”.

On Saturday, Tūheitia said: “There’s no principles, the Treaty is written, that’s it.”

This view is supported by arguments that the principles are reductionist and take attention away from the substance of Te Tiriti’s articles: the Crown may establish government; Māori may retain authority over their own affairs and enjoy citizenship of the state in ways that reflect equal tikanga (cultural values).

Author and Professor of Māori Studies at the University of Auckland, Margaret Mutu, who was in attendance at the recent hui-ā-iwi at Tūrangawaewae marae, says the government is required to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.https://t.co/zSusoi5RER pic.twitter.com/dMrxjtMRan

— 95bFM News (@95bFMNews) January 26, 2024

Democratic or undemocratic?
The ACT Party says this is undemocratic because it gives Māori a privileged voice in public decision making. Of the previous government, ACT has said:

Labour is trying to make New Zealand an unequal society on purpose. It believes there are two types of New Zealanders. Tangata Whenua, who are here by right, and Tangata Tiriti who are lucky to be here.

Liberal democracy was not the form of government Britain established in 1840. There’s even an argument that state government doesn’t concern Māori. The Crown exercises government only over “its people” – settlers and their descendants. Māori political authority is found in tino rangatiratanga and through shared decision making on matters of common interest.

Tino rangatiratanga has been defined as “the exercise of ultimate and paramount power and authority”. In practice, like all power, this is relative and relational to the power of others, and constrained by circumstances beyond human control.

But the power of others has to be fair and reasonable, and rangatiratanga requires freedom from arbitrary interference by the state. That way, authority and responsibility may be exercised, and independence upheld, in relation to Māori people’s own affairs and resources.

Assertions of rangatiratanga
Social integration — especially through intermarriage, economic interdependence and economies of scale — makes a rigid “them and us” binary an unlikely path to a better life for anybody.

However, rangatiratanga might be found in Tūheitia’s advice about the best form of protest against rewriting the Treaty principles to diminish the Treaty itself:

Be who we are, live our values, speak our reo (language), care for our mokopuna (children), our awa (rivers), our maunga (mountains), just be Māori. Māori all day, every day.

As the government introduces measures to reduce the use of te reo Māori in public life, repeal child care and protection legislation that promotes Māori leadership and responsibility, and repeal water management legislation that ensures Māori participation, Tūheitia’s words are all assertions of rangatiratanga.

Those government policies sit alongside the proposed Treaty Principles Bill to diminish Māori opportunities to be Māori in public life. For the ACT Party, this is necessary to protect democratic equality.

In effect, the proposed bill says that to be equal, Māori people can’t contribute to public decisions with reference to their own culture. As anthropologist Dr Anne Salmond has written, this means the state cannot admit there are “reasonable people who reason differently”.

Today thousands answered the Māori Kings call for unity by descending on Tūrangawaewae marae for a national hui to discuss Act’s proposal to redefine the principles of the treaty. Here’s David Seymour being grilled by @moanatribe on his questionable use of the word apartheid. pic.twitter.com/1E9pItTqLm

— Kelvin Morgan (@kelvin_morganNZ) January 20, 2024

Liberal democracy and freedom
Equality through sameness is a false equality that liberal democracy is well-equipped to contest. Liberal democracy did not emerge to suppress difference.

It is concerned with much more than counting votes to see who wins on election day.

Liberal democracy is a political system intended to manage fair and reasonable differences in an orderly way. This means it doesn’t concentrate power in one place. It’s not a select few exercising sovereignty as the absolute and indivisible power to tell everybody else what to do.

This is because one of its ultimate purposes is to protect people’s freedom — the freedom to be Māori as much as the freedom to be Pakeha. If we want it to, democracy may help all and not just some of us to protect our freedom through our different ways of reasoning.

Freedom is protected by checks and balances on power. Parliament checks the powers of government. Citizens, including Māori citizens with equality of tikanga, check the powers of Parliament.

One of the ways this happens is through the distribution of power from the centre — to local governments, school boards and non-governmental providers of public services. This includes Māori health providers whose work was intended to be supported by the Māori Health Authority, which the government also intends to disestablish.

The rights of hapū (kinship groups), as the political communities whose representatives signed Te Tiriti, mean that rangatiratanga, too, checks and balances the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

Checking and balancing the powers of government requires the contribution of all and not just some citizens. When they do so in their own ways, and according to their own modes of reasoning, citizens contribute to democratic contest — not as a divisive activity, but to protect the common good from the accumulation of power for some people’s use in the domination of others.

Te Tiriti supports this democratic process.

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan is adjunct professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and professor of political science, Charles Sturt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Vanuatu’s outgoing president, Obed Moses Tallis, has urged the government not to abolish the Ministry of Justice, warning against a “dictatorial system”.

His opening speech to Parliament’s first “ordinary” session of 2022 is his final duty of his mandate which will end in July.

“In my observation during my five-year term as a Head of State, the judiciary in Vanuatu under the leadership of Chief Justice has played an important role in stability, growth and progress of the nation for it uniqueness of it its independency,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other Vanuatu politics reports
• Fears over proposed break up of Vanuatu’s Justice Ministry

“To cherish the stages of the third pillar of the constitution, I urge the government to carefully consider its decision to abolish the Ministry of Justice.

“It is important that the government maintain the Ministry of Justice. Without the judiciary, there will no effective work from the government and there will be no prosecution.

“The work of the Vanuatu Police force will have no bases and there will be a dictatorial system in place,” he said.

In his speech, Tallis also praised the country’s frontline workers for their hard work during the community outbreak of covid-19.

Frontline workers risked lives
He said frontline workers risked their lives and their families by being exposed to the virus.

He also hailed their efforts in challenging disinformation about the omicron variant.

Tallis said the hard work of the frontline workers had contributed to stabilising the outbreak in the affected provinces.

Meanwhile, Vanuatu’s Ministry of Health reports 37 new cases of covid-19.

Tallis told Parliament Vanuatu had gone through several challenges because of the covid pandemic.

He acknowledged the tourism sector for its contribution to the recovery of Vanuatu’s economy.

“Tourism has contributed a lot to economic growth but the only problem is that it is a fragile industry and cannot sustain us during total border restrictions which restricted the mobility and the movement of the tourists.

Tourism a ‘fragile industry’
“We experienced a high rate of unemployment with the closure of hotels and caused financial difficulties of the family.

“The other reason why I am saying that tourism is a fragile industry is the ongoing climate change impact across the globe which could affect this industry.

“In my humble view, I want to see government to invest more in vibrant industry such as agriculture, fisheries and utilising the natural resources in land and marine,” Tallis said.

He acknowledged government initiatives to redirect its focus in the agriculture sector and the programme of coconut replanting and cattle restocking and the establishment of the connection of the cooperative to the local farmers in order to participate effectively in the country’s economic growth.

The Prime Minister, Bob Loughman, and the Leader of the opposition, Ralph Regenvanu, both thanked Tallis for his role as Head of State during his five-year mandate.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.