Friday, February 24, 2017



Reported back

The Intelligence and Security Committee has reported back on the New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill. Its being touted as a victory for oversight, and there's a little bit of that - and in particular stronger political neutrality clauses which do impose legal duties on spy agencies and limit their cooperation with foreign agencies which violate human rights (such as, you would hope, the NSA and GCHQ). But there's also a lot to be concerned about. In particular:

  • The definition of "national security" has been repealed, meaning that it is suddenly a nebulous, undefined term that (except in the case of issuing an intelligence warrant targeting a kiwi) can mean anything. We know that in the past the SIS have regarded Maori and women's rights movements, and the peace and environmental movements - entirely peaceful and democratic movements - as "threats" to "national security". This invites them to do it again. The clause they deleted invited them to do it too, but it at least nailed it down so that there were some things they clearly couldn't do, and invited the prospect of gutting it later. Now, they'll get to decide what it means in total secrecy.
  • Spy agencies can still use the "foreign organisation" dodge to target kiwis who are members of Greenpeace, Amnesty International, or similar NGOs.
  • The Select Committee has inserted a new subpart allowing intelligence agencies to compel the production of "business records" from banks, ISPS and telecommunications companies, including call metadata and IP addresses, but explicitly not "web browsing history". While this effectively duplicates the police production order scheme, there's no judges, and little oversight. The Commissioner of Security Warrants is involved in granting broad approvals to gain these records - basicly saying "SIS can demand call metadata from phone companies whenever they want" - but has no role in overseeing individual demands (except that there is a register, which is more than the police have). So, once the approval is granted - and it is hard to see it ever being refused - the spies can demand such "business data" on anyone. Or, to put it another way: they can spy on Nicky Hager's bank and phone records permanently with absolutely no oversight. They can then pass this information to police, allowing them to effectively sidestep the limited safeguards of the production order regime.
  • The buried lead in all that is "This information is currently provided on a voluntary basis". In other words, ISPs, banks and phone companies have been betraying their customers to the spies for years. Arseholes.
  • The anti-whistleblower clause is retained, allowing the spies to jail anyone for up to five years if they tell us about their crimes.
So, a lot of work to be done to fix it. Unfortunately Labour collaborated on the bill, so I don't think we'll be seeing any solutions from them. They're fine with having an intelligence state provided they get a turn at signing the warrants. If we want real reform in this area, and real limitations on the powers of spies, we need to look outside the two establishment parties.

Thursday, February 23, 2017



Striking a blow for privacy

On Monday the Privacy Commissioner ruled that Westpac bank had breached Nicky Hager's privacy rights by passing his personal information to police without a production order. Now, Hager is off to the Human Rights Review Tribunal to enforce that decision:

Mr Hager believes the attitude of Westpac has left him with no choice but to continue with his case. “He has asked Westpac to acknowledge that it breached his rights.

Despite the Privacy Commissioner’s ruling, it has not been prepared to do that," Mr Hager's lawyer Felix Geiringer said.

Mr Hager will be asking the Human Rights Review Tribunal for binding orders requiring that Westpac not give its customers' bank transaction data to the Police without a production order.

If he's successful, it will have a privacy benefit for hundreds of thousands of kiwis who use Westpac's services. So, here's hoping.

A literal bullshit standard

One of New Zealand's biggest environmental problems is fresh water. Industrial dairying is polluting our rivers, turning them from public recreation spaces to open sewers full of cowshit. This is turning into a political headache for the government, so they've decided to do something about it, announcing an "ambitious" new target for 90% of our rivers to be swimmable by 2040:

The Government has set a target of making 90 per cent of New Zealand's rivers and streams safe for swimming by 2040.

That means all waterways will have to meet the safe standard for E.coli contamination 80 per cent of the time.

Announcing the target in Auckland today, Environment Minister Nick Smith said 72 per cent of New Zealand's were currently "swimmable", according to a standard used in Europe and the US.

Raising that level to 90 per cent would require cleaning up 10,000km of waterways, and would cost Government, farmers and councils an estimated $2 billion. Farmers would have to build 56,000km of fencing.


Sounds good right? Except that it turns out that its the usual National party spin job. Rather than actually cleaning up any rivers, they've simply relabelled unswimmable rivers as "swimmable":
The acceptable swimmable standard given in the Ministry for the Environment and Ministry for Health’s microbiological guidelines is a E.coli count of <260 per 100 mL of water. To meet the Ministries’ standard, waterways must pass this 95% of the time.

The Ministry of Health’s drinking water standard is an E.coli count of <1 per 100 mL of water.

The standards the Land and Water Forum advise would see a grade given to rivers based on the amount of time they meet a standard of E.coli <550 per 100 mL of water (this count is called ‘Alert’ in the MfE/MoH guidelines).


According to National, a "swimmable" river is one that makes you sick 5% of the time. But that's not swimmable - its literally bullshit. But for National, its not about actually solving the problem - its about giving them a talking point so they can pretend they are in election year. And meanwhile, in reality, our rivers will continue to fill up with shit and become unusable to the public.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017



Australia returns refugees to persecution

In 2015 Tran Thi Lua fled Vietnam to avoid persecution over a land dispute. The Australian Navy intercepted the boat she was on, denied her asylum, and forcibly returned her to Vietnam. Where, of course, she was detained and beaten:

A Vietnamese asylum seeker has said she faced three months of detention and beatings after being returned by Australian immigration officials.

Tran Thi Lua fled a second time, trying to reach Australia this month, but her boat broke down off the Indonesian coast.

Now she is stranded in Indonesia with her three children and two other Vietnamese families, hoping for an interview with the United Nations refugee agency this week.

The other two mothers on the recent boat trip were also returned by Australia in 2015 and faced punishment from the communist Vietnamese Government.


At the least, this shows that she had a well-founded fear of persecution, and should have been granted refugee status. And it shows that Australia broke its own laws by refouling her to persecution. But clearly, Australia no longer cares about its obligations under the Refugee Convention.

(And remember: Don't Buy Australian until Australia revokes its anti-refugee policies and frees everyone on Nauru and Manus Island)

New Fisk

Victory over Isis in Mosul could mean defeat in Syria's Deir Ezzor 250 miles west

No justice in Israel

On 24 March 2016, Elor Azaria, an Israeli soldier, executed Abdul Fatah al-Sharif. Al-Sharif had been shot and incapacitated after stabbing another soldier and was lying wounded on the ground. He posed no threat. Despite this, Azaria shot him in the head and killed him, in a clear violation of the laws of war. Eventually, Azaria was charged - with manslaughter rather than murder - and convicted. Last night he received his sentence: a laughable 18 months in prison:

An Israeli military medic who was filmed killing an incapacitated Palestinian attacker last year has been sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Elor Azaria’s sentence was handed down by a panel of three judges sitting in a military court in Tel Aviv. Prosecutors had demanded a sentence of between three and five years, while Azaria had asked the court to be “merciful” and sentence him to open detention.

Human rights groups argued that the sentence was too lenient, while Azaria’s supporters, including some ministers, said he should not have been sentenced to prison at all.


I'm very definitely with the former. 18 months for a cold-blooded murder by a soldier? Its very clear that there is no justice in Israel, at least where Palestinians are the victims. Its another example of how Israel has turned into an apartheid state, where some lives are valued more than others (see also: US military sentences for murders and torture in Iraq, where they exist at all).

But it gets worse, because there is intense political pressure to pardon this killer. And if that happens, it sends a clear message: Palestinian lives don't matter, and soldiers can murder with (even more) impunity. It will also make it clear that Israeli soldiers will need to be prosecuted for their crimes before international tribunals, because the Israeli state won't hold its own to account.

Monday, February 20, 2017



The Dotcom extradition decision

The High Court has ruled that Kim Dotcom can be extradited to the USA. But not for copyright infringement. Instead, he'll be extradited for conspiracy and money laundering:

After five months of deliberation, Gilbert found that Dotcom remained eligible for extradition to the US - but not on copyright charges.

The judge found in favour of arguments put by Dotcom's legal team, led by Ron Mansfield, that there was no equivalent "copyright" crime in New Zealand that would activate the extradition treaty.

However, the ruling also saw Justice Gilbert finding in favour of the US argument that Dotcom - and his three co-accused - could be extradited because it was at essence a "fraud" case and there was such a crime in the extradition treaty.

Except that what the US is calling "fraud" relies fundamentally on the idea that Dotcom's copyright infringement was criminal (likewise, "money laundering" requires that the money being laundered be criminally obtained). So we have a situation where a man can't be extradited for one "offence", because its not illegal here, but can be extradited for subsidiary offences which depend on the illegality of the first. Which doesn't really make sense. He could never be charged with those things in New Zealand, so why are we extraditing on them?

And it raises an obvious question: if we can't extradite on copyright infringement, will we require the US to drop those charges before extradition? If not, then isn't what is forbidden in law effectively allowed in practice, provided a foreign state can find another charge to stick on the docket?

The judgement is being appealed, of course. So hopefully we'll get some more clarity on this. Meanwhile, given the US government's role as the enforcement arm of the copyright mafia, I think its time we revisited our extradition laws, to make it clear that we will not under any circumstances extradite for such pretend "crimes". If Hollywood thinks Dotcom cost them money, they can sue. But if its not an offence in New Zealand law, our courts shouldn't collude in allowing a foreign state to jail a New Zealand citizen resident.

Correction: Kim Dotcom is an NZ resident, not a citizen.

Unwarranted and unreasonable

Back in 2015, we learned that the police had demanded (and received) Nicky Hager's bank records from Westpac bank during their political investigation of an embarrassing anti-government leak. They had done this without a warrant, production order, or any statutory grounds at all.

Today, the Privacy Commissioner ruled that Westpac had breached Hager's privacy by complying with the police request:

Nicky Hager’s complaint against Westpac has been upheld by the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner found that Westpac had breached Mr Hager’s privacy by releasing his personal information to the Police without a warrant. This is part of the continuing fallout from the Police’s unlawful raid on Mr Hager’s home in 2014.

[...]

Under the Privacy Act, Westpac may release personal information if it reasonably believes it is necessary to assist the Police investigation. When releasing this information, the Police and Westpac asserted that this exception applied. However, the Police provided Westpac with no information to support the claim that this information was needed and Westpac did not ask for any. Westpac conducted no inquiry of its own.

[...]

Westpac tried to argue that its terms and conditions allowed it to release Mr Hager’s personal information. This relied on a different exception to the Privacy Act than the one asserted at the time of release.

The Privacy Commissioner rejected Westpac’s arguments. He found that a reasonable person would not have understood those terms to have authorised this release. He also rejected an argument that the Police investigation exception applied.


While the case was about Westpac, it affects a hell of a lot more. The police make thousands of warrantless requests for information a year to banks alone, and major companies - banks and phone providers among them - have cut secret deals with police to turn over your private personal information on request, no questions asked. The Privacy Commissioner has basicly just said that those deals are illegal. Absent actual evidence from police, companies can not rely on the law enforcement exception when providing data. The result is that companies will have to start demanding production orders. And that's a good thing - because police shouldn't just be able to get your private information just by "asking". As shown in this case, that simply invites them to abuse their power.

But the ruling isn't enough. The big problem with both warrantless "requests" and production orders is that they happen in total secrecy. Companies aren't required to report on them, and neither are police. This has to change. For companies, we've seen how annual transparency reports improve privacy outcomes by creating customer pressure against disclosure, and it would be a simple matter to legislate to require them to publish. As for the police, they're required to publish annual statistics on search and interception warrants and how effective they are as a way of providing oversight. Production orders should also be included in this. That way we'll at least be able to see whether this really is a vital investigative tool, or a giant fishing expedition.

As for Westpac, hopefully Hager will take them to the Human Rights Review Tribunal and extract damages for their abuse of his privacy. And doing so should hopefully encourage other companies to be more careful about complying with police requests in future.

This bill should not proceed

Over the past week the Maori Affairs select committee has been hearing submissions on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill. The bill is supposedly an attempt to heal the oozing sore of the theft and confiscation of land at Waitara, the nexus of the land wars. It does this by effectively legitimising and making permanent those confiscations by giving stolen land to leaseholders. Te Atiawa, the iwi the land was stolen from, initially supported the bill, but after opposition from its grassroots has now rejected it. So we have a bill which would ostensibly settle a Treaty grievance being opposed by the people it is purportedly settling with. In fact, the only people who benefit from this bill are the descendent of land thieves, who would get to keep what was stolen (as opposed to merely paying peppercorn rents for it).

Fuck that. Its not just wrong, its a constitutional outrage, a one-sided, unilaterally imposed "settlement" that the iwi don't want. Rather than healing a Treaty breach, it instead perpetuates it and creates a new one. This bill should not proceed. The select committee should dump it.

New Fisk

Donald Trump's abandonment of the two-state solution descended into dark comedy very quickly
How will we get over the Trump addiction?

Two ideas to get rid of electorate deals

Last week, the Greens announced they were standing aside for (spit) Greg O'Connor in Ohariu. Today, the Maori Party cut a deal with Mana to split the Maori seats. And sometime in the next six months we will no doubt see National cut a similar deal in Epsom to ensure David Seymour continues to receive a Parliamentary salary.

These deals are incentivised by the rules of MMP, as the one electorate rule magnifies the effect of certain seats by making full representation of smaller parties dependent on them - thus encouraging parties to either step aside to allow an ally to be represented, or gang up to prevent the representation of an enemy. Lots of (mostly older) voters hate them, seeing them as a perversion of democracy (apparently all parties are obligated to run in all seats or something, regardless of whether its in their interests or they can afford it or not). Their response is to remove the incentive by revoking the one-electorate rule. But this would have a negative effect on proportionality, by arbitarirly denying parties their full representation. Fortunately, there are other ways of doing it.

The first, and most obvious, is to completely remove the 5% threshold. Its an arbitrary limit, put in place by the big parties to limit competition, under the guise of "Keeping extremists out". Except New Zealand has no extremists, and in the historic case it is supposedly there to prevent - Nazi Germany - those extremists won 30% of the vote. The 5% threshold undermines proportionality for no good purpose. What it does do is incentivise electorate deals in order to sidestep it. So, remove the threshold, give every party its full allocation of seats according to the modified Sainte-Lague formula, and electorate deals (and indeed electorates) simply cease to be relevant. Problem solved.

Another solution is to introduce preferential voting in electorate seats. This is something we should be doing anyway to ensure that every electorate candidate has majority support, but it would have the bonus of removing any incentive for the sorts of deals we are seeing in Ohariu or the Maori seats, by removing "vote splitting" from the electoral calculus. Parties would be free to stand (and compete for the party vote) without fear that by doing so they might be advantaging or disadvantaging some other party. Instead, the preferences can flow where they may.

Either of these would remove, or strongly reduce the incentives for electorate deals. Either would be a far better change to our electorate system than removing the one-electorate rule, in that they would improve proportionality and/or return power to the voters rather than the parties. The question is whether the big parties will support them, rather than trying to distort the system to their own advantage. Sadly, given their response to the Law Commission review, I suspect it will be the latter.

Thursday, February 16, 2017



Drug-testing trigger-happy cops is a good idea

The police are now requiring every officer who fires a shot on duty to undergo mandatory drug and alcohol testing. Good. Its such an obvious safeguard against police misbehaviour that I'm surprised they didn't start doing it decades ago. In fact, its so obvious that even the Police Association agrees with it (though they're not happy with the method, and they're right - blood testing is invasive and requires serious probable cause; urine testing should be enough).

So naturally, Labour's Stuart Nash is opposing it:

Labour police spokesman Stuart Nash said the approach was "very heavy handed".

"It almost seems as if they don't trust the police to use good judgement.


Well no, we don't - not when they're killing people. That's simply not something we can take on trust - every time the police use lethal force against someone, they need to prove to the public that it was justified, otherwise we will take their toys away. We do this with drivers: drug and alcohol testing after car accidents is utterly routine, and rightly so. We damn well should do it when someone points a firearm at another human being. An MP who opposes this is basicly saying that the police should be allowed to kill with impunity, no questions asked. And if that's their view, I really don't want them anywhere near the levers of power.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017



Justice for Canada's stolen generations

Between 1965 and 1984, Canadian authorities stole thousands of First Nations children from their parents in an attempt to eradicate their culture. Today, the victims of that attempted genocide finally won the right to compensation:

After a bitter legal battle that has lasted nearly a decade, a Canadian judge has ruled that the government is liable for the harm inflicted on thousands of First Nations children who were forcibly removed from their families and adopted by non-indigenous families.

Between 1965 and 1984, around 16,000 indigenous children were fostered or put up for adoption in an episode which became known as the “Sixties Scoop”.

Ontario superior court justice Edward Belobaba’s ruling Tuesday found in favour of survivors of the operation and their families, who argued that the forced removal robbed the children of their cultural identity and caused emotional damage that has resonated for generations.

“There is … no dispute that great harm was done,” Belobaba wrote. “The ‘scooped’ children lost contact with their families. They lost their aboriginal language, culture and identity. Neither the children nor their foster or adoptive parents were given information about the children’s aboriginal heritage or about the various educational and other benefits that they were entitled to receive. The removed children vanished ‘scarcely without a trace’.”


The victims are aiming for C$1.3 billion in compensation. Hopefully they get it. But that's not enough. There's a name for "forcibly transferring the children of a group to another group in order to destroy it, in whole or in part": genocide. Canada is a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the surviving architects and footsoldiers of this policy need to be prosecuted for it.

Climate change: Ignoring the elephant in the room

Minister for Climate Change Paula Bennett is celebrating polluters being on the way to paying their full costs:

Emitters are now on their way to paying the full cost of their carbon emissions in New Zealand, says Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett.

“As part of our ongoing work programme to reduce domestic emissions we have started the three-year phase out of the one-for-two emissions trading scheme subsidy,” says Mrs Bennett.

“This subsidy allowed some businesses to pay one emissions unit for every two tonnes of pollution they emit. Last year the Government announced we are phasing the measure out over three years to give businesses time to plan and adjust.”

Which is better than nothing, as far as National's weak climate change policy goes. But it ignores the elephant in the room: that not all polluters are covered. In particular, farmers, our largest source of climate pollution, are completely exempted. Which means that their pollution is effectively subsidised by the rest of us, to the tune of over $700 million a year (39.6 MT x a current carbon price of $18).

When polluting farmers start paying their way, then the Minister can start talking about polluters paying their full costs.

A ludicrous law

Stuff, covering the select committee hearings into the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill, has finally called attention to the violence it does to our freedom of expression:

New Zealand is one step closer to entering the space race, but a proposed new law to regulate rocket launches could spell a leap backward for freedom of information, opponents say.

A clause in the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill would makes it an offence to take a photo or make any record of a space craft that crashes. Government approval would be needed to take photos or record what happened.

Head of Journalism at Massey University James Hollings said: "It's a completely ludicrous clause because what it means is, if some company screws up and is careless and drops something on a city, we're not allowed to talk about it. It's just silly."


I called attention to this "feature" of the law back when the consultation draft of the bill was released last year, and its much worse than Hollings suggests. This odious clause doesn't just prevent taking photos of rocket debris, but of anything in a debris recovery area. So, if a rocket (or just a US satellite) happens to fall nearby, and your house is part of the "debris recovery area", then you can go to jail if you take photos of yourself. Or your cat. You could even go to jail for making a video call. Which is simply absurd.

(At this stage I think its worth pointing out that debris recovery areas are likely to be large. The debris field for the Columbia disaster was 240 miles long. So people are going to be in these areas, and their rights are going to be infringed).

Rocket Lab says this clause is required to protect their intellectual property rights. That's bullshit. As I pointed out last year, we don't assign this level of legal protection to the government: it is not a crime as such merely to photograph things inside the heart of the Waihopai spy base (it may be a crime if you do so with intent to harm "national security", but the mere act of taking a photo is not in itself criminal). And that's the way it should be. There may be harms which can come from photographing rocket debris after an accident - but they need a tighter law than this. And protecting the intellectual property interests of a foreign company (or the "national security" interests of a hostile foreign power) is an insufficient justification for this level of infringement.

National gives up on energy efficiency II

Back in December the government released its draft New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy 2017 - 2022 for consultation. The draft was an ambitionless document practically devoid of targets (and hence accountability). So how did it end up that way?

Today I received the background policy advice on the development of the NZEECS. It shows that the strategy was weak from the start, with an aversion to specifics on which the government might be held accountable. The scary thing is that it got even weaker during its development. Most notably, the version circulated for stakeholder consultation last year included a climate change objective that:

Activities promoted through this strategy contribute to New Zealand meeting its international commitments to reduce emissions while supporting economic growth.

Despite support from stakeholders, this vanished from the final draft. There is no record of why, but the obvious reason is National's strong tendency towards climate change denial.

Its not just climate change which was removed. From Cabinet documents the early versions proposed a range of actions on passenger transport and separating out the polluting and inefficient road freight transport system out for special action. None of this happened. Instead we got a business-as-usual electric vehicle target, no action on general car fuel efficiency, and nothing specific for freight. I guess the Road Transport Forum and Mainfreight are getting value for money for their donations.

What's disappointing is that it could have been so much better. The release includes a report prepared by MBIE on National energy efficiency policies: a global context, which examines policies is places like Japan, California, Germany, Finland, Norway, Italy, Iceland and Quebec. Its basicly a shopping list of all the stuff we could be doing, but aren't: higher road-user charges for dirty trucks, solar subsidies to promote distributed renewable generation, fuel diversification, and feed-in tariffs for wind. Instead, we're committed to electric vehicles because the Minister has one (sorry, two) and a vague business-as-usual target for industrial heat with no specific policies to bring it about. Heckuva job, National! That'll really help us quickly decarbonise the energy system to prevent climate change!

Tuesday, February 14, 2017



Judith Collins is to blame for this rape

When Judith Collins introduced double-bunking into New Zealand prisons, she was warned that it would lead to more rapes. She didn't care. The news today reports that a prisoner has been raped due to double-bunking - a rape made possible by the policy Collins introduced. I don't think that it was a desired outcome of the policy, but it was a likely one, and Collins has showed depraved indifference to it. And that makes her criminally culpable. She should be in the dock too.

This is just wrong

New Zealand has a housing crisis. Thousands of people are on waiting lists for state houses, forced to sleep in cars or put up at horrific expense by WINZ while they wait. Meanwhile, National is letting state houses lie empty because it wants to sell them:

Despite the housing shortage, more than 250 state houses have been sitting empty for over a year as Bill English tries to sell them, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.

Housing New Zealand documents obtained under the Official Information Act show that there are nearly 2,500 empty state houses, more than 500 of which have been empty for over a year. Of those long-term vacant state houses, 254 are empty pending sale. Others are in need of repairs or upgrades.

“In the middle of a housing shortage, why on Earth is Bill English leaving state houses empty why he tries to sell them? We should be building houses, not leaving the ones we do have vacant.


Houses empty pending repair is one thing. But empty pending sale? It's not just waste, its conscious neglect of HNZC's function. But clearly National isn't interested in making sure every kiwi has a roof over their heads - otherwise they'd be building state houses, not selling them.

Australia reported to the ICC over refugees

Australia runs concentration camps on remote Pacific islands where refugees are systematically brutalised and tortured (and sometimes murdered by neglect) in order to discourage others from claiming refugee status. And now they've been formally reported to the International Criminal Court over it:

Australia’s offshore immigration detention regime could constitute a crime against humanity, a petition before the International Criminal Court from a coalition of legal experts has alleged.

On Monday morning, GMT, a 108-page legal submission from the Global Legal Action Network (Glan) and the Stanford International Human Rights Clinic was submitted to the court, detailing what the network describes as the “harrowing practices of the Australian state and corporations towards asylum seekers”. The petition submits the office of the prosecutor of the ICC should open an investigation into possible “crimes against humanity committed by individuals and corporate actors”.

“As recent leaks reveal, these privatised facilities entail long-term detention in inhumane conditions, often including physical and sexual abuse of adults and children,” Glan said in a statement.

“The conditions and resulting hopelessness have caused what experts describe as ‘epidemic levels’ of self-harm among those held on these islands. Based on original research, the communication is the most comprehensive submission on crimes against humanity perpetrated outside of context of war.”


Its hard to see how the ICC can reject this - Australia is running concentration camps to explicitly torture people, FFS. If they get away with it, it will effectively be a death knell for international justice.

As for who might be subject to prosecution, the list is long: every Australian Prime Minister since John Howard, ever Immigration Minister over the same period, their departmental heads of immigration and border control who actually enacted the policies, and the CEOS and senior officials of the various private companies (Broadspectrum, Wilson Security and Ferrovial) who actually carried them out. I can't imagine Australia ever agreeing to turn over any of these people to The Hague. But none of them will be visiting New Zealand (or anywhere else civilised) ever again.

New Fisk

There's a reason why not a single Arab dictator has called out Donald Trump so far