http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
In the land of the free.
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
index_html
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 2:01 am
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">In Dudley Hiibel's case, Deputy Dove was sent out to investigate a domestic disturbance call. Clearly he had 'Reasonable Suspicion' to investigate the situation. But how did he investigate the call once on the scene? All he did was repeatedly demand Dudley Hiibel produce his ID.
...
Freedom begins with saying 'no', and for saying just that, Dudley Hiibel spent the night in jail and got fined 250 dollars.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Big deal. The analogy to "papers" (like we're behind the Iron Curtain or something) is just sad. The cop was doing his job and cowpoke Dudley made a stink for no reason other than to be obstinate (like complying would have caused him any ill consequences). You typically have to "show your papers" when you buy a pack of cigarettes, purchase a 12-pack of beer, open a bank account, write a check, go to a bar, get a hotel room, buy a house, get a passport, register to vote, etc. etc. etc. I'd say investigating a domestic dispute is a pretty reasonable situation for a cop to require identification. I don't recall the right to anonymity being in our Constitution. Is wanting see someone's driver's license during an investigation allegedly involving violence really THAT repressive?
Mobius thinks his country's crap smells better than everyone else's. Let's have a look:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">
In New Zealand, as in Canada, some commentators have sought to establish a connection between the crackdown on demonstrations and the demands and expectations of foreign officials involved with a state visit of a leader of an Asian nation with a dubious human rights record. But this tends to assume that New Zealand police take an otherwise balanced view of protest actions and generally respect people's rights to freedom of speech and non-violent protest.
Rather, behind the vivid images of attempts to shut down the pro-Tibet protests lies a disturbing mindset and operational culture within parts of the police which frequently
equates challenges to prevailing political and economic orthodoxies with criminal activity.
While their operations relate partly to narcotics and vice, the police's Criminal Intelligence Service also monitors political activities which the police consider may involve a breach of the criminal law, though how such activities are assessed is anybody's guess.
The service conducts similar surveillance operations to the Security Intelligence Service and there is strong liaison between them. It falls outside of the definition of an intelligence agency which applies to the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau.
This was pointed out during the two recent amendments to the SIS legislation, but nothing was done.
Yet, for many years, the CIS has clearly granted itself a broad mandate to collect information on people on the basis of their political beliefs and sympathies, and views formed by police intelligence officers. Their work in this area seems to have much in common with political elements in police forces elsewhere in the world which routinely monitor, harass and criminalise legitimate political organisers and activities.
By deeming many groups and individuals as having a sufficient propensity to commit criminal offences on the basis of their perceived political views and affiliations, the CIS is contributing towards the criminalisation of dissent in New Zealand. In turn, this encourages front line police to exercise contempt and a cavalier disregard towards people's rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
In May, two dozen unions, academics, religious and political leaders called on the same justice and electoral select committee which examined police handling of the free Tibet protests to hold an inquiry in to the CIS's role in targeting political organisations and activists.
This followed the High Court case brought by Canterbury academic David Small against the police, where CIS officers admitted photographing participants at a fund-raising quiz night and peaceful demonstrations, watching my home and work place, and monitoring attendance at meetings on social justice concerns. They had actively assisted in covering up a bungled and illegal SIS break-in of my house. One CIS officer claimed that Dr Small had first come to his attention in the 1980s, through writing articles about Pacific independence issues, hardly evidence of potential criminality.
.....
The previous government, with Labour backing, greatly expanded SIS powers. The current Government proposes to further expand SIS, GCSB and police powers to snoop on e-mails. In doing so, it is sidestepping some serious, uncomfortable questions about these agencies' roles in collecting information on and carrying out surveillance of domestic dissenters. If they cannot distinguish between lawful political activism and criminal activity in the real world, they cannot be trusted to do so in cyberspace.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/ ... oudry.html
...
Freedom begins with saying 'no', and for saying just that, Dudley Hiibel spent the night in jail and got fined 250 dollars.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Big deal. The analogy to "papers" (like we're behind the Iron Curtain or something) is just sad. The cop was doing his job and cowpoke Dudley made a stink for no reason other than to be obstinate (like complying would have caused him any ill consequences). You typically have to "show your papers" when you buy a pack of cigarettes, purchase a 12-pack of beer, open a bank account, write a check, go to a bar, get a hotel room, buy a house, get a passport, register to vote, etc. etc. etc. I'd say investigating a domestic dispute is a pretty reasonable situation for a cop to require identification. I don't recall the right to anonymity being in our Constitution. Is wanting see someone's driver's license during an investigation allegedly involving violence really THAT repressive?
Mobius thinks his country's crap smells better than everyone else's. Let's have a look:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">
In New Zealand, as in Canada, some commentators have sought to establish a connection between the crackdown on demonstrations and the demands and expectations of foreign officials involved with a state visit of a leader of an Asian nation with a dubious human rights record. But this tends to assume that New Zealand police take an otherwise balanced view of protest actions and generally respect people's rights to freedom of speech and non-violent protest.
Rather, behind the vivid images of attempts to shut down the pro-Tibet protests lies a disturbing mindset and operational culture within parts of the police which frequently
equates challenges to prevailing political and economic orthodoxies with criminal activity.
While their operations relate partly to narcotics and vice, the police's Criminal Intelligence Service also monitors political activities which the police consider may involve a breach of the criminal law, though how such activities are assessed is anybody's guess.
The service conducts similar surveillance operations to the Security Intelligence Service and there is strong liaison between them. It falls outside of the definition of an intelligence agency which applies to the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau.
This was pointed out during the two recent amendments to the SIS legislation, but nothing was done.
Yet, for many years, the CIS has clearly granted itself a broad mandate to collect information on people on the basis of their political beliefs and sympathies, and views formed by police intelligence officers. Their work in this area seems to have much in common with political elements in police forces elsewhere in the world which routinely monitor, harass and criminalise legitimate political organisers and activities.
By deeming many groups and individuals as having a sufficient propensity to commit criminal offences on the basis of their perceived political views and affiliations, the CIS is contributing towards the criminalisation of dissent in New Zealand. In turn, this encourages front line police to exercise contempt and a cavalier disregard towards people's rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
In May, two dozen unions, academics, religious and political leaders called on the same justice and electoral select committee which examined police handling of the free Tibet protests to hold an inquiry in to the CIS's role in targeting political organisations and activists.
This followed the High Court case brought by Canterbury academic David Small against the police, where CIS officers admitted photographing participants at a fund-raising quiz night and peaceful demonstrations, watching my home and work place, and monitoring attendance at meetings on social justice concerns. They had actively assisted in covering up a bungled and illegal SIS break-in of my house. One CIS officer claimed that Dr Small had first come to his attention in the 1980s, through writing articles about Pacific independence issues, hardly evidence of potential criminality.
.....
The previous government, with Labour backing, greatly expanded SIS powers. The current Government proposes to further expand SIS, GCSB and police powers to snoop on e-mails. In doing so, it is sidestepping some serious, uncomfortable questions about these agencies' roles in collecting information on and carrying out surveillance of domestic dissenters. If they cannot distinguish between lawful political activism and criminal activity in the real world, they cannot be trusted to do so in cyberspace.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/ ... oudry.html