Julie Tyler was threatened with serious misconduct by Burger King for posting the comment “Real jobs don’t underpay and overwork like BK does” on a friend’s Facebook page. This event highlighted the limitations of democracy on the internet and social networking sites. It also brings to question limitations on freedom of speech in general – for example – in the workplace.

This is not the first time that workers or activists have faced censorship on social networking sites. In 2010 individual profiles and groups were shutdown by Facebook for expressing support for organisations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). In 2011 Egypt’s entire internet services were shut down by the government in an attempt to prevent communication between organisers and to stop democratic protests from taking place.

Julie Tyler vs Burger King

The response of Burger King New Zealand (BKNZ) was to use Julie as an example to its employees that you cannot speak thoughts on workplace conditions freely to your friends, co-workers publicly. When Julie’s supporters posted comments supporting her right to freedom of expression on the BKNZ Facebook page, the immediate response by BKNZ was to shut the page down (4th of February 2011). When the page was put up again shortly later BKNZ had censored all comments made by Julie’s supporters, and prevented them from posting messages challenging BKNZ.

This reveals that there is not only a double-standard between employers and employees, but also that a power-relationship exists. Employers currently have a strong degree of control over what employees can say and do, while workers are expected to give up their rights to freedom of speech and other aspects of control they could and should have in a workplace. BKNZ and other employers do not want workers like Julie speaking out against them, especially with truths relating to being ‘overworked and underpaid’.

Who controls the internet?

The potential of the internet as a democratic medium is limited because it is ultimately subject to control by capitalists (whether it’s the internet providers or the CEOs of companies like Facebook and Burger King) and capitalist governments. Social networking sites do allow anyone to sign up, but it’s on the condition that users abide to the politics and ideologies of the owners controlling the site. It is ambiguous as to whether social networking sites are in a private or public space, but regardless of that whatever is produced on a social networking site the website owners still have control over what happens with the content/product. Internet censorship simply mirrors the limits to freedom speech that workers have in other avenues of their lives in the ‘real world.’

BKNZ was able to do or say whatever they wanted publicly without any repercussions. When the FARC and PFLP Facebook solidarity groups were shutdown, Facebook was able to do or say whatever they wanted. And when Mubarak’s government in Egypt shut down the internet, and Vodafone shut down cellphone coverage in Egypt, they were able to do this because they are in control of these services.

The internet shutdown in Egypt did not stop people organising against the government, and Burger King’s censorship won’t stop workers from venting about being overworked and underpaid. From a socialist perspective it’s very important to expose and oppose censoring as the role of the internet in real daily life continues to expand.

Jared Phillips, Co-ordinating editor, The Spark

Public meetings have been held in New Zealand’s major centres to build opposition to increasing state power being used against activists and oppressed groups. Early this year the Workers Party and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) Solidarity Campaign hosted one such forum in Christchurch with a focus on the implications of the Terrorism Suppression Act (TSA). Five speakers – Michael Knowles, Valerie Morse, Murray Horton, Paul Piesse, and Michael Walker – explored the local and international dimensions.

The legal/social interface

The first speaker was civil rights lawyer Michael Knowles. He recently ran the successful legal defence of three Christian social justice activists belonging to the Ploughshares group who were charged with intentional damage and entering a property with intention to commit a crime after they physically deflated a dome covering a satellite dish at the Waihopai spy base in 2008. The Waihopai complex is used to provide intelligence to New Zealand and allied military, including the U.S. military.

Knowles started his presentation by reflecting on how he’d stood in the same hall decades ago (the forum was at the Workers Education Association) debating the introduction of the Bill of Rights, which he opposed because it legislated restrictions upon civil rights. He spoke of how the Bill of Rights put the decision as to what is ‘reasonable’ into the hands of judges and the police, and that with the Bill of Rights in place, the government continued to go after its ‘usual soft targets’ such as Maori, Pacific people, people of lower economic status, as well as political activists. He then used the example of the 2007 armed police raids and arrests carried out against Tuhoe (a Maori Iwi) as an example of how the government was using newer legislation – in this case the TSA – to go after its traditional targets.

Knowles then turned his focus to the Search and Surveillance Bill which was initiated under Labour and will probably come into effect in 2011. His key point was that most of the power in this forthcoming legislation already exists. The intention is to tighten up on any gaps, so will give police greater powers of questioning and greater legal powers to enter homes. He touched on the earlier case of social justice activist Aziz Choudry’s home being illegally entered by the SIS and how this would be legal under the search and surveillance laws.

Knowles said that the government’s targets will remain the same and that the search and surveillance legislation may further the opportunity to expose the hypocrisy of the system. For example, commercial and corporate entities that commit serious crimes including fraud are unlikely to be targeted under the upcoming legislation.

Operation Eight, the removal of the right to a trial by jury

Valerie Morse is a Wellington-based anarchist who was one of those arrested during Operation Eight which consisted of police raids on Tuhoe and political activists in 2007. Morse outlined the issue starting with some background as to how the arrestees originally faced charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Those charges were withdrawn in November 2007 when the Solicitor-General found that there were no charges to be answered under the Act. Instead the arrestees are being charged under the Arms Act on charges for which the state has no evidence.

Similar in some aspects to Michael Knowles’s presentation, Morse then made a broader argument that the state has continually targeted ‘those at the bottom of social and class society’. She pointed out that prior to the events of 9/11 those groups were targeted but the targeting has been increased under the post-9/11 conditions.

The legal struggle of the Operation Eight arrestees took a new turn in December 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant’s will be trialed by judge alone and without opportunity for a jury trial. This course is available to the crown as a result of the Criminal Procedures Act which was passed in 2007 under the Labour –led coalition government. Phil Goff was the Minister of Justice. This legislation – allowing the crown to trial by judge alone – was passed in the same year that the Operation Eight raids were carried out. Previous to this the option for a judge alone trial could only be granted to defendants. The defence are having the judge alone decision reviewed in the Court of Appeal.

TSA’s international aspects

Murray Horton of the Philippines Solidarity Network of Aotearoa gave a primer on the history of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front which is a federation of progressive mass organisations in the Philippines. Horton demonstrated the clear and leading role that these organisations play in the genuine liberation of poor and oppressed groups in that country. He also highlighted the state-terrorism and human rights abuses carried out by the Philippines government against political organisers, trade union organisers, and oppressed groups.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister John Key announced in October 2010 that the Communist Party of The Philippines and the New Peoples Army, amongst other organisations, are now listed under the TSA. This means that a person assisting (or belonging to an organisation that is assisting) those organisations can be charged under the TSA. Key openly admitted that there was no connection between the newly listed groups and domestic threats to New Zealand and that the listing was made to support the efforts of the international community. If we unpack that politically, it means political support for the foreign policy of the U.S. and other Western powers.

With regard to the judge-alone trial for the Operation Eight arrestees, Horton said that the removal of people (i.e. a jury) from the case is symbolic of the removal of the only democratic aspects within the judicial system.

Case of the Cuban Five shows hypocrisy

Paul Piesse, Christchurch spokesperson for the Cuba Friendship Society, focussed his presentation on the campaign to free the Cuban Five. ‘The five’ were detained in the U.S in 1998. They were falsely accused, and then falsely convicted in 2001, of espionage against the Unites States government. The men had been operating in Miami to monitor the activities of far-right, non-U.S. government paramilitary groups that operate with the implicit support of the FBI/CIA and have carried out terrorist acts against the Cuban people which have resulted in the deaths of more than 3000 Cubans over the last 40 years.

The Cuban Five are collectively serving 4 life sentences and seventy-five year’s imprisonment for monitoring the paramilitary activity on U.S. soil. The five had their convictions overturned and a retrial secured in 2005 but the decision for retrial was then overturned. Piesse said that the U.N. Human Rights Commission, 10 Nobel Laureates, the U.S. Bar Association, two former Vice Presidents of the European Parliament, the current Vice President of the European Parliament, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu are amongst those who have supported the release or retrial of the Cuban Five. (Piesse noted that while the campaign had gained a lot of response from progressives and unionists in New Zealand, there had been no response from the Green Party, and in fact the least friendly response came from Green MP Kennedy Graham).

The U.S. government continues to imprison (without fair trial) operatives who were seeking to prevent real acts of terror against civilians. This is a powerful illustration to show that combating terrorism is not what motivates U.S foreign and military policy.

Restricting liberties while practicing state terror

Speaking on behalf of the Workers Party and the PFLP Solidarity Campaign, Mike Walker opened with some remarks about a recently published New York Times (25/1/2011) article which had branded PFLP founder George Habash as the godfather of Middle Eastern terrorism. In fact terrorism has continued to reign on Palestinians, including by paramilitaries, since the founding of the state of Israel in 1948. As a response to such Western assertions that liberation organisations are terrorists, Walker showed footage of U.S troops in Iraq indiscriminately firing upon groups of civilians going about daily life. The footage was taken from behind U.S lines atop of a building, and revealed U.S troops making comments such as ‘light that bitch up’ in reference to a woman civilian who was then murdered, along with others, in the gunfire.

What about New Zealand’s role in the Middle-East? Last December two SAS soldiers in Afghanistan led a raid on a plant which resulted in the deaths of two civilians and injuries to two more. The dead civilians were both shot in the head. The Director of criminal investigations for the Kabul police reported that “It was murder… I have seen a lot of cases of violence, but I have not seen an incident where they kill civilians like this for no reason.” Walker used this example to highlight the charade. The New Zealand state – with its armed apparatus murdering civilians – is using ‘terror’ to justify legislation at home which restricts civil liberties and restricts the ability to support progressive/revolutionary struggles elsewhere.

Following from the speakers, the audience (40 people attended) had an open discussion about the necessity of continuing to build opposition to repressive laws.

Well done the three antiwar activists from the Ploughshares group, and the jury who found them not guilty of burglary and intentional damage in the Wellington District Court. The not guilty verdict relates to charges laid when the men deflated one of the domes at the Waihopai spy base near Blenheim two years ago.

The three freely admitted they did the damage claimed but argued that their illegal action was taken to prevent much greater crimes against people. The Christian activists told the Wellington District Court they acted to save the lives of those who are endangered by United States intelligence gathered from the base. Dominican friar Father Peter Murnane explained how the international communications network “Echelon”, which includes the Waihopai installation, had been used to track individuals and then subject them to “extraordinary rendition” by secret flights to other countries where they were tortured. He also described how depleted uranium munitions used in Iraq since the first Gulf War and targeted by satellite intelligence are contaminating the soil, vegetation, food and people in Iraq. Waihopai’s activity threatens peace around the world by providing information for imperialist aggression. Most recently it assisted the US strategy to help justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed as a result.

The three activists have helped focus public attention on the immoral work of Waihopai. Waihopai is the New Zealand state’s greatest ongoing participation in US global strategies. The spy base is nominally run by the GCSB (Government Communications Security Bureau) but is – in all but name – a government sanctioned United States spy base operating on New Zealand soil. It is clear from research here and overseas that it is operated in the US national interest – both militarily and commercially. Other similar bases are operated around the world with Waihopai being part of this secret global surveillance network set up after WWII under the UKUSA treaty which involves the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Now that the trial is over, where to from here? Neither Prime Minister John Key nor the US embassy would comment. Leading capitalist paper the Auckland Herald editorialized: “Various wishy-washy defences have proved sufficient to befuddle a jury in the Wellington District Court, leading to the trio’s acquittal. … The acquittal will not set a legal precedent. That is the domain of judges, not juries. But it will probably encourage others who have attacked public property to mount the same defence. The widespread disbelief that has greeted this decision means any such attempt will surely fall on stony ground. Clearly, that should have been the case this time, as well.” It’s a sure bet that the capitalist state will take steps to contain and curtail any similar antiwar action. There is a job remaining to be done; the dome was momentarily deflated, but continues its predatory operations. The best response for antiwar activists is to revive and build a mass movement, directed first and foremost at our own capitalist state. There has long been a tendency in the New Zealand anti war movement to counter pose the supposedly peace loving anti nuclear Kiwi nation to the evil US military. Activists should remember that our enemy is at home. Waihopai’s initial construction was authorized in 1987, by the then Labour Prime Minister David Lange.

Statement:

I/we call on Victoria University to lift the trespass notices on Heleyni Pratley and Joel Cosgrove.

(Organisation/title/institution for identification purposes only)

signees

Victoria University management has repeatedly refused to answer the various charges laid against it by Workers Party activists Heleyni Pratley and Joel Cosgrove in response to the management imposing a two-year trespass order on them.

“This draconian trespass order was imposed on us for the crime of participating in a protest against substantial fee rises,” say Pratley, a former student exec member, and Cosgrove, last year’s student president.

Two students have also been charged with serious misconduct for participating in the protest, at which a few eggs were thrown at university councillors.

“Protesters annoy Vic; they get in the way of its smooth business operation, that’s why they put any protesters in a box guarded by security guards,” say Pratley and Cosgrove.

“Every year Victoria University receives hundreds of millions of public funds and claims to be the critic and conscience of society as well as the focus of a wider community. Yet when challenged on their behaviour they ban and attempt to silence anyone who disrupts their corporatist agenda.  They’ve trespassed us because VUW cannot stand being called to account. Now they’re setting up kangaroo courts to punish the students who participated.

“The university is intentionally refusing to answer any questions about their actions, to silence any discussion, because what they did is indefensible and they know it,” say the pair.

Since its formation the Workers Party of New Zealand has recognised that immigration controls are essentially a boss’s device to control workers. Accordingly, the Workers Party has always stood firmly in opposition to immigration controls. Point 4 of our 5-point programme spells it out in these words:

“For working class unity and solidarity – equality for women, Maori and other ethnic minorities and people of all sexual orientations and identities; open borders and full rights for migrant workers”.

Some people see our policy of open borders as extremist. Others realise that a truly internationalist position can’t settle for anything less. Genuine socialists insist on workers absolute freedom to travel and take up residence wherever they choose.

Previous New Zealand attempts to create a socialist movement did not always reach a clear understanding of this matter. The Workers Communist League (WCL), which I used to belong to, was one such example. In the 1980s the WCL was a relatively large party, with members active at various levels in 17 different unions. The WCL lead a number of big struggles, including several political strikes. This brought our comrades into contact with workers of many nationalities and our organisation tried to take an internationalist position with regard to these workers. In the 1980 Manifesto of the Workers Communist League a detailed section on Pacific Island Minorities noted:

“The capitalists are quite cynical in their use of Pacific Island labour. In the boom they are eager for Pacific Island workers and couldn’t care less if they overstay their permits. In the slump when unemployment appears they suddenly remember their own laws and mercilessly hunt over stayers down. The pacific Island nations are used as a reserve of cheap labour for the New Zealand boss.”

Our Manifesto went on to argue that: ‘communists must support the just demands of the oppressed minorities for economic, political, social and cultural equality between themselves and European New Zealanders … full rights for Pacific Islanders living in New Zealand, including the right to stay here if they wish, a general amnesty for oversteers and an end to state harassment.”

However, when specifically relating to immigration law, our Manifesto

said:

“On the question of Pacific Islands immigration, communists must fight for non-discriminatory migration criteria.”

However well intentioned, this sentence is not true internationalism.

It recognises the right of the capitalist class to maintain a system immigration control.

1982 Political Report of the WCL referred to a need to better develop its internationalism and noted, with particular reference to Pacific nation people:

“Our glaring weakness in programme, line and policies for the oppressed minorities hampers the rapid development of our work in this sector. An investigation plan has been drawn up in Wellington to broaden and deepen our knowledge of the specific nature of the oppression of minority peoples, the different political forces at work among them and their aspirations.

I don’t recall whether that investigation plan was fully executed, but the WCL never developed its internationalist understanding to the necessary extent of opposing immigration controls. The WCL’s next – and final – major policy document, the 1984 Socialism and Liberation merely advocated:

“support ( for) the struggles of workers and other oppressed people in other countries for socialism, democracy and peace. In particular this country must cease its imperialistic role in the South Pacific and assist in the development of the Pacific Islands”

The WCL’s attempts at internationalism fell short. On that score, our organisation never moved beyond a position of left nationalism. This shortcoming of ours had its roots in the flawed Stalinist concept of socialism in one country. On page 34 of the 1980 Manifesto, – appropriately alongside a photograph of Stalin – our programme projected a sort of future southern hemisphere Albania, vis:

“a socialist New Zealand will throw off all foreign domination, particularly that of the two super powers. The working people will build a strong independent country through self-reliance. The lopsidedness of the New Zealand economy will be overcome so that we are no longer buffeted by every jolt in the international economy”

The original communist challenge “Workers of all countries unite!” sounds so simple. The practical realisation of that vision has proved difficult. Future civilisation demands such a realisation. An indispensible step in that direction is the demolition of all gates in the global village – insistence on open borders.

The government has stalled a controversial change to copyright law that would have seen Internet Service Providers removing Internet access from anyone accused (not convicted) of violating intellectual property laws though downloading pirated music or video. The controversial clause was removed by a parliamentary select committee last year, but was put back into the legislation by then-Labour Government minister Judith Tizard – with National’s support. Prime Minister John Key has conceded however that this change to the Copyright Act could be “problematic”, and suggested it could be thrown out. In the week leading up to the original implementation date a web based campaign organised by the Creative Freedom Foundation saw people ‘black out’ content on their websites in protest against the law, culminating on February 23rd when most of the country’s major blogs (and a number of other websites) took down front page content for the day and replaced it with a black page.

The online campaign was successful in drawing public attention to the law, but is not wholly responsible for the amendment being stalled. In January The Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa (LIANZA) an organisation that represents 460 public, educational, commercial, industrial, legal and government libraries came out against the law calling it “draconian.”
Last year prominent players in the Information Technology industry including the Internet Service Providers Association called the proposed amendment “A deeply flawed law that undermines fundamental rights and simply will not work.” Key’s government is likely to be trying to juggle the business interests of the music and film industries with those of the IT industry, rather than responding to the blackout campaign. Even if the “guilt by accusation” clause is scrapped when the law is implemented the amendment also contains provisions that criminalise circumventing copy protection, this has been compared unfavourably with the American Digital Millennium Copyright Act which has seen ordinary computer users punished, without stopping piracy.

One week from now New Zealand’s new copyright laws will come into effect, including the “guilt by accusation” clause (Section 92A) meaning Internet Service Providers will be forced to take down internet connections and websites of anyone accused (not convicted) of copyright infringement. The Workers Party is opposed to this clause and supports the protests against it that have been occurring. As well as section 92A we support repealing the parts of the law criminalising circumventing the so-called “Technological Protection Measures” on media such as DVDs, something we have covered in detail here.

John Moore from the Workers Party, who has lived and worked in Thailand, gives details of an international campaign to stop the use of lèse-majesté in Thailand.

The Thai government is currently cracking down on dissent, and is using laws to ‘protect’ the monarchy to squash critical voices in Thai society. Such laws are known as lèse-majesté and frame criticism or insulting of a monarch as treason. Thai Marxist and academic Giles Ji Ungpakorn is facing lèse-majesté charges for the writing of his book A Coup for the Rich. A pdf version of this book can be found here.

A petition/open letter has been initiated by Thai activists calling for the scrapping of lèse-majesté laws and that the Thai government drop all proceedings in lèse-majesté cases.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn has been a ceaseless critic of the military’s intervention into politics in Thailand. He has accused the current government of gaining power through a coup. The elected Peoples Power Party government was recently deposed through a court order. The current Democratic Party led government was put together with the aid of the head of the military, and has full military backing.

Giles has been a consistent critic of authoritarian measures used by Thai state forces. He has championed the cause of workers and the rural poor in Thailand. He has also campaigned against the brutal military intervention against ethnic Malay insurgents in the South of Thailand.

The Workers Party is happy to play a part in offering solidarity to Giles and to help with the international campaign against the use of lèse-majesté in Thailand.

Below is the open letter/petition which Giles Ungpakorn is asking people to sign:

Please sign this open letter
Stop the use of “lese majesty” in Thailand. Defend freedom of speech

We, the undersigned, oppose the use of lese majeste in Thailand in order to prevent freedom of speech and academic freedom. We demand that the government cease all proceedings in lese majeste cases.

The 19th September 2006 military coup in Thailand claimed “Royal legitimacy” in order to hide the authoritarian intentions of the military junta. Lese Majeste charges have not been used to protect “Thai Democracy under a Constitutional Monarchy” as claimed. The charges are used against people who criticised the coup and disagree with the present destruction of democracy. They are used to create a climate of fear and censorship.

One obvious case is that of Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn, from the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. He is facing Lese Majeste charges for writing a book “A Coup for the Rich”, which criticised the 2006 military coup. (Read the book at http://wdpress.blog.co.uk/).

Others who have been accused of Lese Majeste are former government minister Jakrapop Penkae, who asked a question at the Foreign Correspondent’s Club in Bangkok, about exactly what kind of Monarchy we have in Thailand. There is also the case of Chotisak Oonsung, a young student who failed to stand for the King’s anthem in the cinema. Apart from this there are the cases of Da Topedo and Boonyeun Prasertying. In addition to those who opposed the coup, the BBC correspondent Jonathan Head, an Australia writer names Harry Nicolaides, social critic Sulak Sivaraksa are also facing charges. The latest person to be thrown into jail and refused bail is Suwicha Takor, who is charged with Lese Majeste for surfing the internet. The Thai Minister of Justice has called for a blanket ban on reporting these cases in the Thai media. The mainstream Thai media are obliging. Thus we are seeing a medieval style witch hunt taking place in Thailand with “secret” trials in the courts. The Justice Ministry is also refusing to publish figures of lese majeste cases.

We call for the abolition of les majeste laws in Thailand and the defence of freedom and democracy.
Signed…..

Please send your full name to: Giles.LesseMajeste@gmail.com , ji.ungpakorn@gmail.com

Police spy Rob Gilchrist

The actions of Rob Gilchrist and the police reveal the ugly face of the capitalist state.

So far we know that Gilchrist has acted as a spy for the police for 10 years. He has informed and gathered information on organisations including Greenpeace, anti-Iraq War groups, poverty and beneficiary rights groups, animal welfare groups, GE-free groups and the Workers Party (formerly the Anti-Capitalist Alliance). The use of Gilchrist as a police spy was not an anomaly, but part of wider police intelligence programme. According to the Sunday Star Times http://tinyurl.com/684u3s

The use of an informer was part of a much wider police intelligence effort targeting community groups, using surveillance, filming of protests and seizure of computers and papers following protest arrests.

Capitalism and the state

Ruling class governments, whether Labour, National or whoever, and the police will invariably side on behalf of the employing ruling class and against workers and various oppressed groups. The cops’ actions against anarchists, and Maori activists during the infamous ‘terror raids’ highlighted whose side the cops are on. We in the Workers Party have called for the dropping of all charges in this case, including firearms charges. Recently low paid workers picketing for better conditions and pay in the Unite union have been met with police harassment and threats. Such actions of the cops demonstrate that that the state is an antithesis to the interests of working people and all oppressed groups.

Workers Party candidate Daphna Whitmore recently pointed out in a speech given during an electoral meeting in Otara, that the police ‘don’t protect working class people, they protect the rich; they protect employers’. This most recent case of covert police surveillance of left wing groups by Gilchrist highlights the role of the state to promote the interests of the bosses’ class and the capitalist system as a whole. All governments under capitalism must by necessity shore up the best conditions for businesses to accumulate their profits. Part of this role involves using the coercive arm of the state to suppress, and at times crush, any form opposition to the bosses and their state. Surveillance of left wing activity in New Zealand is nothing new.

Rob Gilchrist and the Workers Party

Our own organization has unfortunately had some contact with the unsavory character Rob Gilchrist. Gilchrist managed to get on to our internal email list and was on the list from June 2003 until March 2004. We know that some of our emails have been compromised, but this has been minimal compared with other groups.

Surveillance of left wing activity

Any person or organization that acts to lessen the suffering caused by capitalism is clearly a target for the New Zealand state, regardless of who is the ruling party. Environmentalist, anarchists, Maori activists, unionists and socialists are all fair game for the New Zealand state. Left-wing newmasses (http://tinyurl.com/6zy9vu) blogger Quentin Finlay pointed out that state surveillance of the left is nothing new:

Friends of mine who were involved in the SAL (Socialist Action League) in the 1970s and in CARE, HART and the PYM in the late 60s, 70s and early 1980s were well aware that their groups had been infiltrated. When he was Prime Minister, Muldoon regularly used the police and the SIS to infiltrate “anti government” and “subversive” (his words) groups, organisations, unions and political parties such as the Labour Party, the SUP and, in 1983/4, even the right wing New Zealand Party.

Parliamentary parties of both the right and ‘left’ have consistently supported extending the surveillance powers of the police and ‘intelligence’ services. When the SIS were caught red-handed breaking into activist Aziz Choudhry’s home in the 1990s, Geoffrey Palmer immediately called on the National government to bring in new legislation to expand the powers of the SIS. Among the MPs who voted for the ‘right’ of the SIS to break into homes were members of the Labour opposition and now Maori co-leader Tariana Turia.

A host of liberals, social democrats and mainstream Maori nationalist have dutifully supported extending the powers of the capitalist state. Revolutionaries, in contrast, unequivocally oppose all aspects of the coercive arm of the capitalist state. All cops, spooks and secret service agents serve the interest of the bosses. In contrast to the likes of Tariana Turia and her ilk, Marxists are for not giving a person or a cent for the capitalist state machine.

Caution but not paranoia

Left-wing organizations and activists clearly need to be on greater alert for spooks and provocateurs. We should be wary of discussing matters on internet lists (whether public or private) that could alert the police. Yet we also need to be careful not to become paranoid and allow this paranoia to stifle our activities. The actions of Gilchrist and the police are reminiscent of the FBI’s COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program). COINTELPRO involved a series of covert and illegal activities carried out by the FBI aimed at monitoring and disrupting political organisations. One of the methods used was to create an atmosphere of mistrust and fear in organizations including the Black Panther Party. The FBI and police would exploit genuine fears amongst the left by, for example, smearing genuine activists as agents. The escalation of fear and paranoia amongst the left acted to rip some organizations apart.

The actions of the police and their spook Gilchrist have been met with disgust and disbelief by much of the left. However, these actions by the New Zealand state should not be met with any surprise. The New Zealand state’s job is to defend and maintain the best conditions for the capitalist ruling class. A host of leftist and liberal organizations, from Greenpeace to the Workers Party, are all, in the eyes of the state, fair game. Hopefully this episode acts to expose the class nature of the state, but not lead to unnecessary fear and paranoia.

Appendage

According to attorney Brian Glick in his book War at Home (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO), the FBI used four main methods during COINTELPRO:

1. Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.

2. Psychological Warfare From the Outside: The FBI and police used myriad other “dirty tricks” to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists.

3. Harassment Through the Legal System: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, “investigative” interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters.

4. Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI and police threatened, instigated, and themselves conducted break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings. The object was to frighten dissidents and disrupt their movements. In the case of radical Black and Puerto Rican activists (and later Native Americans), these attacks-including political assassinations-were so extensive, vicious, and calculated that they can accurately be termed a form of official “terrorism”.