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”.

Crime has become a hot issue in New Zealand this year. It’s an election issue largely because the major political parties are committed to maintaining the status quo on economic issues; instead they campaign on non-economic issues like “law and order” rather than wages, unemployment or social inequality.¹

The government and the opposition’s “tough on crime” stance also results in increased state power and erosions of civil liberties. Politicians have been calling for the police to be armed and patrolling working-class parts of Auckland. We’ve also seen the passage of the Criminal Disclosure Act, which removes the need for a unanimous jury verdicts (replacing it with an 11:1 majority) and creates exemptions to double jeopardy (the legal defence that prevents a person from being tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts).

These things are certainly something to be concerned about, but it doesn’t mean crime itself should be ignored. While on the whole crime is down, the statistics show that violent crime (with the exception of homicide) is up. A large part of this increase (35%) is in the “threats and intimidation” category, and is probably a result of increased reporting now that more people own cellphones. Increased reporting of domestic violence as a result of the “It’s not OK” campaign is also a possible factor in the increase.

However, it is undeniable that violent crime is occurring, and the reasons for – and possible solutions to – this should be examined.

It is well known (and can be seen by comparing statistics) that there is a correlation between poverty and crime, and with this being so a slogan like “zero tolerance on poverty” is probably more useful than the cliched “zero tolerance on crime”.

Some people resort to crime for basic needs they can’t afford, as is no doubt partly the case in the recent spate of petrol thefts as the price continues to rise faster than incomes. There has even been a reported increase in license plate thefts, as people attempt to cover their tracks when steeling petrol.

But is poverty to blame for violent crime? In part, yes; recently the Women’s Refuge reported a “surge” in domestic violence. Maree Saunders, an advocate from Tauranga, told Radio New Zealand of a woman who was badly beaten for not having money left over from shopping for groceries, and of another incident where a couple physically fought over two dollars. While there were obviously other factors involved (most low-income people are not abusive toward their partners) poverty was certainly a factor in these situations.

Poverty can also take some of the blame for non-domestic violent crime, or more accurately, social inequality can take some of the blame. Criminologist Greg Newbold noted in his 2000 book Crime in New Zealand (page 114):

“In terms of property, disposable income and standard of living, there is thus a large gap separating the rich from the poor in New Zealand and that gap has been widening since the 1960s. There are more millionaires now but there are also more beneficiaries. The frustration, alienation, and sense of injustice which this situation produces in some people contextualises and provides a partial explanation for the dramatic increases we have seen in levels of reported violence.”
High levels of poverty do not automatically lead to high levels of violent crime, however. There was less violent crime during the Great Depression than there is today. There is also, however, less social solidarity between people now. New Zealand has became a country of isolated individuals, so alienation is a key word.

With strong communities built on solidarity, people are, one, less likely to assault each other, and, two, more likely to look out for each other and thus prevent such incidents when they do happen. This type of social solidarity comes from people acting collectively to improve their standard of living both in their workplaces (where these days most of a person’s time is spent) and outside them.
Symptoms of alienation and social deprivation are often mistaken (or consciously blamed) as cause of violent crime. Alcohol abuse has became the target of this latest moral panic, and there have been calls to restrict the number of licensed premises in order to restrict supply of the demon drink. Like the armed cops, this suggestion has targeted working class areas, yet proponents of this “solution” seldom mention that licensed premises are more prevalent in higher socio-economic areas. For example while Manukau has one licensed outlet for every 655 people, North Shore has one for every 470 people. ²

Real solutions to violent crime should not involve attacks on civil liberties, or collective punishment of working-class communities. Nor can real solutions be summed up with a populist election slogan. Crime grows out of the inhumanity of capitalism, and an end to crime can only come from the radical transformation of society into one based on equality and human need.

Until then, crime can be prevented by “bottom-up” methods, rather than top-down ones from the capitalist state. Workers should organise collectively to achieve a decent standard of living. Communities need to strengthen social solidarity and create a culture that does not accept a person inflicting violence on another.

When workers are able to own more of the wealth that our labour creates, more resources can be given to those preventing violence (such as Women’s Refuge), as it will not disappear overnight, even in a socialist society. There is no quick-fix for violent crime, but what better time to start working on the long-term solution.

¹For more on this idea, see “Law & order – the new political battleground” by Bryce Edwards, http://tinyurl.com/5tn26y).

²See “South Auckland awash with Thirsty Journos” by Martin Hirst http://tinyurl.com/6y6cl4).`

On June 25th, a white jury in Tauranga found Police Sergeant Keith Parsons, Senior Constable Bruce Laing, Constable John Mills and Sergeant Erle Busby not guilty of brutally assaulting Rawiri Falwasser, a young Maori, in October 2006.

With police like these, who needs criminals?

Rewi Falwasser suffered a mental breakdown on Labour Day 2006, and was not in control of his own actions. This is accepted by the police. He was arrested after stealing a neighbours car and driving erratically, endangering both himself and other people on the road.

The police took him to Whakatane police station, and put him in a holding cell. When they later came to remove him from the cell and take him to be photographed, he refused to leave the cell. According to Crown Prosecutor Fletcher Pilditch, Mr Falwasser was “stressed, confused and agitated”.

Following Falwasser’s refusal to leave the cell, Sergeant Parsons repeatedly sprayed him in the face with pepper-spray, and when he put up his hands to protect himself from this attack Parsons lashed out at his head with a baton, striking him on the hand and the wrist and leaving him with a 6½-centimetre cut to his arm.

Falwasser tried to flee from the attack, and as he did so Parsons hit him in the back of the head with his baton, leaving a five-centimetre gash.

Sergeant Parson eventually left the cell, which had by this time become filled with pepper spray, making it “intolerable for police officers”. Presumably working-class Maori are more able to tolerate having their cell filled with pepper spray than policemen are.

The cops continued to spray pepper spray through the vents into the room, despite Falwasser’s efforts to block them up with his clothes. He was bleeding profusely, and says that he “feared for his life”. He wrote the word “Jesus” on the wall in his own blood.

Family reacts with scorn and anger

The victim’s family reacted angrily to the court’s decision. His father Charles Falwasser labelled them “vermin” and “lower than the low”. The victim’s mother Kihi was “shocked and devastated” at the verdict, but said she was “not surprised”, as “We had a white jury in there… we live in a black-and-white world.”

Get tough on crime = get tough on poor brown people

This case proves the existence of racism and class prejudice in the New Zealand judicial system. It is highly unlikely that Rawiri Fulwasser would have been violently attacked in the brutal manner he was subjected to if he had been a white and middle class. The four police officers, all of them white, reacted more violently towards a man with brown skin, and felt more confident that they would get away with it. As this verdict shows, their confidence was well placed.

When violent crimes are committed by young, working class Maori in South Auckland, the response is a frenzy of calls for extended police powers and tougher penalties for violent criminals. Where are those calls now? Why is it that when white police officers brutally assault a young Maori man who doesn’t come from a wealthy background, there is no chorus of angry voices condemning their actions?

It seems that the cops were right to be confident – the New Zealand ruling class protects it’s own. “Safer communities together”? Yeah right.

- Alastair Reith

The recent series of killings in South Auckland has led to a frenzy of  politician’s calls to “get tough on crime”, and for increased powers for the police and the state in general. While such “law and order” orgies come and go, there are some disturbing concrete proposals emerging from this one, in particular the call to put armed cops on the streets of Auckland 24/7.

The police are recommending a six-month trial period; if the idea is approved by Police Commissioner Howard Broad, the armed patrols could be on the streets of Auckland by March next year.

“Very, very keen” on their guns

The idea is that there be four cars, each carrying two cops and carrying Bushmaster rifles and Glock 9mm pistols. The police say they are “very, very keen” to test these “mid-range lethal weapons”. The police also want to carry other weapons, such as the Taser Xrep, which fires a Taser projectile from 12-gauge shotgun, and bean bag guns, which fired “socks” filled with shot.

Police spokesperson John Rivers said that the patrols were inspired by police in the UK for the past two decades. This is hardly a reassuring statement, given the history of the British police forces. Take the case of the Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, the completely innocent man murdered by British police, who shot him eight times at close range after he had been restrained. Countless similar cases in the UK, the US and other countries together make a strong case in themselves for opposing any more weapons in the hands of the police.

The police have stated that the patrols will not cover the entire city, but will instead focus on “high risk” areas. No prizes for guessing which areas these will be! Those cars won’t be spending nearly as much time in North Harbour as they do in Otara or Manurewa.

Tough on crime? Tough on poverty!

The police and their supporters will argue that police need greater access to guns in order to deal with violent crime, such as the Manuwera liquor store robbery that left Navtej Singh dead. They will argue that the solution to the perceived “crime wave” is to increase police powers, put harsher penalties in place for everything under the sun, and so on.

This approach won’t work. It doesn’t deal with the underlying root causes of crime – poverty and social deprivation. Violent crime, such as the robberies that have been so highly publicised lately, goes hand in hand with the poverty rate.

Someone growing up in a household on a secure income that pays for a decent standard of living, in a community with decent infrastructure and facilities, where nobody is stressed about paying the monthly bills, is highly unlikely to end up robbing a liquor store or joining a gang to achieve a sense of belonging and gain respect they haven’t been given by the capitalist system.

You’re not likely to see dairies getting robbed in higher income areas, nor are you likely to see many of the social problems that are prevalent in poorer areas. If poverty was eliminated, the crime rate would plunge dramatically.

True nature of the police

The role played by the police is a class society like New Zealand is not based on creating “safer communities together”. The fundamental role of the police force is to defend the rule of the capitalist class, and to defend the oppressive system we live under. This is plain to see whenever workers go on strike or are locked out – they can’t call 111 and tell the police that the boss stole their jobs! Instead, the police show clearly whose side they’re on, as they escort scabs across the picket line and arrest any workers who get too uppity.

It was also clear to see during the so-called “terror raids” late last year. The police smashed their way into homes, threatened school children with guns and blockaded entire communities in a nation wide series of arrests that targeted Maori activists, environmental campaigners and left-wingers. To this day, no terrorism-related charges have been brought against the people that were arrested, and the police themselves have admitted to being unable to produce a shred of evidence pointing to any “terrorist” activities.

The police are not friends of the working class. They are its enemies, and they exist to prop up an oppressive system that working people get no benefits from. With that in mind, it is obvious that workers have nothing to gain from the police sending armed patrol cars into working-class communities.

Police officers are being stationed inside ten South Auckland schools.

From March, five officers will each spend 30 hours a week in the secondary schools, and another five staff will join them later.

Manukau City Councilor Daniel Newman says the aim is to cut crime outside of school, to draw children away from gangs, and to gather information on suspects.

Minister of Police Annette King claims the project will help young people regain confidence in the police. The Minister has yet to win the confidence of the professionals currently responsible for those young people.

Auckland Post Primary Principals’ Association regional chair Gerald van Waardenberg teaches at Otahuhu college, one of the schools which will have a police officer. He said there has been no consultation, and was surprised at the news.

“It’s in no way clear what kind of a role the police will have within the school, whether they’ll be approaching students directly, what the police will actually be doing.”

Mr van Waardenberg says the community may also be unhappy about a police officer being stationed at the school.

Youth law senior solicitor John Hancock says youth rights could be breached if law enforcement was one of the scheme’s intentions.

Long serving schoolteacher and Quality Public Education Coalition national chairman John Minto called for the proposal to be abandoned. “Schools are educational institutions and are not there to provide captive audiences to encourage children to inform on their friends and families,” he said.

The proposal is not likely to be abandoned without a determined, concerted protest, and at the moment that doesn’t look likely. Libertarians fond of railing against “nanny state” tend to fall silent when the state’s police take centre stage. And the left has yet to realise the connections between the “terror” raids and the school-based bobby keeping an eye on little Johnny.

Like Labour’s heavy-handed anti-graffiti laws, the cops-in-schools imposition will do nothing to better the lot of poor-area working class youth. Nor is it really intended to. The basic function of police in a capitalist society is the enforceable protection of private property As this country’s gap between rich and poor grows wider, a sizable section of the poorer population is written off by the authorities.

Putting more teachers in schools would be a positive move.

Replacing extra teachers with cops is a punitive measure that can only increase the anger and bitterness of miscreants that capitalist deprivation has shaped.