It seems wrong, and decidedly odd, that the Government should be cancelling the passports of New Zealanders who have gone to fight in the Syrian civil war. It seems wrong that a government should cancel the passport of a citizen in any circumstances short of treachery; a passport is surely a birthright. It seems doubly wrong that citizens should be denied proof of their national identity, and the right to international travel, for going to a war which does not involve New Zealand.
The Government is right to monitor the movements of these people when they return. Syrian rebel forces are said to be predominantly militant Islamists now. The ruthless regime of Bashar al-Assad has probably ensured that only the most suicidal of rebel factions would continue to wage open warfare against the methods he has been prepared to use. Those from New Zealand who have joined the rebels' cause will be hardened by the experience, "radicalised", as the Prime Minister puts it, if they were not before they left.
That does not assume they would direct any Islamist vengeance at targets in their home country but it is sensible to take precautions. They must expect their movements and communications to be closely monitored by counter-terrorist intelligence agencies and the Government Communications Security Bureau. Cynics will say Mr Key has taken the first opportunity to provide a public illustration of those agencies' value after last year's controversies, but he could have done that without revoking the fighters' passports.
Clearly it is a common international practice to cancel passports of citizens who participate in foreign wars. Australian law goes further, providing for imprisonment of those who have engaged in hostile activities in a foreign country, or who plan to do so by training or stockpiling weapons. The United States cancelled the passport of Edward Snowden when he fled to Hong Kong after exposing the US National Security Agency's ability to monitor and keep vast records of network communications.
