KEY POINTS:
New Zealand, at the same time as many other countries, is beefing up its anti-terrorism laws. Unfortunately, the way the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is drafted, there's a real risk that human rights will get trampled.
The bill would introduce a new offence of "nuclear terrorism" and another
of "committing a terrorist act".
That's fine in principle but once you look at how terrorism is defined in the proposed legislation, and just what behaviour could fall under it, you might need to think again.
The legislation would widen the meaning of terrorism beyond acts involving violence to include the more general thresholds of "interference" or "disruption". So, serious interference with - or serious disruption to - an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life, becomes an act of terrorism.
An infrastructure facility could include water, sewage, telephone or power plants. So let's say someone is protesting against power or water charges with a slim chance that their protest could lead to water or power going off-line for a time. We need only look at the recent Folole Muliaga tragedy to see such a thing could be seen as "likely to endanger human life".
But would it really constitute terrorism as we all understand it? Under the bill, it would seem a non-violent protester could find him- or herself facing terrorism charges.
On a broader scale, anyone engaging in legitimate political activity could wind up convicted as a terrorist. The definition is too broad and dangerously ambiguous and could easily be used in ways the bill's writers did not intend.
Picture this: a French secret service officer plants a bomb on a Greenpeace ship, intending to destroy it. Most of us would accept this fits the description of a terrorist act (violence used against civilians as a means of achieving political aims).
But even under the proposed changes to our terrorism legislation, it wouldn't count as terrorism, unless prosecutors could prove it was carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political or religious cause and was intended to induce terror in a civilian population.
It might not even qualify as a "terrorist bombing" because it's not targeted at a public place or infrastructure.
Now picture this: a shipment of nuclear materials heads through the Tasman Sea, full of hundreds of kilograms of plutonium from France, posing a terrorist risk and also an environmental threat to the Pacific Ocean. A peace flotilla of New Zealanders decides to carry out a peaceful protest. Under the new law, the shipment would be called a "nuclear facility" and the protest could be considered "interference" with the "nuclear facility" and could, therefore, be considered an act of nuclear terrorism.
In defining terrorism like this, the bill loses its legitimacy, opens up the potential for abuse and interferes with our civil rights.
Other parts of the bill create more problems. Its financing provisions could put the legitimate funding of aid groups in war-torn areas such as Sri Lanka or Palestine at risk.
And it gives the Government the power to classify people as terrorists without any chance of judicial review. This approach has already resulted in human rights abuses in the United States that will keep courtrooms busy for years.
Furthermore, it simply adopts the way in which the UN Security Council confers the label of terrorist, without any reference to New Zealand's context and seemingly without trying to comply with even basic human rights. Even the kind of hearing Ahmed Zaoui has had recently would not be possible.
Our Bill of Rights specifies that any legal limits placed on our rights and freedoms must be clearly shown to be necessary to the community. This means they must be well defined and justified. While our Government has the responsibility to ensure the safety of New Zealanders, its laws must not undermine fundamental human rights.
A tragic side-effect of the global fight against terrorism is that human rights, far from being protected by terrorism laws, are actually being eroded. The irony in this is obvious. Human rights are the very part of society that terrorism targets and yet they're being undermined by the laws put in place to stop the terrorism.
We see this time and again; the treatment of Australian doctor Mohamed Haneef being the most recent case in point. And the questionable treatment of Ahmed Zaoui being a closer-to-home example.
Overzealous authorities can lean so far on the side of caution that they tip over and take the credibility of their laws down with them. Any law that risks classifying non-violent peace activists as terrorists will surely do the same. A tendency, worldwide, is for any new terrorism laws - well configured or not - to be passed simply because of a pressing need to address the problem. But having stronger terrorism laws will only help the cause if they're well written and used responsibly.
Laws that could easily lead to the misuse of powers will only breed mistrust and play into the hands of terrorists.
Greenpeace has made some suggestions on amending the bill to avoid some of these problems, while complying with our international obligations to fight terrorism. Any new legislation must achieve the right balance. The bill as it stands does not.
* Bunny McDiarmid is executive director of Greenpeace New Zealand.
