Protesting at Parliament

Brian Haw is a retired merchant seaman who has been staging an astounding 5 year vigil in front of the Houses of Parliament in London protesting the occupation of Iraq. The BBC website reported this week on the latest round in the game of legal cat and mouse Mr Haw has been playing with the Metropolitan Police. For their part the Police have been aided by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act which restricts protest within 1 km of Parliament.

Apart from the dedication of Mr Haw and the various amusing side shows to the story (including a police allegation that the placards and banners used by Mr Haw could harbour bombs and the artist who has erected an identical protest to that set up by Mr Haw down the road at the Tate Britain without any police objection) the case highlights the attack freedom of expression sometimes come under in times of political tension.

Mr Haw would perhaps have an easier time of it in New Zealand where the Courts have reminded the Speaker of Parliament (in The Police v Beggs) that she has to be mindful of the place in our society of freedom of expression when exercising the power to issue trespass notices. Although our country doesn't have the same history of popular movements as some, political activists in New Zealand can expect MPs to be robust in their tolerance for political expression and that that expectation will be backed by the Courts.

Defending "Terrorists"

It seems that the Dixie Chicks aren't the only opponents of the War on Terror facing a backlash. This open letter from a US human rights attorney nicely ripostes some sadly off-beam commentary from the US Department of Defense on his work representing Guantánamo Bay `detainees'.

Mad Bad and Unparoleable

Most of the media static over the revelation that Graeme Burton was on parole at the time he allegedly murdered Karl Kuchenbecker can be disregarded on two counts. The worst of it is finger pointing with the benefit of hindsight. The Parole Board's task was to assess risk and predict what the likelihood of Burton re-offending was. It wasn't the first time Burton had sought parole and previously he had been sent away by the Board for psychological testing and to demonstrate that he could abide by leave conditions. The Board made its assessment of what the future might bring and made that assessment with considerable caution. Beyond the finger pointing is a cry for the end of the parole system (the Sensible Sentencing spokesperson calls it an "experiment" - presumably he also regards metric as a fad). For those sentenced to terms which have no end (life imprisonment and preventative detention) this is effectively a call for a `life without parole' sentence. It is difficult to accept that the reality of this type of sentence would be palatable to most New Zealanders - it makes no room for "a second chance" and rehabilitation and flies in the face of statistics that "lifers" do not by and large re-offend seriously enough to be imprisoned. Burton may not now be paroleable but his apparent crimes do not mean that others shouldn't be given the chance.