Waihopai activists found not guilty

They know that vandalism is against the law, so the reason they thought it wasn't against the law surely was that the 'greater right' was saving lives in Iraq by vandalising Waihopai (yeah right) just as breaking down the door of a building on fire is not against the law if you are attempting to rescue people. Therefore the abortion argument stands the same - if they believe that they are not breaking the law, because by their actions, they are preventing murder (in a much more direct way than the ridiculous thinking that Waihopai = dead Iraqi's)

precisely. opens the door to all sorts of rubbish. hopefully higher courts overturn this decision,so it doesnt stand as a precedent for future cases

It's not a precedent - jury trials don't set precedents as such. What it may do is encourage potential law breakers to go ahead and do it, then use this as a defence.

itll go to a higher court and the judges will set it. who is keen to burn down a few abortion clinics in the meantime?

Good luck with finding a jury sympathetic with that. At the end of the day thats what it (likely) came down to.

yeah and how wrong is that...

who decides what a contentious issue is?

Does this apply to cases where a tagger is stabbed to death too?

In a sense we are emotionally and politically involved in all decisions. Most crimes are fairly emotional.

The jury I got to sit on certainly was.

Juries are another way we participate in the system, and can make individual judgements on cases. They are another way the populace is involved in the law making process.

A unanimous jury is a high requirement.

Why 3 judges would be better suited to cases than a jury I guess is the question. Damage to property wasn't contested and doesn't really seem to be what the case is about here.

Here are the relevant points from the article:

The court was told the accused trio had believed, when they broke into Waihopai base, that their actions were lawful under the legal defences of "necessity" and "defence of others", said Bryan Law, a peace activist from Cairns who attended the trial, on Scoop.

These defences have become labelled, in this specific case, as a "greater good" defence.

But the judge told the trio "necessity" and "defence of others" did not apply to their case.

Instead, the trio were defended under "claim of right", that they had genuinely, if mistakenly, believed their actions were lawful.

yea so by cold hard logic,the burning down of abortion clinic if you believe it to be murder is the same thing. i dont believe this is the way the law is intended,which is more the busting down a door to save someone in a fire example.

"The unlawful action of damaging a spy base led to no conviction because, in the eyes of the jury, the perpetrators had made a genuine mistake and had believed they had a legal defence.

I doubt any anti-abortion protestor cd say he thought it was lawful to damage an abortion clinic for the greater good.There have been to many prior arrests for similar acts and no protestor cd prove he was unaware of such. And thats not even getting into the nitty gritty of wether a fetus is a living creature at the stage which its still legally allowed to be aborted... remembering that similar fetus's in some countries can be used for research
stealthkiwi2010-03-18 18:10:04

It would be impossible for the men to get away with the same act
again, as the trial had made it clear to them it had been unlawful,
said Law Society criminal law sub-committee convenor Jonathan Krebs."
                    

I doubt any anti-abortion protestor cd say he thought it was lawful to damage an abortion clinic for the greater good.There have been to many prior arrests for similar acts and no protestor cd prove he was unaware of such. And thats not even getting into the nitty gritty of wether a fetus is a living creature at the stage which its still legally allowed to be aborted... remembering that similar fetus's in some countries can be used for research

There have been many prior arrests for vandalism aswell - these people knew the vandalism itself was wrong - they felt that the vandalism was not illegal because they were preventing a bigger crime. The same would stand (under the twisted logic used by those that justify these three getting off) for the anti-abortionists who feel that burning down the clinic was not illegal because they are preventing murder - a bigger crime. Like the Waihopai 3, they know the vandalism itself is illegal, but the greater good served makes it not illegal.

Since the American satellites are assisting he war in Iraq, therefore keeping more soldiers alive, therefore anyone who threatens these satellites are threatening peoples lives therefore I am allowed to murder the protesters.

Oh what a fantastic law we have.

Well use the necessary and reasonable force to stop them doing anything to endanger the soldiers in Iraq

most laments about the verdict seem to lean on poor dress sense/fashion and the  inability to discern the difference between Human Beings and Inanimate objects.

Such a lack of analysis is a trademark of the Right and should be treated with the respect it deserves, which clearly is none.

Ridiculous estimates of potential Christchurch juries fails to address that Catholic Worker has a long history and active presence in the Garden City. Many of the issues now deemed mainstream were originally taken up by groups affiliated with both CW or Ploughshares type groups. In fact one of the most powerful images of my youth was the photo exhibition of the gassing of the Kurds... you know the one by our guy in Baghdad with supplies organized by the very same individuals who would later prosecute an illegal war supposedly to defend us from terror.

Is it a poor decision by the jury? Quite possibly. But until such time that the Law becomes an extension of our collective democratic rights, as opposed to the current system of protecting privilge such random results or freak occurances can be celebrated. It also once again highlights the need to defend attacks on the Jury System by the extreme Right Wing. Any move to isolate and minimize citizens direct involvement in the Judaical Process is to be rallied agianst by those who consider Democracy and Freedom something to live by and strive for , not just talk about or worse still be available only  for those who can afford it.

War is Terror. Non-Violent Protest is a sign of both maturity and passion. If their actions make people ask why is this base here? then good job.

Firstly, is the terror of war worth it if life before war is even worse, and life after war could be better?

Secondly, this wasn't non-violent. If I came along and smashed your letterbox I'd probably seems pretty violent. Damage to other peoples' property is violence.

Thirdly, if they want to know why the base is there then they can take up the discussion, not run around damaging property (and quite frankly making New Zealand look like jackasses) I don't think its a good job at all, and there are far better ways of doing a "good job"

Fourthly, there will be a day when New Zealand needs countries like the USA help. Be it global war, whatever, (there's private corporations with more guns than our Military) and we will cry for that help. And the country we ask for help will ask, "Why? What have you done for us?"

Then these idiots will reply, "Nothing"

And the country we ask for help will laugh, and save Australia first.

The end.

Well no not really. So there's an evil dictator, much worse than our Fijian friend Frank.

How should we help these people? On a dictatorship scale Frank ain't that bad, and he doesn't give a sh*t about any policy against him. You think this is going to work against Iraq?

Perhaps we should just sit here and let them make the first move, for all you know they could be nuking NZ tomorrow just to scare the USA.

We need to play our part in the world, and if its some spy satellites, great, fine with me.Michael2010-03-18 21:39:57

"there will be a day when New Zealand needs countries like the USA help"

people have been saying that for decades and lets face it America couldn't even help it's own people in New Orleans. They have been trying to wriggle out of Iraq for years and they have major internal struggles with healthcare and more and more average americans losing their homes through mortgagee sales. They have few friends these days. So many countries turned them down for Iraw and were vindicated. Of the countries that did support them many have now backed out and even Britian is busy in court critiscing themselves and the states and making the countires like us who took a stand look vindicated. I really the states are greatful for any approval they can get and wd hardly hold a grudge if we said hey the people of our country want your spy station out but we will still be the little country that cd and help out in the pacific and afghanistan

Fact is,it was a bad decision legally. I doubt if it goes on appeal that a higher court will uphold it. The law is mostly for either if you buy something from someone and you didnt know it was stolen (in basic terms),or as mentioned could possibly extend to say a fireman breaking and entering in kicking down a door to save someone in a fire.

FYI -

They still applied the wrong law. It shouldnt have been a matter of whether the jury agrees or disagrees with the war in Iraq.

What was the law that these guys got off on?  There a link to it at all?  I've no idea what it's called but am interested.

Section 2 of the Crimes Act 1961. It is in the NZ Herald article that is linked somewhere in the thread

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Also out today on PS3 and Xbox 360 GTA Waihopai rated R18 for violent popping of inflatable shields of secrecy and middle class willful ignorance.

Without wanting to be cold to those that have died...

...so what?

...which has nothing to do with the case at hand. Nice attempt at 'emotionalising' it though.

Do tell me about these 'emotions'. I hope they don't keep bothering you tooooo much.

The case is about what makes law valid and legitimate.

It seems to me that they do have a case for thinking that New Zealand through Waihopai is an accessory to illegal actions resulting in widespread and catastrophic violence.

Emotionally it worries me not, although I am in no way in favour of the war (nor was I ever). You linking belief in the war or otherwise with these people's actions is the same mistake the jury made.

And...?

If I listed a count of the number of babies murdered by abortionists, would that excuse me burning down a clinic? Would you support that? If not, you are a hypocrite. If yes I think you are misguided.

Speaking as someone who protested outside the American Embassy twice before the Labour govt decided we wdn't be involved I still think you're looking at this the wrong way.

Sure any sensible people knows the Iraq war was/is misguided and unjust but in the media I've read they say "The unlawful action of damaging a spy base led to no conviction because, in the eyes of the jury, the perpetrators had made a genuine mistake and had believed they had a legal defence"

So it's not that they thought they were doing right but that they thought that by doing right to fix a wrong it wdnt be illegal. Many people believe the NZ's SAS have handed over people who have then be waterboarded and also some of who have then been imprisoned (illegally) at Guantanamo Bay. But only an idiot wd think that by somehow incapacitating the SAS for a greater good wd the action not be illegal... tho it might be moral

Abortionists excise tissue that wd not live at that stage out of the body... like a cyst. and as a female i strongly support abortion (tho oppose those who are lazy &useless about contraception) and I'm in two minds wether males shd even get a say about what a woman does with her body... but before i get my head bit off I am also in two minds about males having to pay since they dont get a say

yes but if you BELIEVED it was murder,then this ruling would mean you thought what you were doing was lawful. you wouldnt actually have to prove abortion is murder,just that you believe it is.

the law is there to protect people who believe that what theyve done is lawful. so buying stolen property when you were of the belief it wasnt stolen. the jury is saying that these people believed that vandalising it was lawful. nothing to do with whether the war is right or wrong. same goes with abortion example.

yeah I agree as stated above. I think they shd have been found guilty because they admitted guilt. And wether what they believe in is morally right or wrong you can't break the law willynilly

Misdirection!

If you want to start an abortion thread go there. FFS.

Did anyone bother to read through to the link?

This is an exceptional circumstance where many international bodies and states declared the war illegal.

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."
Commission of Inquiry of Dutch Government Also, the commission concluded that the notion of "regime change" as practiced by the powers that invaded Iraq had "no basis in international law." [33] [34] Also, the commission found that UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions.

Then UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sent a secret letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2002 warning Blair that the case for military action against Iraq was of "dubious legality."

In November 2008, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom, stated that British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's advice to the British Government contained "no hard evidence" that Iraq had defied UN resolutions "in a manner justifying resort to force" and that the invasion was "a serious violation of international law and of the rule of law.

These are reasons to genuinely believe that the war was illegal. They are all areas that have bearing on our case law or are closely related to our law.

There is no such case law for abortion in New Zealand. We are not signatories of an international treaty that makes abortion illegal.
martinb2010-03-19 16:10:31

This thread is an abortion.

I didn't because I already believe the war is wrong but this thread itself is about the activists and their verdict. not wether the war is legal/wrong/right/immoral etc etc. What most of us are saying is that even if something like war/abortion/genocide/puppy farming is wrong then we are still aware that committing a criminal act for the 'greater good' will still be a criminal act. In saying that some people are happy to risk that which is a good thing
stealthkiwi2010-03-19 16:22:53