KEY POINTS:
The Solicitor-General may have kicked for touch on charging the Urewera 16 with terrorism but there were plenty of terror attacks in Parliament last week as New Zealand First and United Future all cynically set out to portray Hone Harawira as a crazed militant who should be booted out of the House.
Winston Peters ranted that Harawira's "irresponsible rhetoric is clearly aimed at inciting violence, which simply inflames the militant and tragic separatism that has already taken root in our country". Harawira, Peters continued, should decide whether he is an MP or a highly paid anarchist.
National's Wayne Mapp had a "me too" moment and cried "What does he believe in? The rule of anarchy, because that is what he is effectively justifying today."
United Future's Peter Dunne, not to be left out, began almost foaming at the mouth. "Hone Harawira must make up his mind whether he's a responsible legislator or admit he's idling around Parliament, bludging off the taxpayer, and doing nothing but opening his mouth and letting his tongue flap around without any thought for the hatred and incitement to violence he's stirring up."
Admittedly Hone's florid rhetoric and flair for the dramatic makes his opponents' task a lot easier in portraying him as some kind of bogeyman but the problem is, Harawira is right.
Debating the Terrorism Suppression Bill and referring to the raids, he said: "I will not sit quietly by while State forces terrorise my people. If this requires of me that I speak out against the rule of law that would impose terror on Maori communities in this country, then I will speak out. I will speak out against it in this chamber, on television, in newspapers, and anywhere else I possibly can."
He is perfectly entitled to hold that view and express it. He is also well within his rights when he went on to assert, "I will challenge the rule of law and I will oppose the rule of law, if terrorism is a vehicle being used by the State forces of this country to terrorise Maori communities".
Peters, Dunne and Mapp should realise that MPs often oppose things, even oppose laws that go through Parliament, because all of them have done it too. Harawira makes the point that, getting nostalgic for their old days in the anti-apartheid and anti-nuclear movements, plenty of other MPs have boasted in Parliament about opposing the rule of law.
He believes the raids are State terrorism because innocent people were harassed by armed police. Whether you agree with him or not he has the right to hold that opinion.
In fact, there is a bit of justification for his believing that. French philosopher Andre Glucksmann recently defined terrorism as "a deliberate attack by armed men on unarmed civilians. Terrorism is aggression against civilians as civilians, inevitably taken by surprise and defenceless." When I read that, I recalled the photos from Ruatoki of masked black-clad police in body armour bailing up passing civilians at gunpoint. Hone might be guilty of hyperbole but there may be a thread of truth in his argument.
By the way, I am told the central Wellington raid by armed police on the bicycle repair shop and alleged anarchist HQ saw the cops burst in on a group attending a workshop on gluten-free foods.
I can just imagine the machine-gun wielding police shouting, "Step away from the chickpeas with your hands in the air!"
Peters, Mapp and Dunne attack Harawira because they hope it will strengthen their support from voters on the centre right who fear the Maori Party and are terrified of militants. The fiery loud-mouthed Hone is an ideal target to demonise and a useful tool to scare the punters.
By painting Harawira and the Maori Party as dangerous radicals and playing on the fears of the public, United Future, New Zealand First and National can play the race card without explicitly being seen to do so.
Harawira himself seems unfazed by the attacks, saying: "It's a crack up really that these two [Peters and Dunne] are fighting to get some media time for themselves by throwing stones at Hone Harawira."
However, maybe they are right about him. He justifies his comments saying, "Using armed and masked gunmen to blockade communities, smash into people's homes, arrest and hold people without bail, and suppress all information is unacceptable behaviour and all freedom-loving New Zealanders should be horrified by the call for us to simply sit back and say nothing about the denial of basic human rights to our fellow citizens."
This guy is opposed to detention without bail, suppressed evidence, potentially unjustified search and seizure by the state and what he sees as an erosion of our human rights?
Yeah, he sounds like a dangerous radical all right.
