The PoO team was fascinated by a headline which read: Government forged ahead with citizen’s arrest revamp despite UN breach warnings.
UN resolutions and rules are being breached every day, in relation to the strife in Gaza, the Sudan, Ukraine and a raft of other war zones.
So what has drawn UN apparatchiks to show an interest in breaches of its rules – or the ignoring of their warnings – in our country?
More particularly, who had done what to justify UN involvement and at whose behest?
We soon found some answers in the Post report.
Bureaucrats had bridled at Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s proposal to give businesses more power to detain the miscreants who steal from shop-keepers.
Goldsmith’s plans involved amending the Crimes Act to allow citizens to stop offenders and allow reasonable force to be used during a citizen’s arrest.
According to the Post report which highlighted the prospect of UN interest in what Goldsmith was doing, his proposal formed part of a suite of recommendations generated by a retail crime advisory group formed in July 2024 to help the Government achieve its goal of 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029.
But the proposal was countered by strong criticism, including from police officers who feared it posed “huge safety risks” and a human rights lawyer who warned it could open a “Pandora’s box of chaos”.
And let’s not forget Oranga Tamariki:
Oranga Tamariki was amongst the chorus of Government agencies which expressed “serious“ concerns about the proposed expansion of citizen’s arrest powers before it was announced to the public, damning new documents released under the Official Information Act reveal.
A bit further down, the Post report included a sub-heading:
More particularly, who had done what to justify UN involvement and at whose behest?
We soon found some answers in the Post report.
Bureaucrats had bridled at Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith’s proposal to give businesses more power to detain the miscreants who steal from shop-keepers.
Goldsmith’s plans involved amending the Crimes Act to allow citizens to stop offenders and allow reasonable force to be used during a citizen’s arrest.
According to the Post report which highlighted the prospect of UN interest in what Goldsmith was doing, his proposal formed part of a suite of recommendations generated by a retail crime advisory group formed in July 2024 to help the Government achieve its goal of 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029.
But the proposal was countered by strong criticism, including from police officers who feared it posed “huge safety risks” and a human rights lawyer who warned it could open a “Pandora’s box of chaos”.
And let’s not forget Oranga Tamariki:
Oranga Tamariki was amongst the chorus of Government agencies which expressed “serious“ concerns about the proposed expansion of citizen’s arrest powers before it was announced to the public, damning new documents released under the Official Information Act reveal.
A bit further down, the Post report included a sub-heading:
Oranga Tamariki officials fear proposal could breach UN Convention
This is surprising. Why should the officials be fearful?
If there was a breach of a UN Convention, they would not be doing the breaching.
The Government would.
But the Post reporter earnestly told us:
Now, Oranga Tamariki (OT) can be chalked up as another voice against the policy with its warning that to allow a citizen’s arrest of children and young people without safeguards “may be inconsistent with New Zealand’s international obligations”.
Notably a citizen’s arrest could breach the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child if not treated as strictly a last resort and detention wasn’t for the shortest appropriate period of time, according to feedback provided by OT officials ahead of the Minister’s public announcement of the policy.
Goldsmith presumably wasn’t as awed by the UN as OT – or the Post – because:
Shortly after announcing the proposal expansion of the rules, Goldsmith said the changes would apply “equally to young people”. That marked an important change given that the current law has stringent rules about the arrest of children and young people without a warrant.
However, this revision is “likely to be inconsistent with New Zealand’s human rights obligations”, OT officials said in feedback on the proposal collated for the Justice Minister.
The revamp also raises “serious ethical and legal concerns regarding children’s rights and could lead to violations of due process, or, in a worst case scenario, use of these powers by any abuser to coerce children and perpetuate abuse and violence on them”.
Labour’s police spokesperson Ginny Andersen said “serious questions” needed to be asked about why “the Government ignored expert advice and pushed forward with a policy that puts the public at greater risk”.
Fair enough. There were plenty of objections for a plethora of reasons.
The prospect of the UN being upset by Goldsmith’s disinclination to go soft on child delinquents is not one of them.
It has much else to be bothered about, such as the recent report in which UN investigators detailed multiple attacks on civilians, healthcare facilities, markets, and schools, as well as ethnically motivated summary executions, in Sudan.
“The continued and deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects, as well as summary executions, sexual violence and other violations and abuses, underscore the utter failure by both parties to respect the rules and principles of international humanitarian and human rights law,” said Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
“Some of these acts may amount to war crimes. They must be investigated promptly and independently, with a view to bringing those responsible to justice,” he added.
Among its key recommendations, the report called for expanding the arms embargo and the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to cover the whole of Sudan – not just the region of Darfur, where atrocities raged unchecked 20 years ago.
Late last year, the UN Human Rights Office published a report detailing the horrific reality that has unfolded for the people of Israel and Gaza since 7 October 2023, and said justice must be served with respect to the grave violations of international law that have been committed.
The detailed analysis of violations covers the six-month period from November 2023 to April 2024, and broadly examines the killing of civilians and breaches of international law that in many instances could amount to war crimes.
If committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, further to a State or organizational policy, these violations may constitute crimes against humanity, it adds. And if committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, they may also constitute genocide, the report warns.
“The International Court of Justice, in its series of orders on provisional measures, underscored the international obligations of Israel to prevent, protect against and punish acts of genocide and associated prohibited conduct,” it says.
UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk stressed the imperative for Israel fully and immediately to comply with those obligations. This is even more critical and urgent, given the totality of conduct set out in the report and taking into account most recent events, including Israel’s operations in North Gaza and its adoption of legislation affecting UNRWA’s activities, he said.
How does the treatment of young shoplifters in New Zealand rate in UN priorities alongside those palpable human rights outrages?
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
2 comments:
These Post articles show the mainstream media's utter contempt for objective and accurate reporting.
What the legislation does is limit the liability that citizens face when using reasonable force to protect property. It is a completely different question whether it is a good idea to exercise the power of citizen's arrest on any particular occasion. But just because it isn't always appropriate to arrest on every occasion there is shoplifting doesn't mean the legislation is defective, as the Post suggests.
The UN over many decades have demonstrated very clearly that it is a totally ineffective organization that wastes billions of dollars on internal bureaucratic processes.
Any statement from them should be acknowledged and ignored.
I would have no problem if NZ withdrew from the UN.
If the UN believes that Maori are indigenous to these islands, they obviously have a lack of comprehension of historical evidence.
Post a Comment