US Proud Boys no longer terrorists in NZ as designation lapses
Members of the Proud Boys were involved in the US Capitol riots of 2021. Photo / New York Times
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech.
Members of the Proud Boys were involved in the US Capitol riots of 2021. Photo / New York Times
Members of the American far-right group the Proud Boys are no longer considered terrorists in New Zealand, as the group's terrorist designation has expired.
A notice published on the New Zealand Gazette on June 19 confirmed the group's 2022 designation as a terrorist entity under the Terrorism Suppression Act had lapsed.
A spokesperson of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said the Proud Boys remained 'on the radar' of the Terrorism Designation Working Group.
'[I]n due course, officials will consider any new information that arises to support a decision around whether there are reasonable grounds to designate it in accordance with the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.'
While the statement didn't address why the designation wasn't renewed, it detailed how such an action required an entity to 'either knowingly carrying out, or knowingly participating in the carrying out, of an act of terrorism'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
3 hours ago
- Newsroom
New world order, same old problems
Analysis: Iran today stands out as one of the few remaining Cold War antagonists of the United States. The recent conflict between Israel and Iran, and America's strikes on nuclear facilities, demonstrate the long shadow of the Cold War in the Middle East. In the late 20th century, as the Cold War came to a close, politicians started to postulate what a post-Cold War world looked like. Perhaps the strongest perspective came from US President George H W Bush. In a 1990 address to Congress, pre-empting the first Gulf War, Bush outlined his idea of a 'new world order'. The end of the Cold War marked a new era – one that Bush hoped would be 'freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.' This new world order has yet to emerge. Instead, the early 21st century has remained characterised by many of the same issues of the Cold War world. The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the Arab Spring movement and the civil wars that emerged as a result have seen Cold War figures deposed and new governmental structures struggle to emerge. Many of these conflicts appear the result of seeds sown decades ago. American support to anti-communist Mujahideen groups during the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989) paved the way for the Taliban's takeover in the late 1990s; similarly, American support for Saddam Hussein was justified in terms of Cold War geopolitics, particularly during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Israel is the nation in the region the United States is tied most closely to. Throughout the Cold War, it received major support from the United States and, as of 2022, remains the largest cumulative recipient of American foreign aid. Israel served Cold War geopolitics well: it provided America with a friendly nation in the Middle East, presented a counterweight to Soviet influence in the region, and, following the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Israel served as a strong ally against the Islamic Republic of Iran (a nation which rejected both Soviet and American ideology in a move against the bipolar nature of the Cold War world). The recent conflict between Israel and Iran is not solely due to tension between the United States and Iran, or the United States and Russia (an Iranian ally). It is important to recognise the two nations have their own long-running tensions and in many ways their relationship mirrors the US-Soviet relationship of the Cold War. Iran and Israel see themselves as major powers in the region and have engaged in open and covert warfare across the 21st century. Israeli espionage attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, Iranian support of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and proxy war in neighbouring nations can all be seen as part of this geopolitical competition between the two. These Cold War parallels extend to nuclear proliferation in the region. There is only one nation in the Middle East that possesses a nuclear weapons programme. Israel has long followed a policy of 'deliberate ambiguity' – to neither confirm nor deny – with regards to is nuclear arsenal. In 2023, Israel's Minister of Heritage Amihai Eliyahu told an interviewer that a nuclear strike on Gaza was 'one way' of dealing with Hamas, a comment that saw him reprimanded by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This is the closest Israel has ever come to making an official statement on their nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, Israel is one of the only nations which is not a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and has regularly refused efforts from the International Atomic Energy Agency to open its nuclear facilities for inspection. Iran's alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon – which New York Times journalist David E Sanger claimed 'is taking more time than any nuclear-armed nation in history' – follows the same logic that characterised the US-Soviet arms race. The doctrine of nuclear deterrence relies upon states possessing nuclear weapons in the first place. As long as Iran's major rival maintains a nuclear arsenal, then Iran requires one as well. The recent American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities is likely to further reinforce the necessity of a nuclear weapons program to Iranian policymakers. When the Soviet Union dissolved in the 1990s, the state of Ukraine transferred its nuclear arsenal to Russia for assurances of independence and sovereignty. Today, Ukraine enters its third year of defending against a wholescale Russian invasion. What lesson are states such as Iran expected to take from this? Increased nuclear proliferation heightens global risk, but can a nation which is threatened by its nuclear-armed geopolitical rival be expected to forgo the attainment of nuclear weapons? This rationale justified the arms race of the Cold War, and it will continue to justify Iran's pursuit of a nuclear arsenal if diplomacy continues to be ignored. Our Government can, and should, do more on the international stage. New Zealand can push for further arms reduction or limitation agreements through organisations such as the United Nations, and it can promote diplomatic efforts instead of conflict. We do not need to follow the idea of a new world order set out by politicians and policymakers in the late 20th century, but some of those ideals remain a worthy objective.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
US Proud Boys no longer terrorists in NZ as designation lapses
Members of the Proud Boys were involved in the US Capitol riots of 2021. Photo / New York Times Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Members of the Proud Boys were involved in the US Capitol riots of 2021. Photo / New York Times Members of the American far-right group the Proud Boys are no longer considered terrorists in New Zealand, as the group's terrorist designation has expired. A notice published on the New Zealand Gazette on June 19 confirmed the group's 2022 designation as a terrorist entity under the Terrorism Suppression Act had lapsed. A spokesperson of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet said the Proud Boys remained 'on the radar' of the Terrorism Designation Working Group. '[I]n due course, officials will consider any new information that arises to support a decision around whether there are reasonable grounds to designate it in accordance with the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.' While the statement didn't address why the designation wasn't renewed, it detailed how such an action required an entity to 'either knowingly carrying out, or knowingly participating in the carrying out, of an act of terrorism'.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Bill Moyers And The Death Of American Decency
Monday, 30 June 2025, 10:25 am Opinion: Martin LeFevre - Meditations One of the greats of American journalism and political life, Bill Moyers, died in the last few days. In 1989 he famously asked, 'Can a nation die from too many lies?' The answer is now self-evident. Despite serving as Lyndon Johnson's press secretary during LBJ's fabrications and massive military buildup in Vietnam, and despite covering and commenting on the erosion of American values and decency in his career as a journalist, Moyers was the rare man that was able to remain uncorrupted and uncynical. Most Americans, including former Republicans, agree that the Republican Party is moribund, having become a cult-like captive of a despotic, petty, vengeful man that epitomizes the now dominant, darkest side of America. What many Americans refuse to see is that the Democratic Party is moribund as well. And only a few acknowledge that what Moyers foresaw in 1989 – the death of the nation's soul. In his characteristically clear and nonthreatening style, Moyers said of his colleagues, 'I think my peers in commercial television are talented and devoted journalists, but they've chosen to work in a corporate mainstream that trims their talent to fit the corporate nature of American life. And you do not get rewarded for telling the hard truths about America in a profit-seeking environment.' To his credit, Moyers quit as Johnson's press secretary in 1966 rather than be party to the mendacity behind the war in Vietnam. He later wrote: 'We had become a war government, not a reform government.' The closest you'll come to hearing the truth now, even in non-commercial national media, is the euphemistic refrain: 'We must not let ourselves become numb to the Trump Administration's authoritarianism.' The reality is that a deadness of heart and the death of decency in the United States is what gave rise to this monstrous president and his right-hand man, the hatemonger Stephen Miller. After all, he was elected not once, or twice in succession, but after an interregnum and last gasp of faltering decency in the form of Joe Biden. Of course the death of America's soul began long before the manufactured 'good' Gulf War pushed the American people's psyche and spirit into the abyss of Trump-Vance. Slavery, indigenous genocide, and the cold-blooded justification year after year for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki led inexorably to the monumental mistake of Vietnam. Then came America's glorious victory in the cooked up Persian Gulf War, which killed over 200,000 Iraqis to less than 200 US soldiers, and supposedly exorcised the ghosts of Vietnam. It was, spiritually, the last straw. If decency is the minimal requirement for civility and the last guardrail against the abyss, just what is decency in a body politic? One definition of decency is 'the conditions considered essential for a proper standard of living.' Obviously 'standard of living' in a pathologically externalizing and consumeristic culture is viewed in strictly material, economic terms. More importantly however, it applies to the intangible bonds between a people, the true qualities beyond nationalistic identification that define them as an intact people, what Lincoln called 'the mystic chords of memory.' That's why Trump and his sycophants are hell-bent on banning books and institutional references to aspects of American history they want to whitewash, from slavery, to past and present genocides, to progressive advances in women's reproductive rights. In contrast, Bill Moyer's obituary spoke of how he 'masterfully used a visual medium to illuminate a world of ideas, producing some of TV's most cerebral and provocative series for public television.' That reads like a dirge not for the man but for the nation. Purblind political scientists even now talk as if the swings from one party to another continue, as if the pendulum isn't broken, stuck in the rafters of the right-wing extremism that have taken over America. They believe blather like this: 'It's pretty common after the party who loses the election and obviously has no clear leader, for there to be a period where it's not clear who the leaders are going to be. That happened after losses in 1980 and 1984 and 1988 as well. So it takes a while for that to shake out. That's not surprising.' Democrats are clutching at straws. It's absurd to believe that the death of this nation's soul can be restored by a change in party leadership, or barnstorming rallies by Bernie Sanders, or a charismatic mayor of New York. Wishful thinking is like dropping coins into a deep well and hoping to hear a tiny splash. For a rebirth to occur, the death must be fully acknowledged and mourned. Can the dead come back to life? Yes, but only if they see and own their deadness, and want their hearts restored more than they want to physically survive and have endless BBQs. Of course, many people take the attitude of the Guardian columnist who cynically wrote: 'Assume the worst, as I do, and your life will be much simpler. Expect those around you to fail and flout the rules that govern our world.' Such people become the worst of human nature that they despise. Bill Moyers saw the worst, and retained his humanity. So must we, the dwindling decent minority. Martin LeFevre © Scoop Media
