US attorney Kenneth Roth on 30 with Guyon Espiner
The man described as the Godfather of Human Rights, American attorney Kenneth Roth, has told RNZ that Israel's actions against the Palestinians are likely to meet the definitions of apartheid, genocide and war crimes. Guyon Espiner spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
'Unique' espionage trial of a NZ soldier to be heard next week
A soldier with links to far-right groups and who is accused of spying will face a court martial hearing next week – a first-of-its-kind prosecution shrouded in secrecy for now. The Linton-based soldier's name is suppressed and so is the foreign country at the centre of the espionage case, as well as the names of some prosecution expert witnesses. RNZ was opposing these orders and a suppression hearing was scheduled for next Monday morning, before the court martial would begin. In late 2020, 17 charges under the Armed Forces Discipline Act were laid against the soldier, including espionage and possessing objectionable material. Since then, the case has wended its way through pre-trial hearings. ADVERTISEMENT RNZ has previously reported the soldier, aged 27 at the time of his arrest, was a member of far-right groups the Dominion Movement and Action Zealandia. First of its kind A similar case 50 years ago tried and acquitted Bill Sutch in the civilian court of espionage, for passing information to the Russians. Next week's court martial is the first military case. "I think 'unusual' is not the right term," said retired Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge about the prosecution. "I think 'unique' might be the correct term." Hodge said the suppression orders appeared extensive. "I've always been surprised that there could be information held by the armed forces, which absolutely had to be kept top secret. ADVERTISEMENT "There maybe information about the citizens of a foreign jurisdiction and what they're doing here, but still, that would be of public interest." Hodge said military courts were historically ahead of civilian ones on matters of justice and fairness, although they might hold concerns about making information public. "Remember, the background of a military court would concern hostilities and [be] in the face of the enemy. In that sort of situation, that sort of context, they would be greatly concerned with information that would aid the enemy. "I don't see an enemy at this moment, so I'm still mystified at what secrecy they'll be pursuing." Military panel to hear the case One difference between courts martial and civilian courts is that, instead of a jury, a panel of senior military officers hears the evidence, and decides on a defendant's guilt or innocence, and – if applicable – their sentence. In his previous career in the military, Hodge sat on these panels. ADVERTISEMENT "A military court is concerned with fairness, right to counsel, the insanity defence, for example, the discovery of information," he said. "One thing I could say firmly is the individual will have a fair trial, because in my experience, it's a fair system." David Pawson is an experienced court martial counsel and, in 30 years – firstly with the military police, then as a lawyer – he has never seen a similar case. "When I was a military police special investigator – that was at the end of the Cold War period – and even during that period, I was not aware of any investigation of that sort of nature. I have to say that was a new one to me." The system was robust and transparent, he said. "The court martial, in my experience, has always been very careful not to be seen as a secretive court and generally does apply those principles the same way that they do in the civil court." This meant the starting point for suppression decisions was open justice. Another experienced court martial lawyer, Michael Bott, said talking to a military panel was somewhat different to addressing a jury. ADVERTISEMENT "There are military values you have to take into account and also, with a court martial, it's governed by the Armed Forces Discipline Act, as opposed to the Criminal Procedure Act, but the Bill of Rights still applies. "When you're doing an opening and a closing, the processes and techniques are pretty much transferable." He said suppression arguments at courts martial sometimes included matters not applicable to civilian courts, such as national security. Hodge said he didn't think the court martial would reflect badly on New Zealand's reputation. "I think there's the opposite argument that the allies could say, 'New Zealand is alert, New Zealand is sufficiently concerned about this matter and they're looking after whatever information this might be'. "While you could say, 'Is New Zealand a leaky sieve?', no, New Zealand is behaving properly and attending to the disciplinary side of a possible breach." If the soldier was found guilty next week, he wouldn't face the death penalty. This was removed from military law in 1989, but sentences for courts martial ranged from losing rank to a lengthy term in military prison. ADVERTISEMENT
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Winston Peters Blames ‘Outsiders' For Pacific Islands Forum Tensions
Article – RNZ The New Zealand Foreign Minister is attending the PIF Foriegn Ministers' Meeting in Suva, the final high-level meeting ahead of the Pacific leaders' summit next month., in Suva, Fiji New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters is blaming 'outsiders' for causing disagreements within the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF). 'Outsiders are now telling us who we can have as guests. That's not the Pacific way and if you dissect every Pacific Islands population, they will not like that,' Peters, who is attending the PIF Foreign Ministers Meeting in Suva, said. Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele has proposed that the Forum defer the annual dialogue partner meeting when leaders meet at the regional summit in Honiara. The move will essentially block at least twenty countries from participating at the key Pacific meeting in just over three weeks' time. It includes countries like the US and China, which will not participate until next year's summit in Palau. Solomon Islands and China have close diplomatic relations, signing a security agreement in 2022. The country has faced criticism for deciding to can the dialogue partners component after its plans to keep Taiwan out of the annual meeting. However, Manele has dismissed the idea that China-Taiwan tensions are to blame. Peters said the last split in 2021 was an 'internal squabble' of PIF nations' 'own making'. 'We hardly got that sorted out now, we've got outsiders causing a split and that's worse. 'We've got to make sure that every outsider comes here with respect for us, of us who are inside the organisation.' Pacific leaders disagree over the proposal to defer the dialogue and development partners. Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr, whose country has diplomatic ties with Taiwan, and Samoa's caretaker Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata'afa both back the Solomon Islands' decision. Fiame has made a U-turn after initially telling the ABC that she would boycott the meeting over this issue. Fiji's Prime Minister, on the other hand, has warned that such a move would threaten regional unity. Peters said the statement from Manele came out of left field. ''Well, yes, you might give us aid, but you can't come to our meeting as an observer', [but] this is not going be very helpful. It's our job to try and sort out this as fast as we can.' Peters said the most important thing was to ensure outsiders' priorities do not override the region's interests. 'Our job is to ensure that the collective beneficial interests of the Pacific Island countries in this forum prevail and are not pulled apart.'
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Israel's Bezalel Smotrich approves settlement splitting East Jerusalem from West Bank
Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. Photo: AFP/MENAHEM KAHANA Israeli far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich approved plans overnight for a settlement that would split East Jerusalem from the occupied West Bank, a move his office said would bury the idea of a Palestinian state. It was not immediately clear if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backed the plan to revive the long-frozen E1 scheme, which Palestinians and world powers have said would lop the West Bank in two and will likely draw international ire. In a statement headlined "Burying the idea of a Palestinian state," Smotrich's spokesperson said the minister would give a press conference later on Thursday about the plan to build 3,401 houses for Israeli settlers between an existing settlement in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Israel had frozen construction plans there since 2012 because of objections from the United States, European allies and other world powers who considered the project a threat to any future peace deal with the Palestinians. - Reuters
