DCC to consider official support for Israel sanctions Bill
Next week, elected officials will considered a motion from Cr Christine Garey, asking for the council to support Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick's Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill.
Cr Garey's motion also requests Mayor Jules Radich write to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters, asking government MPs to support the Bill.
It would impose sanctions in response to the "presence of Israel ... in the Occupied Palestinian Territory", which the United Nations deemed to be unlawful.
Cr Garey said it was the council's role to advocate for the Dunedin community.
"There'll be people in the city ... who will wonder, 'what has this got to do with us?'," she said.
"Our New Zealand Palestinian community, and the community in Dunedin, they are traumatised — they are beyond grief."
The council had previously called for a ceasefire in Gaza and advocated for special humanitarian visas to be extended to the families of New Zealand's Palestinian community.
Dunedin city councillor Christine Garey hopes her fellow elected members will back her motion for the council to support a Bill sanctioning Israel. PHOTO: PETER MCINTOSH
She said she applauded the government's recent sanctioning of two far-right Israeli ministers; "however, it's not enough".
"There's been this shift in attitude from our government politicians ... it feels like there's momentum," she said.
All opposition parties supported the Bill, and support from six government MPs was needed for it to pass.
Earlier in the week, councillors heard from two Dunedin residents who urged them to support the bill.
Dunedin for Justice in Palestine member Anna Knight said there was "clear precedent" for the Bill and the council had a duty to advocate and protect its constituents affected by the war.
Dunedin Jewish woman Kathryn Goodman said Israel was "violating all Jewish ethics".
"We have the precedent to be able to discourage the occupation — that would hit them in the wallet, and that is what the sanction bill is about."
Councillors will consider the motion at Wednesday's community services committee meeting.
Last year, Environment Canterbury and Nelson and Christchurch city councils voted to boycott businesses which operated in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
ICJ Advisory Opinion On Climate Change
Today, the world's highest court, the International Court of Justice, released its landmark advisory opinion clarifying States' legal obligations in relation to climate change. 'The Advisory Opinion is incredibly significant. It is a defining moment for climate litigation and state responsibility on climate change', says Jessica Palairet, Executive Director of Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc. 'The 133-page judgment of the United Nations' top court found that: Greenhouse gas emissions have unequivocally caused climate change, which is an existential threat. States have legal duties to reduce emissions and regulate businesses' climate impacts. Granting fossil fuel exploration licenses or providing fossil fuel subsidies may constitute a breach of international law. States have to act in line with limiting warming to 1.5°C - not 2°C. States have to exercise due diligence and do everything possible to avoid causing significant harm to the climate system. States' obligations on climate change extend beyond climate treaties, also encompassing many other areas of international law, including human rights law, environmental law, and laws restricting cross-border harms.' 'The Advisory Opinion is non-binding, but it carries significant legal and moral weight. It provides an authoritative statement on states' obligations under international law that will be used by courts around the world, including in New Zealand, as they ask whether governments are meeting their legal obligations', says Palairet. 'In New Zealand, the Advisory Opinion is also of particular importance given our Free Trade Agreements with the European Union and United Kingdom require us to effectively implement the Paris Agreement. The Advisory Opinion provides greater clarity on what effectively implementing the Paris Agreement entails'. 'This Advisory Opinion provides a beacon of hope at a time when we are witnessing both the devastating impacts of climate change and backsliding from many countries, including New Zealand.' 'Our Government is set to make a series of important decisions on climate change in the coming weeks, including whether to cut our 2050 biogenic methane target to 14%. This judgment calls into question whether such a decision would be consistent with our international obligations, which require us to aim to limit warming to 1.5°C'. 'It also raises sharp questions around the Government's repeal of the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, and recent announcement that it will provide $200m in co-investment for new gas fields. The ICJ has now made clear that this could constitute a breach of international law'. 'Today's opinion would not be here without the work of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, and the support of Pacific Island states, including Vanuatu. It is an incredible story of Pacific leadership on the world stage.'
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
All Aboard For Passenger Rail In The Golden Triangle
New Zealand's national passenger rail advocacy group, The Future is Rail, has announced its strong support for the Green Party's proposal to establish a new passenger rail service connecting Auckland and Tauranga. The group is calling the service a vital link that would serve nearly half of the nation's population and build on the proven success of inter-regional rail. 'This service is a logical and vital next step for New Zealand's transport network,' said Dr. Roger Blakeley, Chair of The Future is Rail. 'By linking Auckland, Hamilton, and Tauranga via the existing rail corridor, the train would serve up to 2.5 million people. It's time to connect our country's most significant economic and population centres with modern, efficient transport.' The proposed service would complement and extend the existing Te Huia train, which connects Hamilton and Auckland seven days a week. 'Te Huia's ahead-of-schedule ridership growth is evidence that Kiwis will embrace inter-regional rail when it's provided,' Spokesperson, Lindsey Horne, said. 'We see this as completing a critical missing link in our national transport system.' The Future is Rail highlighted the significant advantages passenger rail has over current travel options between the two cities. 'Currently, the 225km journey between Tauranga and Auckland forces people onto roads or into expensive flights,' Ms Horne stated. 'Passenger rail offers a better alternative that is safer, greener, more affordable, and more comfortable. It allows for a productive journey with significantly lower carbon emissions, where passengers can work or relax instead of facing the stress of driving.' South Island Spokesperson, Dave Macpherson, noted that the project aligns with a growing 'passenger rail renaissance' in New Zealand, citing broad public and political support. 'There is a growing public demand for passenger rail, from campaigns to re-establish the Southerner train between Christchurch and Invercargill to upgrades for the Capital Connection and Wairarapa rail services. Investing in passenger rail has wide and growing support from across the political spectrum, and this project is a perfect opportunity to deliver what New Zealanders are asking for.' About The Future is Rail: The Future is Rail is a national advocacy group dedicated to promoting the benefits and expansion of passenger and freight rail services throughout New Zealand.
NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Columbia University settles with US, pays $200m to restore federal funding
'Importantly, the agreement preserves Columbia's autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions and academic decision-making,' she said. The agreement marks an end to a protracted period of federal scrutiny and financial uncertainty, Shipman said. 'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal Government to get back on track. Importantly, it safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest.' For months, Columbia has been in the Trump administration's crosshairs. It was the first to be singled out in the administration's push to compel universities to adopt its agenda on issues including antisemitism and diversity initiatives. In March, the Education Secretary announced $400 million in federal research funding would be cancelled over what officials alleged were the school's failures to protect Jewish students from discrimination. The next day, a Columbia student, Mahmoud Khalil, became the first pro-Palestinian advocate seized by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in a series of high-profile attempts to deport non-citizen activists. (A federal judge ordered Khalil's release from detention in June.) Columbia student and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil was seized by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a rally. Photo / Getty Images Three days after the funding freeze, the Education Department sent a letter that set out its demands, including changes to student discipline, a mask ban, and the right to monitor an academic department as preconditions to restoring funding. Columbia announced several changes – some of them long in the works – including clarifying rules for campus demonstrations, appointing a senior vice-provost to review Middle East programmes, seeking to increase the intellectual diversity of the faculty, and training additional public safety officers to remove and arrest protesters. But its funding was not restored in response, and tense negotiations have been under way for months. The school had been the centre of protests over the Israel-Gaza war during the 2023-2024 academic year, with an encampment in the spring that sparked similar demonstrations at colleges across the country, and a takeover of a university building that was cleared by New York police officers. The protests were divisive: as college leaders struggled to balance freedom of speech with student safety, some Jewish and Israeli students at Columbia and elsewhere said that school officials had not done enough to stop rising antisemitism. Students reported being ostracised from clubs for supporting Israel, seeing protesters handing out fliers promoting Hamas, and instances of signs displayed with target symbols. Some other students, including pro-Palestinian activists, criticised the school for trying to stifle views critical of Israel and not standing up to federal intrusion into campus policies. Demonstrators take part in a Our City, Our Fight, Protect Migrants, Protect the Planet protest in New York City. Photo / Getty Images This past academic year was much calmer, but on the first day of classes in the spring semester, masked protesters burst into a course on the history of modern Israel and handed out fliers, including one labelled 'Crush Zionism' with a drawing of a boot stomping on a Star of David. And pro-Palestinian protesters swarmed the school's main library in May, disrupting hundreds of students studying for finals. Police dispersed the demonstration, arresting scores of people. The Trump administration's antisemitism task force praised Columbia's forceful response. But the school's research funding was not restored. In June, tShipman, told the campus community that the challenges to Columbia's research mission and the entire institution were 'becoming increasingly acute' and that they were reaching a 'tipping point'. She said it was essential to restore their research partnership with the federal Government and that the university will comply with the law. She also laid out some red lines: 'We must maintain our autonomy and independent governance. We decide who teaches at our institution, what they teach, and which students we admit.' Any agreement they might reach, she said, must align with those values. Columbia University's acting president, Claire Shipman, fought for the school's autonomy. Photo / Getty Images Columbia is just one of dozens of schools targeted by the Trump administration as it seeks to change campus culture, including university hiring practices, admissions, penalties for antisemitism, and other matters. The administration has frozen billions of dollars in federal research funding to several high-profile schools – including more than $2 billion at Harvard, which has fought back with two lawsuits. This month, the University of Pennsylvania agreed to rescind a transgender athlete's awards and apologise for allowing her to compete on the university's swim team in 2022. The Trump administration had announced it was freezing $175 million at Penn over the issue. A White House spokesperson said Friday there are no restrictions to Penn's funding. While focused broadly on a campaign to change the nation's higher education system, President Donald Trump has taken particular interest in Columbia. Then-candidate Trump was in New York City for one of his criminal trials when the anti-Israel demonstrations erupted on the Upper West Side campus, producing images of clashes between students waving Palestinian flags and police dressed in riot gear. He asked to go to the campus to 'show solidarity with Jewish people', a senior White House official said. His team ultimately rejected his request because of logistics and security concerns, the official said. Trump and his allies have put immense pressure on powerful institutions, often winning significant concessions. Since winning a second term, Trump and his administration have struck deals or reached settlements with media companies, social media titans and prominent law firms. rump this year issued executive orders hitting law firms he disliked with heavy penalties, including saying they should be stripped of federal contracts and their employees blocked from federal buildings. Four firms filed lawsuits challenging his actions, and judges have blocked the orders aimed at those practices. But nine other law firms, hoping to rescind or avoid similar sanctions, instead struck deals with the administration. Mark Berman contributed to this report.
