PSNA Condemns The NZ Govt's Silence Over US Sanctions Against United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese
Albanese released a damning report identifying companies complicit in Israel's mass killing and mass starvation of civilians in Gaza, provoking the US to sanction her.
PSNA Co-Chair Maher Nazzal says it is unacceptable for the US to bully the UN and for New Zealand to stay silent.
'Anyone who stands up for Palestinians is attacked and menaced by the US. New Zealand claims to support the United Nations and the so-called 'rules-based international order' but we stay cowardly mute when the Trump administration does Israel's bidding and attacks United Nations representatives and UN agencies such as the United Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).'
'New Zealand's silence is eerily reminiscent of western silence as the Nazi regime in 1930s Germany targeted Jews, socialists, communists, gays, and gypsies, and took over country by country through Europe.'
'New Zealanders are calling on the government to sanction Israel, but our government remains cowardly complicit' says Nazzal. 'Our silence represents the weakest and worst of human nature.'
'Silence is what empowers racism, genocide and imperial thuggery as personified in US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio's attack on Albanese.
PSNA, last week, referred four New Zealand government ministers and two business leaders to the International Criminal Court for investigation over their criminal support for Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
21 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Australia's focus on deepening economic ties with China, amid security questions, carries its own risks
Xi said ties between China and Australia should continue to grow 'no matter how the international landscape may evolve'. 'I note your comments in your opening remarks about seeking common ground while sharing differences, that approach has indeed produced very positive benefits for both Australia and for China,' Albanese responded. Albanese has made stabilising relations with China a hallmark of his foreign policy. But he faces an increasingly delicate balancing act between maintaining ties with Australia's most important ally, the US, and its biggest economic patron, China. He is trying to bolster trade with China, even as Beijing asserts its military dominance closer and closer to Australia's shores. Xi acknowledged the turnaround in ties, saying relations 'have emerged from their low point'. Albanese also met Premier Li Qiang, China's second-highest-ranking official. But despite his efforts to keep the trip focused on trade, questions about security loomed over the six-day visit. Albanese's arrival in Shanghai coincided with a report in the Financial Times that the Pentagon was pressuring Australia and Japan to specify what they would do if China and the US went to war over Taiwan, the self-governed island claimed by Beijing. After their meeting, Albanese said Xi made no mention of US demands regarding Taiwan. The Prime Minister said he reaffirmed Australia's position of supporting the 'status quo' on Taiwan. Both Japan and Australia are US allies, but committing to a response in such a war would be crippling to their important trade relationships with China, and highly unusual on the world stage. Even the US itself will not say whether it would go to war for Taiwan, as part of a decades-old policy that aims to both deter China from attacking and dissuade Taiwan from seeking formal independence. But Washington could try to exert pressure on Australian officials. Last month, the Pentagon said it was reviewing whether a three-way security pact with Britain to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines aligns with the Trump Administration's 'America First criteria'. 'The tightrope along which it's been walking between the US and China just got pulled tighter at both ends,' said James Curran, a historian at the University of Sydney. Xi's team will likely privately underscore to Australian officials how US calls for greater commitments over Taiwan make Washington an increasingly unreliable partner. Beijing is trying to persuade countries such as Australia not to enter trade deals with the US that would restrict Chinese exports. China has been casting itself as a defender of the global trading system, criticising the Trump Administration for disrupting the international economy with tariffs. 'In the face of the chaotic international situation, all countries should work together to uphold international justice, safeguard multilateralism and free trade,' Xi said during the leaders' meeting. Asked later how Trump's trade policies have affected Sino-Australian ties, Albanese deflected, saying 'Our relationship with China is very separate from that'. Albanese's first visit to Beijing as prime minister in 2023 came after several years of barbed rhetoric and punishing trade restrictions on Australian exports under an earlier government. Since then, Australia has largely played up the importance of the economic relationship while remaining restrained in talking about China as a security threat. In a sign of both nations' desire for improved relations, some of the points of contention between the two appeared to have been glossed over or simply not broached yesterday. Albanese said Xi did not bring up the port of Darwin, whose lease is held, controversially, by a Chinese company. The Australian leader said he talked about Yang Hengjun, an Australian held on national security charges in China and facing a death sentence, but that no 'immediate outcome' should be expected. Still, Albanese's approach in doubling down on economic relations carries its own pitfalls, said Michael Shoebridge, an analyst at Strategic Analysis Australia and a former defence and intelligence official. 'The thing that he overlooks is the enormous vulnerability and risk in deepening Australia's already extraordinary level of trade dependence,' Shoebridge said. 'It turns out that greed beats fear every time.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Victoria Kim and David Pierson ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
NZ Herald
26 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Why the Regulatory Standards Bill matters for property rights
Every member of the United Nations has pledged to uphold the Declaration. Most have embedded property rights into their constitutions. Property rights are a cornerstone of liberal democracy: a principle of Magna Carta, enshrined in the US Constitution, required for membership in the European Union, affirmed by the Canadian Supreme Court and protected in the Australian Constitution. The two major exceptions? Communist states, where the state owns everything – and New Zealand. In 1990, a Labour Government deliberately excluded property rights from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That omission is no accident. It has consequences. Taking property without compensation is not an aberration. It is a recurring feature of New Zealand governance – from settler governments seizing Māori land to modern 'regulatory takings'. Often, Māori land that remains undeveloped is designated as an 'Outstanding Natural Landscape' – in effect, a park – rendering it useless to the owners but still subject to rates. Councils have even sold ancestral Māori land for unpaid rates, often for a fraction of its true value. Now, those who want to continue these regulatory takings urge Māori to oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill – because it lacks a Treaty clause. Yet the bill upholds the Crown's Treaty promise to respect property, restrains the state's claim to unfettered sovereignty, and enforces the citizenship guarantee. It is not only Māori who suffer. Under the Public Works Act, private land is seized for 'public purposes'. Compensation is often delayed or set below market value. Ask the owners of land taken for Transmission Gully or the Waikato Expressway. After the Christchurch earthquakes, homeowners in the red zone were presented with take-it-or-leave-it 'voluntary' buyouts. Those who refused were cut off from basic services. Only years later did the courts rule the red zoning unlawful. These are not historical wrongs. They are present-day injustices. The Regulatory Standards Bill does not create new rights. It simply restates principles that our governments claim to uphold but routinely ignore. Critics say the Cabinet manual offers sufficient protection. But the manual can be amended – or ignored – at the whim of ministers. History shows it often is. The European Union's robust climate policies disprove the notion that property rights and environmental protection are incompatible. The bill should be much stronger. Courts should have the power to strike down legislation that breaches its principles. Governments can ignore it. What message will be sent if the bill is not passed? The critics are not objecting to process. They object to principle. What they oppose is private ownership. Their vision is one of 'collective rights' – where property belongs to the state and citizens live on sufferance. This is not a technical debate. It is a fundamental question: What kind of country do we want to be? The Regulatory Standards Bill proposes six principles that all laws should meet: To most people, this reads like common sense. To the critics, it's dangerous ideology. Our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, sees the bill – as he sees everything – as a management issue: 'Improving the long-term quality of regulation.' But this is not about better drafting. It's about what we believe: individual liberty – or the tyranny of the majority. Opposing the bill are a who's who of the political class: Much of the bureaucracy, a coterie of activist academics and Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Their goal? Unfettered state power. Christopher Luxon wants efficient government. But the real question is not whether government should be efficient. It is whether its power should be limited. If the bill is defeated it will be a licence for the state by regulatory taking to expropriate property; to trample on the principles we helped draft in 1948 and pledged to uphold. It is time we practised what we preach.
The Spinoff
31 minutes ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: Shane Jones, greatest ever Australian politician?
Nearly 30,000 New Zealanders crossed the ditch last year. Could the minister for resources be next? Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. The last time the 54th parliament of New Zealand was gathered in the House for question time was about two weeks ago. Back then, the price of butter was the main thing on the minds of the Labour Party caucus, who appeared to see the rising cost of dairy products as a sign of the end times. On Tuesday, the new objective was to put the spotlight on the nearly 30,000 New Zealanders who left the country for Australia in 2024. So long as there remains plenty of problems to pin to the government, Labour won't have to make the effort to dream up any of its own policies. There have been two significant changes in the House since then as well. The death of Takutai Tarsh Kemp leaves an open seat for either Labour to bring in the next candidate on its list or for former broadcaster Oriini Kaipara to make her parliamentary debut for Te Pāti Māori, depending on who wins the Tāmaki Makaurau byelection on September 6. And, following the sudden departure of NZ First MP Tanya Unkovich, the House welcomed a new politician into its fold: David Williams. There was heckling from the opposition benches right off the bat when Labour leader Chris Hipkins rose to ask prime minister Christopher Luxon whether he stood by the government's actions, which he took as an opportunity to laud vocational education minister Penny Simmonds' recent Te Pūkenga restructure announcement, but the jeers drowned him out. When Hipkins came back with 'how many Kiwis have left New Zealand since he became prime minister?', a group of high school students sitting in the public gallery gasped 'ooouusshh!' Resources minister Shane Jones, answering a question from NZ First MP Andy Foster about economic growth in his sector, announced – 'with characteristic modesty' – that he had recently travelled to Singapore and Sydney, and amazed his peers by waxing lyrical about overturning the 'foolish' ban on oil and gas exploration and giving a 'glowing account' of the fast-track laws, the 'most permissive regime in Australasia'. The Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick raised her eyebrows. Jones' characteristic modesty shone through again. 'I have endeavoured to assure investors in the resources sector that we have decriminalised the coal industry,' the minister declared. 'I had the privilege of addressing a host of mining investors [and] professionals in Sydney … They regard the quality of leadership I have shown on behalf of the government of such stature that they invited me to be a politician in Canberra.' 'Take it up!' Labour's Duncan Webb jeered. It's good to know that despite burgeoning opportunities overseas, our best talent stays at home. It wasn't over there. NZ First leader and foreign affairs minister – as he liked to remind his coalition partners before he entered the House on Tuesday – Winston Peters decided to rise and ask the minister if he was saying he'd stop 'virtue signalling' by using local coal rather than 'inferior' offshore coal? It gave Brownlee a moment to consider the importance of phrasing – well, he said, that question is sort of interesting, 'because it's hardly factual as soon as you say 'virtue signalling', but anyway'. When health minister Simeon Brown took patsies from fellow National Party MP Carlos Cheung, it gave deputy prime minister David Seymour a chance to show off his wealth of knowledge on political theory by quoting China's former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping: 'Does the minister subscribe to the philosophy … that it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches the mice?' Brown grinned and rose to his feet, but Brownlee wouldn't let him answer – it would only be a reasonable question, the speaker said, if the minister was some kind of expert in rodent control. The Act Party leader sought leave for his question to be answered, but was shut down again. 'Well, the House is the master of its own destiny,' Seymour said, sagely. Then Swarbrick's voice popped up: 'Get a grip!' Back on the brain drain, Labour's jobs and income spokesperson Ginny Andersen wanted to know whether finance minister Nicola Willis thought the government was doing enough to 'deliver jobs' despite the tens of thousands headed across the Tasman. Andersen quoted Luxon and Seymour's sentiments that Aotearoa is where the opportunities are and having people leave is 'bad', to which Seymour took offence. Who would want a deputy prime minister who thinks New Zealanders leaving the country is a good thing, Seymour asked, then suggested that such a thing might be possible if the New Zealander doing the leaving was Ginny Andersen. His comment had Brownlee reminding the House, yet again, that question time is not an opportunity to attack the opposition. Up in the backbenches, Labour MP Shanan Halbert made his read of Seymour's comments clear: 'Misogynist!' Maybe Seymour could've tried it a different way: it doesn't matter if the cat is in New Zealand or Australia, as long as it still agrees the government is doing a good job.
