Talk:Terrorism in New Zealand

message: I am having difficulty classifying the GCSB Waihopai 2008 protest as an act of terrorism. They didn't intend to terrorise, nor was anyone terrorised. No one was hurt, or put at risk of being injured. Only government, as opposed to civilian, property was damaged. The prime minister only condemned it as a "vandalism" event, not terrorism. F (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GCSB Waihopai 

message: I did think about it a lot. From the Terrorism Supression Act 2002,
Section 5 -  Terrorist act defined
      (1) An act is a terrorist act for the purposes of this Act if—
            (a) the act falls within subsection (2); or
            (b) the act is an act against a specified terrorism convention (as defined in section 4(1)); or
            (c) the act is a terrorist act in armed conflict (as defined in section 4(1)).
      (2) An act falls within this subsection if it is intended to cause, in any 1 or more countries, 1 or more of the outcomes specified in subsection (3), 
          and is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause, and with the following intention:
            (a) to induce terror in a civilian population; or
            (b) to unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.
      (3) The outcomes referred to in subsection (2) are—
            (a) the death of, or other serious bodily injury to, 1 or more persons (other than a person carrying out the act):
            (b) a serious risk to the health or safety of a population:
            (c) destruction of, or serious damage to, property of great value or importance, or major economic loss, or major environmental damage, 
                if likely to result in 1 or more outcomes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (d):
            (d) serious interference with, or serious disruption to, an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life:
            (e) introduction or release of a disease-bearing organism, if likely to devastate the national economy of a country.
''
The protest was clearly ideologically and religously driven, the compulsion as stated was either to make NZ stop supporting the US-driven war or to get the US to abandon it. I am not sure that 'intending to terrorise' comes into it. From the definition above, having the intent to 'compel or force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act' counts. If the legal definition (2002) preceeds the action (2008), then I think it could be applied.
Regarding injury - Anyone working within the installation when the dome was punctured was at risk of injury. Even lightweight material must weigh tonnes in that kind of quantity. If the Rainbow Warrior bombing counts when people were injured because they went back into the boat after the first explosion, then the possibility of some GCSB worker falling / suffocating / getting squashed should count too.
Given that the Dome apparantly cost a MILLION DOLLARS, I think it qualifies as 'property of great value'. If it is Government property, then it is at least partially My property, and I can't afford a million dollars to fix it. Regarding it being 'only government' proprty, if this distinction was valid, that would mean that the Twin Towers (civillian) attack was a terrorist action while the attack on The Pentagon (government property) was not? Once again I think this is illogical. 
Perhaps we could reinstate it in more couched terms? I will check back. Egmason (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: Could the 1981 flour bombing be considered terrorism? It was politically motivated and injured All Black Grant Cole.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.25.60 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps to the same extent as the lamington attack of 2009.-gadfium 09:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Rainbow Warrior sabotage attack is considered terrorism, then the bombing of the rugby field was terrorism. There was also at least one case of broken glass being spread on a field - that also could be considered terrorism.122.59.140.215 (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  1981 Springbox Tour 

message: The Rainbow Warrior bombing was not terrorism. It was sabotage. There is a major difference.122.59.140.215 (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainbow Warrior not terrorism 

message: There's been a  section "Alleged lone wolf terror plot" in this article for some time, that said ...a plot to commit a terrorist act by a "self radicalized new Zealander" or "lone wolf"... had been foiled.... Fine, except:
* The phrase "lone wolf" doesn't appear in the NZ Herald article
* Neither is it in the Annual Report of OIG of I&I to which that article refers
* Ditto for "self radicalized new Zealander"
* Ditto for "foiled"
Really the only thing of note in that report was the first authorisation for "urgent surveillance without a warrant" under s 4ID(1) of the NZSIS Act - and that was pretty underwhelming. The NZ Herald article does say that, "Concrete evidence has emerged...", but then says that this "evidence" is that the newly released National Security System handbook had been activated for a "threat of a domestic terrorist incident", in addition to the threat to put 1080 poison in infant formula, Ebola, Zika, the TS Rena grounding in 2011 and the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. Snori (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Nixing the "Lone Wolf"

message: How far back do we go?  Wouldn't the Boyd massacre count as terrorism?  How about the destruction of Parihaka?  They would both meet the criteria above, as would many other events during the New Zealand wars.  Or does this page constitute only events in modern New Zealand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.176.132 (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither the Boyd massacre nor the events at Parihaka in 1881 are considered terrorism, as far as I am aware. The explosion on the Boyd appears to have been accidental and occurred while the ship was being ransacked for muskets and gunpowder. This occurred after the ship had been taken and the crew killed in an act of revenge. If the November 1881 actions at Parikaka of the Minister of Native Affairs, John Bryce and his leadership of the Armed Constabulary in the debacle were terrorism, then the peaceable Māori inhabitants showed no fear and were defiant to the bitter end. Parliament subsequently had to pass legislation to first justify what was done and later to apologize and compensate the descendants for the unjust land confiscations. If this article is to identify which acts "count" as terrorism, then I think we need to be looking at what events in New Zealand history that sources might consider to be terrorism. A list compiled by Lance Beath, writing in Te Ara appears to be reasonably comprehensive for events prior to 2012. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I can see what you are saying around balance and was hoping we could work out some alternative way of presenting the content? As it stands, I feel what I contributed made it very clear that it was only the POV of Helen Kelly, not a demonstrable fact. Having that alone does indeed show only one POV with no alternatives (balance), however the usual remedy to address balance issues is to add, not subtract. Should we not keep the POV of Kelly and compliment it with alternative POVs? Kiwichris (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad the matter has been brought here, because I was at the point of doing so myself. If you can find other sourced theories or opinions, there's no reason why you can't add them, together with Kelly's, but Kelly's by itself is unbalanced. In general though, I don't like to see theories put forward in Wikipedia articles. They detract from Wikipedia, making it look like Wikipedia is hedging its bets to cover all possibilities. They make WP look indecisive. In my opinion, WP should stick to reporting the facts and nothing more. Akld guy (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This article here states the view of the Police, who struggled to find an obvious motive for the attack. It also has the opinion of Graeme Clarke, who echoes Kelly's view of anti-union sentiment. I'll keep digging. Kiwichris (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't exclude the possibility that the victim was blown up by his own bomb. But from the time of the bombing, I have never seen a single reference to the possibility that that might have been the case. Akld guy (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And regarding the deletion of the Ward bomb killing, please keep in mind that the definition of terrorism is itself hotly debated, so removing it under the rationale of "cannot be described as terrorism" is subjective. Kiwichris (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ward bomb killing, in which a solicitor (Ward) was killed by a parcel bomb delivered to his home, does not fit the definition of terrorism in any way. It was a one-off, not a series of bombings designed to strike fear into a population. It was targeted at one man, not exploded in a crowd where dozens of innocents could have been injured or killed. It has never been linked to any political, religious, or ethnic movement, nor to calls for reform on behalf of any movement of any kind. A bombing incident does not automatically equate to terrorism. Akld guy (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The bomb was sent to his office in central Dunedin, not his home. His office was shared with his practice partner and secretary, on a floor of a building which others occupied, so other innocents could well have been injured or killed. Kiwichris (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, this was not a random bombing, which is the trademark of a terrorist. Akld guy (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the same concept as the bombings in Wellington and Wanganui. If those instances qualify then so should this one. Kiwichris (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: The referenced news article doesn't use the words "terror" or "terrorism"; I can't find any other sources that describe this as a terrorist incident. The facts as reported do not apparently conform to the New Zealand statutory definition of terrorism. Without knowing the motives behind the murder (there's speculation it was family, not terrorists) – and without there being any clear political/ideological aim, it's hard to see why this would be considered a terrorist attack. It is an interesting incident and perhaps it could be spun off into a separate Wikipedia article? Wilso113598 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's worth preserving. I've added a link to this article from 1962 in New Zealand which can be adjusted if it is spun off. A link from the disambiguation page James Ward would also be appropriate.-gadfium 19:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Applying the current NZ statutory definition of terrorism to acts that occurred prior to the law coming into force may be anachronistic, because investigators at the time would be making statements at that time based on the statutes then in force. I think this is a case of revisionist history where an editor has assumed because explosives were used then it is terrorism. While I agree this event's inclusion is off-topic, and belongs in a different article, I would hesitate to use an original research clean-up tag for this "callous murder". The original newspaper reference was poorly cited, and the URL links to a different ODT article from 1 February 2020 that shows the front page of the 6 February 1962 issue. This should be cited directly if one wants an on-line source. If one wants a 6 February 1962 source that is available on-line, Papers Past has archived an NZPA report from the Press, with apparently similar wording, that describes the murder victim being personally targeted by a parcel bomb. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the clean-up tags to indicate this section is off-topic. I have suggested that a separate article about the Killing of James Patrick Ward be developed. There is at least one Australian source. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As the user to add the Ward incident to this page, I also support a separate article for it. Kiwichris (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I have spun off into a separate article: Ward bomb killing. --Hazhk (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ward bomb killing